# Judge Bans Use Of Illegal and Aliens



## Vel

Judge Bans Use Of Illegal and Aliens 
Thu, 11/06/2008 - 17:10  Judicial Watch Blog 
Arizonas Supreme Court chief justice has agreed to enforce the Hispanic Bar Associations demands of banning the terms illegal and aliens in all of the states courtrooms.
Claiming that the terms are inflammatory, the president of Arizonas Hispanic Bar Association, (known as Los Abogados) has asked state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor to stop using them at trials or hearings because they create perceptions of judicial bias. 

Judge Bans Use Of ?Illegal? and ?Aliens? | Judicial Watch


----------



## dilloduck

Vel6377 said:


> Judge Bans Use Of Illegal and Aliens
> Thu, 11/06/2008 - 17:10  Judicial Watch Blog
> Arizonas Supreme Court chief justice has agreed to enforce the Hispanic Bar Associations demands of banning the terms illegal and aliens in all of the states courtrooms.
> Claiming that the terms are inflammatory, the president of Arizonas Hispanic Bar Association, (known as Los Abogados) has asked state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor to stop using them at trials or hearings because they create perceptions of judicial bias.
> 
> Judge Bans Use Of ?Illegal? and ?Aliens? | Judicial Watch



so are we going to use 'wetbacks' again or what ?


----------



## Vel

dilloduck said:


> so are we going to use 'wetbacks' again or what ?



NO. I don't think we need to go with "wetbacks" but maybe we need to get over all the pc type crap and be able to call a duck a duck.


----------



## Sovereignty

Since it was the Federal Government who coined the terms, "illegal alien" and 'Anchor baby".  Maybe they should ban the Federal Government.

***

"An illegal alien is a person who is in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration laws. Such a person may have entered illegally&#8212;that is, without Immigration and Naturalization Service inspection (undocumented) or using fraudulent documentation&#8212;or legally under a nonimmigrant visa or other temporary condition and subsequently violated the terms of the visa or other terms of entry."

SOURCE:

United States General Accounting Office (GAO)
Page 1.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/he98030.pdf


----------



## RetiredGySgt

What mext? Unathorized and "without permission" gonna be banned to? What will they call them NONCitizens?


----------



## Sovereignty

dilloduck said:


> so are we going to use 'wetbacks' again or what ?



Bawhahaha!  Even LBJ and JFK called them wetbacks.  Go figure....

*BRING BACK IKE!*

1954, President Dwight Eisenhower deported 1.3 million Mexican nationals (called &#8216;Operation Wetback&#8217 in order that returning American WWII and Korean veterans had a better chance at jobs.







IKE didn't fool around with them he deported their Anchor Babies too!


----------



## Sovereignty

RetiredGySgt said:


> What mext? Unathorized and "without permission" gonna be banned to? What will they call them NONCitizens?



No, they'll just call them NONCrimigrants.


----------



## Againsheila

Vel6377 said:


> Judge Bans Use Of Illegal and Aliens
> Thu, 11/06/2008 - 17:10  Judicial Watch Blog
> Arizonas Supreme Court chief justice has agreed to enforce the Hispanic Bar Associations demands of banning the terms illegal and aliens in all of the states courtrooms.
> Claiming that the terms are inflammatory, the president of Arizonas Hispanic Bar Association, (known as Los Abogados) has asked state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor to stop using them at trials or hearings because they create perceptions of judicial bias.
> 
> Judge Bans Use Of ?Illegal? and ?Aliens? | Judicial Watch



Um, they're here illegally, and they are aliens, what are we suppose to call them immigrants?  That's an insult to the legal immigrants.


----------



## WillowTree

interloper!


----------



## Againsheila

Oh, I know, we'll call them "citizens of other countries, invading ours".


----------



## AllieBaba

I'll bet there are a bunch of Guantanamo "detainees" (a.k.a. "terrorists") praying they land in this yahoo's court.


----------



## Contessa_Sharra

Vel6377 said:


> Judge Bans Use Of Illegal and Aliens
> Thu, 11/06/2008 - 17:10  Judicial Watch Blog
> Arizonas Supreme Court chief justice has agreed to enforce the Hispanic Bar Associations demands of banning the terms illegal and aliens in all of the states courtrooms.
> Claiming that the terms are inflammatory, the president of Arizonas Hispanic Bar Association, (known as Los Abogados) has asked state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor to stop using them at trials or hearings because they create perceptions of judicial bias.
> 
> Judge Bans Use Of ?Illegal? and ?Aliens? | Judicial Watch


 
I like the term "Fraudulently Documented Invaders."


----------



## José

HAHAHA...

This bunch of patriotic clowns never fails to crack me up...

If acurate terminology was so damn important in the US the "Texan Revolution" would be called the "*Texas Landgrab*" and "Texas hero" S. Austin would be known as "*the lowlife scumbag traitor who spent two decades in Mexico City kissing tons of Mexican asses before stabbing "his new country" in the back*" he really was.


----------



## dilloduck

José;890691 said:
			
		

> HAHAHA...
> 
> This bunch of patriotic clowns never fails to crack me up...
> 
> If acurate terminology was so damn important in the US the "Texan Revolution" would be called the "*Texas Landgrab*" and "Texas hero" S. Austin would be known as "*the lowlife scumbag traitor who spent two decades in Mexico City kissing tons of Mexican asses before stabbing "his new country" in the back*" he really was.



I can accept that---now get these wetbacks outta here.


----------



## Navy1960

Sorry folks but that story is not exactly true. The Arizona Supreme Court sent a letter making recommendations and did not issue ANY orders to ban the use of any terms in the courtroom. The Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, head clerk was on KFYI today  and stated that the court issued no such order and under Arizona law could not issue such an order , but the  Justice was making a recommendation and responding to the requests made by a local hispanic legal group.  Judicial Watch is completely wrong in this matter and  the use of the term "illegal alien" has not been banned in any Arizona Courtroom.


----------



## Againsheila

Navy1960 said:


> Sorry folks but that story is not exactly true. The Arizona Supreme Court sent a letter making recommendations and did not issue ANY orders to ban the use of any terms in the courtroom. The Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, head clerk was on KFYI today  and stated that the court issued no such order and under Arizona law could not issue such an order , *but the  Justice was making a recommendation and responding to the requests made by a local hispanic legal group. * Judicial Watch is completely wrong in this matter and  the use of the term "illegal alien" has not been banned in any Arizona Courtroom.



Gee, I feel so much better.


----------



## Navy1960

Againsheila said:


> Gee, I feel so much better.



I'm glad it helped  sheila.


----------



## Againsheila

Navy1960 said:


> I'm glad it helped  sheila.



  You know the problem with these message boards...ya can't hear the sarcasm.

Thank you Navy


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

This is a great board, I am seeing many familiar S/N's from the old "immigration debate" board. Damn, that still angers me the way AOL shut that board down. Any, it's odd AOL just killed off yet another board dealing with a related issue. That whole format will soon be toast, so I hear. Good, they are like that dumbass judge that thinks they can control the issue by either banning words or deleting chat sites they find "offensive".


----------



## catzmeow

Vel6377 said:


> Judge Bans Use Of Illegal and Aliens




I'm probably just perverse and oppositional, but this ruling makes me want to use these terms more frequently.


----------



## sealybobo

Vel6377 said:


> Judge Bans Use Of Illegal and Aliens
> Thu, 11/06/2008 - 17:10  Judicial Watch Blog
> Arizonas Supreme Court chief justice has agreed to enforce the Hispanic Bar Associations demands of banning the terms illegal and aliens in all of the states courtrooms.
> Claiming that the terms are inflammatory, the president of Arizonas Hispanic Bar Association, (known as Los Abogados) has asked state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor to stop using them at trials or hearings because they create perceptions of judicial bias.
> 
> Judge Bans Use Of ?Illegal? and ?Aliens? | Judicial Watch



What do they suggest we call them?

And do you know that retards thought it was offensive to call them retards so they asked us to start calling them mentally challanged, and then they got offended at that too.

Midgets wanted to be called little people and then they didn't like that term either.

They are illegal immigrants.  Fine, stop calling them aliens.  But illegal is what they are.  Or undocumented workers, which is still illegal.


----------



## catzmeow

The suggestion is that they be referred to as "undocumented."


----------



## Tech_Esq

José;890691 said:
			
		

> HAHAHA...
> 
> This bunch of patriotic clowns never fails to crack me up...
> 
> If acurate terminology was so damn important in the US the "Texan Revolution" would be called the "*Texas Landgrab*" and "Texas hero" S. Austin would be known as "*the lowlife scumbag traitor who spent two decades in Mexico City kissing tons of Mexican asses before stabbing "his new country" in the back*" he really was.



Sounds like your side lost. Sorry 'bout that, but Santa Ana gave it his best shot, what are ya gonna do?

We're just decrying the segment of the population that enjoys surrendering this country to anyone who asks. I'm sure if this judge had her way she'd give Arizona back to you. (Come to think of it, I might be willing to give California back to Mexico )  But, CA is probably like DC, they keep trying to give part of DC back to Maryland, but Maryland won't take it back.


----------



## sky dancer

Vel6377 said:


> Judge Bans Use Of &#8220;Illegal&#8221; and &#8220;Aliens&#8221;
> Thu, 11/06/2008 - 17:10 &#8212; Judicial Watch Blog
> Arizona&#8217;s Supreme Court chief justice has agreed to enforce the Hispanic Bar Association&#8217;s demands of banning the terms &#8220;illegal&#8221; and &#8220;aliens&#8221; in all of the state&#8217;s courtrooms.
> Claiming that the terms are inflammatory, the president of Arizona&#8217;s Hispanic Bar Association, (known as Los Abogados) has asked state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor to stop using them at trials or hearings because they create perceptions of judicial bias.
> 
> Judge Bans Use Of ?Illegal? and ?Aliens? | Judicial Watch



This is a positive development for language use in trials and hearings.  Now if MSM would pay attention to the Hispanic Journalists request to do the same it would help the immigration debate.

Some friends and I heatedly batted this issue of language use around for six months on a crime forum I belong to.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> This is a positive development for language use in trials and hearings.




Why do you consider this a positive development, precisely?


----------



## sky dancer

For the reason stated in the Arizona court ruling precisely.


----------



## catzmeow

Why don't you enlighten me:  Why does forbidding the use of accurate terms represent progress in your world?


----------



## sky dancer

Why don't you read the article?  The point is stated quite well in the above link:

_"In a strongly worded letter to the chief justice, Los Abogados president says attaching an illegal status to a person establishes a brand of contemptibility, creates the appearance of anti-immigrant prejudice and tarnishes the image of courts as a place where disputes may be fairly resolved.

It further points out that no human being is illegal and that a national Hispanic journalism association has roundly criticized the reference for dehumanizing a segment of the population. The letter goes on to criticize the states High Court for using the term illegals in at least two opinions and the term illegal aliens in dozens of others."_


----------



## catzmeow

Do you disagree with the idea that these people are here illegally, and are not citizens of the U.S.?  Thus, their immigration status is violation of U.S. law, and is illegal.

When you finish banning the words illegal and alien, what words will be next on your list to be stricken from the American vocabulary?

Niggardly, perhaps?


----------



## Navy1960

Againsheila said:


> You know the problem with these message boards...ya can't hear the sarcasm.
> 
> Thank you Navy



So I noticed and your most welcome Sheila


----------



## sky dancer

catzmeow said:


> Do you disagree with the idea that these people are here illegally, and are not citizens of the U.S.?  Thus, their immigration status is violation of U.S. law, and is illegal.
> 
> When you finish banning the words illegal and alien, what words will be next on your list to be stricken from the American vocabulary?
> 
> Niggardly, perhaps?



'Illegal' describes a person's action or status.  It is an adjective, not a noun.   

For the record, I didn't ban a thing.  The Arizona Courts decided to ban these terms in court documents.

Are you in favor of using terms to dehumanize and marginalize other human beings?  The use of language is political.

Study Nazi propaganda.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Lets follow that logic and see were it takes us: Let's outlaw the word "CANCER". No matter how well intended,  pretending that banning   words won't make issues or concepts they embody "go away". THAT is a sign of mental illness, not of a respectable and realistic person. You can't outlaw STUPIDITY based on that same rationale  because these same jerks wouldn't have a job anymore.


----------



## sky dancer

The analogy you are using would make more sense if you started calling people who have cancer as 'cancers'.  We use the term cancer victim, cancer sufferer or cancer survivor.  Cancer describes the condition they have not their personhood.

The term illegal is an adjective.  The term 'illegals' is a noun.    The term 'illegals' is dehumanizing.  It also has to do with how the word is used.

Is it used as a slur?

Scottish people objected to the term 'scotch' to describe them as immigrants because of how it was used.  It was used as a slur meaning 'cheap' or 'miserly'.  They campaigned to be referred to as "Scots" or 'Scottish' instead of scotch.

The term 'wetback' used to be acceptable to describe a immigrant who entered the US illegally.  It is not as much in fashion as a slur now.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Realy? You are splitting hairs. we could argue that NOBODY choses to get CANCER, either but they CHOOSE  to break immigration laws. But WE digress. I think it is a perfectly  fitting term and quite fitting.  So, what should we call illegal aliens?


----------



## Againsheila

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Realy? You are splitting hairs. we could argue that NOBODY choses to get CANCER, either but they CHOOSE  to break immigration laws. But WE digress. I think it is a perfectly  fitting term and quite fitting.  So, what should we call illegal aliens?



How about "criminal invaders"?


----------



## sky dancer

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Realy? You are splitting hairs. we could argue that NOBODY choses to get CANCER, either but they CHOOSE  to break immigration laws. But WE digress. I think it is a perfectly  fitting term and quite fitting.  *So, what should we call illegal aliens*?



Call them undocumented immigrants.  

Language is political.  The term 'illegals' is dehumanizing.  It's easier to hate people if you strip them of their humanity.

The Nazi's used language purposely in their propaganda against the Jews.  They turned Jews into 'illegals'.

The term 'invader' is defined as someone who enters a country by force in order to conquer.  That describes the status of our soldiers in Iraq.

Whether the term 'criminal invaders' applies in Iraq is another discussion.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Call them undocumented immigrants.
> 
> Language is political.  The term 'illegals' is dehumanizing.  It's easier to hate people if you strip them of their humanity.
> 
> The Nazi's used language purposely in their propaganda against the Jews.  They turned Jews into 'illegals'.
> 
> The term 'invader' is defined as someone who enters a country by force in order to conquer.  That describes the status of our soldiers in Iraq.
> 
> Whether the term 'criminal invaders' applies in Iraq is another discussion.



Calling them "immigrants" is an insult to the legal immigrants in this nation.  They are not immigrants.

As for being invaders, yes, they come here by force and yes they do want to conquer.  Listen to Alberto Lozano, an official of the Mexican government saying that "this has been and will be Mexico again", you don't think that's an invasion?

When those hispanics told my friend he might as well leave as this was their town now, you don't consider that to be taking our town by force?


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

This reminds me of Orwell's 1984. "the destruction of words is a beautiful thing".  You can't kill off something because you don't like the concept behind it. Get real. These blokes are ILLEGAL  and they are ALIENS. To bad that doesn't fit some of you people's  popular sense of right and wrong. I live around these people, you should try it. Barrios are nothing more than self-imposed ghettos for Hispanics.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Calling them "immigrants" is an insult to the legal immigrants in this nation.  They are not immigrants.
> 
> As for being invaders, yes, they come here by force and yes they do want to conquer.  Listen to Alberto Lozano, an official of the Mexican government saying that "this has been and will be Mexico again", you don't think that's an invasion?
> 
> When those hispanics told my friend he might as well leave as this was their town now, you don't consider that to be taking our town by force?



Nope.   They are immigrants sneaking into the US without documents in order to work.

It's clever to call undocumented immigrants 'invaders' in order to justify hatred and a militant stance toward them.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> Nope.   They are immigrants sneaking into the US without documents in order to work.
> 
> It's clever to call undocumented immigrants 'invaders' in order to justify hatred and a militant stance toward them.



Well, sorry pal, but you're just out to lunch. Some may be here to work, but there's a massive population of ILLEGAL ALIENS here that are nothing more than trash. They're gang bangers, drug pushers, sick people, uneducated, and the list goes on. They entered this country ILLEGALLY, that makes them ILLEGAL. They weren't born here, that makes them an ALIEN. There is NO BETTER OR MORE PRECISE TERM FOR THESE PEOPLE THAN...

*..... ILLEGAL ALIEN!*

Suck it up and smell the coffee. This can't say this and can't say that game isn't that hard to figure out. You criminal sympathizers want these terms banned in baby step attempts to soften their image, to make people more sympathetic to the fact that their criminals. Just like faggots wanting to be called gay. Like there was something HAPPY about two men fucking each other up the ass when it's sick, disgusting and perverted. So no, we're not going to play your stupid little word game. These people are ILLEGAL ALIENS, and there is NOTHING BETTER or more ACCURATE that you can use to describe them. If they don't like it, THEN THEY CAN GET THEIR ILLEGAL ALIEN ASSES BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM AND ENTER THIS COUNTRY THE *LEGAL* WAY!!!


----------



## sky dancer

Actually, sir, words are weapons in a propaganda war.  "Illegals' and "aliens" are more derogatory terms.  Calling people 'trash' is another derogatory term.  Your post is full of those kinds of terms.

There is a difference between an adjective and a noun.

The word 'illegal' is an adjective.  It describes an unlawful action.  The term 'illegals' is being used as a noun.

Undocumented immigrants are people who are coming here to work without proper permission.  Undocumented status describes people who came here legally and did not renew their visas.

By the way, does it bother you at all if a heterosexual man has anal intercourse with his consenting wife?  What business is it of yours?


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

"Words are weapons in a propaganda war". Oh, really? Says who? That speaks volumes for the person that posted that twaddle. Maybe, words are just words. 'Illegal aliens" isn't a slander, it doesn't insult or involve racial hate, it's apropos and appropriate to the subject it is applied to. It is obvious why some people are so moved to redefine this particular word as prejudicial. My sense is that they don't have a bloody clue what real illegal undocumented foreign nationals are from a taffy apple. Do you folks? I live with THEM and it isn't a cute little joke to me.


----------



## sky dancer

The Nazi's used words in order to make it acceptable to annhilate the Jews.  Some of the same kind of rhetoric the Nazi's used against the Jews turns up in the immigration debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

What do you KNOW about facism Besides these hackneyed refrences, anyway? I live around these people. How about you? Jews felt the pain of REAL hate. How dare you mention the Holocaust with Illegal aliens. You don't get it. do you? T


----------



## Grismonda

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> What do you KNOW about facism Besides these hackneyed refrences, anyway? I live around these people. How about you? Jews felt the pain of REAL hate. How dare you mention the Holocaust with Illegal aliens. You don't get it. do you? T



Like Sky Dancer said....IT started with rhetoric, the same rhetoric we hear to day aimed at mostly Mexicans....


----------



## WillowTree

sky dancer said:


> Nope.   They are immigrants sneaking into the US without documents in order to work.
> 
> It's clever to call undocumented immigrants 'invaders' in order to justify hatred and a militant stance toward them.



.


and then after they sneak in here they steal our documents or work under fraudulent documents and steal our entitlements. now what do ya call them??? Honest?


----------



## sky dancer

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> What do you KNOW about facism Besides these hackneyed refrences, anyway? I live around *these people*. How about you? Jews felt the pain of REAL hate. How dare you mention the Holocaust with Illegal aliens. You don't get it. do you? T



You live around Jews?


----------



## sky dancer

WillowTree said:


> .
> 
> 
> and then after they sneak in here they steal our documents or work under fraudulent documents and steal our entitlements. now what do ya call them??? Honest?



You call them undocumented _immigrants_.  You call them illegal _immigrants_.  

They are immigrants.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

"It's just Rhetoric aimed at Mexicans" . Yeah that is all it is, rhetoric, Keep thinking that . Like I asked: Do any of you  holier-than thou saints LIVE in a Barrio WITH Illegal Aliens? HMMM? Walk the walk and talk the talk. I DO, by the way. And, lets just say that calling these twits "Illegal Aliens" is the least of their problems, and I doubt any of you folk  understand any of that, it's just "rhetoric" as far as YOU are concerned. It's real as death to me. That is the difference here , sweety, I live it, I don't TALK it. You can quote me if ya want, but  I don't think that's going to happen any time soon...


----------



## WillowTree

sky dancer said:


> You call them undocumented _immigrants_.  You call them illegal _immigrants_.
> 
> They are immigrants.




illegal immigrants breaking American law and identity thieves works for me cause they are documented after they steal my documents..


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

I don't live in All -WHITE GATED INSULAR  gated community with a bunch  of  well educated  neurotic ANGLOS with guilt complexes a mile wide. YOU?   Know any JEWS or ILLEGAL aliens? I sort of doubt you do EITHER.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

I am looking for something positive to say here, but it's getting hard when I have to dodge bullets. Some chica dove into my arms and babbled some sh*t in Spanish and I had to rub to stones together to figure out  her  moy macho boi friend wanted to slaughter her like a pig. And it didn't take long for me to hide chica muchachca from getting  her/ MY ass blown away. For both of our sakes, see, that is one of the consequences of living around these morons. On the upside, I bet MY LATINA LASSIE and I both had a workout, corazón  speaking. I got a couple of bullets in my casa, sweetheart and that isn't politicaly correct. So What do I do about THAT? Can some judge somewhere just make it go away by decree? Wouldn't  that be nice? Wow, If we just click our Ruby slippers together, the bad people go away? So far, that isn't an option. Never was, either.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> You call them undocumented _immigrants_.  You call them illegal _immigrants_.
> 
> They are immigrants.



My brother had to pay several $1000 to get his wife over here from Thailand, it took over a year, a lot of paperwork, a background check, a medical check AND my parents had to sponsor her, SHE is an immigrant and now she's an American.  When you call an illegal alien an immigrant, you are insulting her and everyone else like her.

My brother in law came from Canada, he had $40,000 in the bank, was married to my sister and STILL had to be sponsored by my parents.  HE'S an immigrant, illegals are not.

My cousin in law came from Germany, he had to have a background check, a medical check and it cost a lot of money plus my aunt and uncle had to sponsor him.  HE'S an immigrant, illegals are not.

To call an illegal alien an immigrant is an insult to all the LEGAL immigrants in our nation.


----------



## sky dancer

The person is an immigrant--legal or illegal.  

You don't go around calling your relatives 'legals' do you?  Do your friends refer to your relatives as 'legals'?

The point is that the terms legal or illegal are adjectives, not nouns.  The people are not called 'legals and illegals".  They are all immigrants.  Some are legal and documented immigrants and some are not.

They are _people._

The OP topic is about a language use practice in Arizona.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> The person is an immigrant--legal or illegal.
> 
> You don't go around calling your relatives 'legals' do you?  Do your friends refer to your relatives as 'legals'?
> 
> The point is that the terms legal or illegal are adjectives, not nouns.  The people are not called 'legals and illegals".  They are all immigrants.  Some are legal and documented immigrants and some are not.
> 
> They are _people._
> 
> The OP topic is about a language use practice in Arizona.



No, an immigrant is someone who comes here legally, to call someone that broke our laws to get here an immigrant is an insult to all the legal immigrants in this country that you can't see that tells me that you are an illegal or you don't have any friends that came here legally.  

The best man at our wedding is from Hong Kong.  HE'S an immigrant, not an illegal alien.  Calling illegals immigrants is like calling a burglar a house guest.


----------



## WillowTree

when a person enters and stay in our country illegally they are aliens, illegal aliens.. can't talk it away it is what it is. don't like that? then go home!


----------



## Grismonda

Againsheila said:


> No, an immigrant is someone who comes here legally, to call someone that broke our laws to get here an immigrant is an insult to all the legal immigrants in this country that you can't see that tells me that you are an illegal or you don't have any friends that came here legally.
> 
> The best man at our wedding is from Hong Kong.  HE'S an immigrant, not an illegal alien.  Calling illegals immigrants is like calling a burglar a house guest.




The word immigrate or emigrate have no qualifers....  Migration is something all animals in the animal kingdom do, including man...  For various reasons, for weather, food, etc.  Legal or illegal means nothing to mother nature.


----------



## sky dancer

All beings move toward what they think will make them happy.


----------



## Grismonda

Againsheila said:


> My brother had to pay several $1000 to get his wife over here from Thailand, it took over a year, a lot of paperwork, a background check, a medical check AND my parents had to sponsor her, SHE is an immigrant and now she's an American.  When you call an illegal alien an immigrant, you are insulting her and everyone else like her.
> 
> My brother in law came from Canada, he had $40,000 in the bank, was married to my sister and STILL had to be sponsored by my parents.  HE'S an immigrant, illegals are not.
> 
> My cousin in law came from Germany, he had to have a background check, a medical check and it cost a lot of money plus my aunt and uncle had to sponsor him.  HE'S an immigrant, illegals are not.
> 
> To call an illegal alien an immigrant is an insult to all the LEGAL immigrants in our nation.



My housekeeper and her husband (owns a landscape business)...both Americans of Mexican descent sponsored no less than 30 friends and relatives from Mexico.  They reside her legally.  One has a job at McDonalds, and is accused of being an "illegal alien".  

Sort of sucks for him...I know.  Tell me Sheila, you seem to know these illegal aliens are out there.  How do you spot em?


----------



## sky dancer

Grismonda said:


> My housekeeper and her husband (owns a landscape business)...both Americans of Mexican descent sponsored no less than 30 friends and relatives from Mexico.  They reside her legally.  One has a job at McDonalds, and is accused of being an "illegal alien".
> 
> Sort of sucks for him...I know.  Tell me Sheila, you seem to know these illegal aliens are out there.  *How do you spot em?[/*QUOTE]
> Brown skin?  Spanish accent?  Antenna's coming out of their heads?


----------



## Grismonda

sky dancer said:


> Grismonda said:
> 
> 
> 
> My housekeeper and her husband (owns a landscape business)...both Americans of Mexican descent sponsored no less than 30 friends and relatives from Mexico.  They reside her legally.  One has a job at McDonalds, and is accused of being an "illegal alien".
> 
> Sort of sucks for him...I know.  Tell me Sheila, you seem to know these illegal aliens are out there.  *How do you spot em?[/*QUOTE]
> Brown skin?  Spanish accent?  Antenna's coming out of their heads?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep looking for the antennas and silver foil hats..but haven't seen them.  I await Sheila's response.
Click to expand...


----------



## dilloduck

Grismonda said:


> The word immigrate or emigrate have no qualifers....  Migration is something all animals in the animal kingdom do, including man...  For various reasons, for weather, food, etc.  Legal or illegal means nothing to mother nature.



No--but it does mean something to those who trying to make a living working within the law and being displaced by those who don't pay any attention to it.
Are we all going to get pick and choose which laws we follow now ?


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> No--but it does mean something to those who trying to make a living working within the law and being displaced by those who don't pay any attention to it.
> *Are we all going to get pick and choose which laws we follow now *?




Interestingly enough, it depends on the politics.  Two border agents broke the law, were arrrested, tried and convicted _unanimously_ by a jury of their peers.

Anti-immigration folks think they ought to be immediately freed.  They don't care that the agents fired 15 shots at an unarmed suspect who was fleeing the scene.  They don't care that the agents did not tell the supervisor immediately that they discharged their firearms nor did they file appropriate reports.

The officers retrieved the spent shells to cover up their actions.


----------



## Grismonda

dilloduck said:


> No--but it does mean something to those who trying to make a living working within the law and being displaced by those who don't pay any attention to it.
> Are we all going to get pick and choose which laws we follow now ?



Dillo man is an animal first...  If, or I should say when global warming really takes effect...or when that "nuclear" blast finally settles on earth...those that survive will be those best suited to deal with the dismal conditions placed on the reality of their future existence.  i.e., those in living in grass huts with dirt floors, forging through the forest and making ends meet like a real hunter and gatherer, will stand a better chance surviving than a New York wall street broker, whose "neighbor hood" market has been taken over by scrounging kids with stolen guns...those mean kids that don't care if they kill for food...they just want to survive. 

That's the reality of it.


----------



## dilloduck

Grismonda said:


> Dillo man is an animal first...  If, or I should say when global warming really takes effect...or when that "nuclear" blast finally settles on earth...those that survive will be those best suited to deal with the dismal conditions placed on the reality of their future existence.  i.e., those in living in grass huts with dirt floors, forging through the forest and making ends meet like a real hunter and gatherer, will stand a better chance surviving than a New York wall street broker, whose "neighbor hood" market has been taken over by scrounging kids with stolen guns...those mean kids that don't care if they kill for food...they just want to survive.
> 
> That's the reality of it.



And you point is ?


----------



## Againsheila

Grismonda said:


> The word immigrate or emigrate have no qualifers....  Migration is something all animals in the animal kingdom do, including man...  For various reasons, for weather, food, etc.  Legal or illegal means nothing to mother nature.



Mother nature didn't set up or country, or pass our laws, or make our boundries.


----------



## Grismonda

dilloduck said:


> And you point is ?



Sociology 101...next.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Mother nature didn't set up or country, or pass our laws, or make our boundries.



We owe a debt to Native Americans, don't we?  We conquered and colonize their continent and we made up laws and boundaries.

Study immigration law.  It is historically racist.  We are always seeking to limit a particular group of immigrants.

If immigration law was fair, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

Here is an essay that opens up some interesting points to debate:
http://www.theodora.com/debate.html


----------



## dilloduck

Grismonda said:


> Sociology 101...next.



oh please---people are just doing what comes naturally ?


----------



## Grismonda

Againsheila said:


> Mother nature didn't set up or country, or pass our laws, or make our boundries.



Regardless of laws or boundaries...these are changing instruments, man will always follow what is deep within his amigula.


----------



## dilloduck

Grismonda said:


> Regardless of laws or boundaries...these are changing instruments, man will always follow what is deep within his amigula.



and he should be allowed to do so ?


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> We owe a debt to Native Americans, don't we?  We conquered and colonize their continent and we made up laws and boundaries.
> 
> Study immigration law.  It is historically racist.  We are always seeking to limit a particular group of immigrants.
> 
> If immigration law was fair, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
> 
> Here is an essay that opens up some interesting points to debate:
> In Focus: The Immigration Debate



True.  Immigration law was changed in the 60's to allow more immigrants from 3rd world countries and it made it almost impossible for Europeans to come here.  

The majority of our legal immigrants are hispanic, the majority of our illegal immigrants are also hispanic.  Add them together and we're in a heck of a mess.


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> oh please---people are just doing what comes naturally ?




Yes, actually.  People are moving in order to be happier.  They think jobs and opportunities are in this country, and they aren't waiting for us to fix our broken policy.


----------



## dilloduck

Againsheila said:


> True.  Immigration law was changed in the 60's to allow more immigrants from 3rd world countries and it made it almost impossible for Europeans to come here.
> 
> The majority of our legal immigrants are hispanic, the majority of our illegal immigrants are also hispanic.  Add them together and we're in a heck of a mess.



Well than YOU TOO can become a victim and expect someone else to pay you back for the trouble they caused you. I guess that's the theory we're gonig with here.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Interestingly enough, it depends on the politics.  Two border agents broke the law, were arrrested, tried and convicted _unanimously_ by a jury of their peers.
> 
> Anti-immigration folks think they ought to be immediately freed.  They don't care that the agents fired 15 shots at an unarmed suspect who was fleeing the scene.  They don't care that the agents did not tell the supervisor immediately that they discharged their firearms nor did they file appropriate reports.
> 
> The officers retrieved the spent shells to cover up their actions.



Many of the jurors on that trial would change their vote today if they had known then what they know now.  Heck, several of them claim they were LIED to by the judge who told them that there had to be a unanimous decision.  They didn't know they could vote against the others.

I don't think the trial was fair at all given that the supposed victim lied on the stand and the prosecutor knew he was lying and let him get away with it.


----------



## Grismonda

Againsheila said:


> True.  Immigration law was changed in the 60's to allow more immigrants from 3rd world countries and it made it almost impossible for Europeans to come here.
> 
> The majority of our legal immigrants are hispanic, the majority of our illegal immigrants are also hispanic.  Add them together and we're in a heck of a mess.



Before the depression (and during) the USA was a third world country.  Euorpean families like the Rothchilds...with the help of JP Morgan, bailed us out.  The Federal Reserve was born.

btw, there is not a law for a European, and a law for someone from a 3rd world country.  Where do you get that?


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Yes, actually.  People are moving in order to be happier.  They think jobs and opportunities are in this country, and they aren't waiting for us to fix our broken policy.



I can't wait to see the next law that is unfair because it restricts people from being happy.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> True.  Immigration law was changed in the 60's to allow more immigrants from 3rd world countries and it made it almost impossible for Europeans to come here.
> 
> The majority of our legal immigrants are hispanic, the majority of our illegal immigrants are also hispanic.  Add them together and we're in a heck of a mess.




The problem from your point of view is that the illegal immigrants are Hispanic and not European?

If  English speaking Europeans arrived in the same number illegally you wouldn't have a problem?


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> True.  Immigration law was changed in the 60's to allow more immigrants from 3rd world countries and it made it almost impossible for Europeans to come here.
> 
> The majority of our legal immigrants are hispanic, the majority of our illegal immigrants are also hispanic.  Add them together and we're in a heck of a mess.




The problem from your point of view is that the illegal immigrants are Hispanic and not European?

If  English speaking Europeans arrived in the same number illegally you wouldn't have a problem?

The truth is all prosperous nations are being flooded by refugees and immigrants seeking a share in the wealth.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Yes, actually.  People are moving in order to be happier.  They think jobs and opportunities are in this country, and they aren't waiting for us to fix our broken policy.



Nor are they doing anything to fix the country that they live in. Why bother--everything good in America.


----------



## sky dancer

" I like to be in America.  OK by me in America..industry boom in America...12 in a room in America......I like to get home to San Juan...I know a boat you can get on....everyone there will give big cheer...everyone there will have moved here."

(Memory of some lyrics in the song, 'America' in West Side Story by Leonard Bernstein).
http://www.westsidestory.com/site/level2/lyrics/america.html


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> " I like to be in America.  OK by me in America..industry boom in America...12 in a room in America......I like to get home to San Juan...I know a boat you can get on....everyone there will give big cheer...everyone there will have moved here."
> 
> (Memory of some lyrics in the song, 'America' in West Side Story.



that was the idea --glad you picked up on it.


----------



## Grismonda

dilloduck said:


> that was the idea --glad you picked up on it.



migration!


----------



## dilloduck

Grismonda said:


> migration!



bring em all here--no problemo--nothing possibly could go wrong .


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> I can't wait to see the next law that is unfair because it restricts people from being happy.



In California, it's called Proposition 8--but that's another topic.

I'm all for no borders.  They're all made up anyway.


----------



## catzmeow

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Lets follow that logic and see were it takes us: Let's outlaw the word "CANCER". No matter how well intended,  pretending that banning   words won't make issues or concepts they embody "go away". THAT is a sign of mental illness, not of a respectable and realistic person. You can't outlaw STUPIDITY based on that same rationale  because these same jerks wouldn't have a job anymore.



If we outlawed stupidity, at least one poster on this thread would be in jail.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> Call them undocumented immigrants.



Very clever.  The term undocumented implies that they are here for a good reason, but simply lack paperwork.  Way to cloak the actual status of their presence here, which is a FELONY CRIME, in p.c. non-speak.

I contend that you WANT to mask the status of these people here because you don't believe that the U.S. should have immigration policy at all.  I suspect it has something to do with some wacky hippy/buddhist/Neo-Native American sage-burning and kumbaya-singing bullshit that suggests that borders are evil  and should be eradicated.  

To which I reply in Frost:  "Good fences make good neighbors."  If people from neighboring countries want to live/work here, let them apply to immigrate, LEGALLY, and I, for one, will welcome their presence here.  Until then, I will call them what they are:  illegal immigrants.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> I'm all for no borders.  They're all made up anyway.



God, I love it when I'm right.  Some things are as predictable as death and taxes.  For one thing, we can always predict that Wind, aka Skydancer, will embrace the most illogical hippy position possible, politically speaking.  And, she will call telling the truth "hate speech."  Welcome to wind world, where up is down, right is wrong, and intelligence is non-existent.


----------



## sky dancer

Grismonda said:


> migration!



"Imagine there's no country, it's easy if you try...."

John Lennon


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> "Imagine there's no country, it's easy if you try...."
> 
> John Lennon



That would be lovely, wouldn't it?  Then America could be as overpopulated and destroyed as every other third world country out there.  Yay for open borders!  Yay for our loss of cultural identity!  Yay for a world where there is no America anymore!  Because the only cultural identity that matters in Wind-world is that of small brown people.  Americans, of every color, we don't count.  We're EVIL, NATIONALISTIC, JINGOISTIC, (gasp) flag-worshipping patriots.  

The world would be better if we were overrun, right?


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> "Imagine there's no country, it's easy if you try...."
> 
> John Lennon



Let me ask you....What is Mexico's immigration policy regarding Guatemala and Honduras?  I'm perfectly fine with adopting whatever Mexico does to protect its southern border.


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> God, I love it when I'm right.  Some things are as predictable as death and taxes.  For one thing, we can always predict that Wind, aka Skydancer, will embrace the most illogical hippy position possible, politically speaking.  And, she will call telling the truth "hate speech."  Welcome to wind world, where up is down, right is wrong, and intelligence is non-existent.



How are hippies more or less illogical...than say  cowboys?  Just curious.


----------



## catzmeow

dilloduck said:


> I can't wait to see the next law that is unfair because it restricts people from being happy.



I can't wait to see the next words that might be forbidden because they might hurt people's widdle feewings.


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> How are hippies more or less illogical...than say  cowboys?  Just curious.



Cowboys are far superior to hippies.  First, they know how to feed themselves without a convenient organic food co-op.  Secondly, they have job skills and are usually gainfully employed.  Thirdly, cowboys bathe and shave at least once a week (on Fridays) before going to town and hooking up with Miss Kitty's girls.  Thus, they are superior to hippies in at least three ways.  Lastly, they never reek of patchouli.  That would be a fourth reason.


----------



## Murf76

dilloduck said:


> Nor are they doing anything to fix the country that they live in. Why bother--everything good in America.



It never ceases to amaze me that liberals can't understand the damage of their proposed  do-gooding.  


> "Brain drain is the flow of skilled professionalsphysicians, engineers, scientists, educatorsfrom less developed countries to the more developed countries. In many cases, large-scale immigration to the United States does serious damage to the communities left behind.
> 
> Developing countries are losing the people they can least afford to: those who are skilled and educated, who perform crucial services contributing to the health and economy of the country, and who create new jobs for others.
> 
> For example, more African scientists and engineers work in the United States than in all of Africaleaving the entire African continent of 600 million people with just 20,000 engineers and scientists.1 The United Nations calls brain drain one of the greatest threats to economic development in sub-Saharan Africa.
> 
> (more..)
> FAIR: Brain Drain



That's just based on legal immigration.  When it comes to ILLEGAL ALIENS, particularly from Mexico (a 70% slice of the pie), the news is worse because they're not bothering with education to begin with...



> For Mexico, remittances are an important source of income. Mexicans living in the United States sent a record $23.1 billion back home in 2006, putting remittances third after oil and maquiladora (assembly plant) exports as a foreign-exchange generator for Mexico.[4] A 2003 survey found international remittances account for 15 percent of per capita household income in rural Mexico.[5]
> 
> However, the long-term effects of massive immigration are detrimental to Mexicos development and economic viability. A 2005 study found residents in Mexico, where someone has migrated from, had lower levels of education, than in places where no one migrated. Because of illegal immigrants tenuous position in the U.S. labor market, they will get only unskilled jobs in the U.S, regardless of whether they spend an additional year in school.  Therefore, rural migrants have little incentive to invest in education.[6]
> 
> One study found that 70% of all remittances to Mexico go to living expenses (i.e. mortgage, rent, food, and utilities), compared with only one percent going to business investment. Consumption is the least productive use of income when the goal is growth and development.[7] Only when new capital goods are purchased and implemented does productivity actually increase. Remittances are an expediency that encourages dependence on the United States and fails to address the address the long-term economic future of Mexico.
> 
> FAIR:



That's not even getting into the damage done to the Mexican social structure, where one in five workers are working in the U.S., away from their families and their kids.   And it's not dealing with the effects on American workers who've had their wages and benefits undercut by an illegal labor force, or on American taxpayers who are forced to make up the difference for both groups of workers in social programs and welfare give-aways.

Where's the liberal sympathy for that???


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> Cowboys are far superior to hippies.  First, they know how to feed themselves without a convenient organic food co-op.  Secondly, they have job skills and are usually gainfully employed.  Thirdly, cowboys bathe at least once a week (on Fridays) before going to town and hooking up with Miss Kitty's girls.  Thus, they are superior to hippies in at least three ways.



AND what does any of this have to do with "Immigration/Illegal Immigration?  A logical explanation will suffice.


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> AND what does any of this have to do with "Immigration/Illegal Immigration?  A logical explanation will suffice.



You asked.  Why did you bring up cowboys?  I provided a reasonable answer.  Are you quibbling with it?

I used the term hippy as slang for Skydancer/Wind's mentality, overall.  But, a preferred term, for me at least, would be "hippy/buddhist/neo-Native American sage-burning kumbaya-singing wealth-transferring social-power-redistributing flower-wearing mantra-chanting silly asses."

Does that work for you?


----------



## sky dancer

Grismonda said:


> AND what does any of this have to do with "Immigration/Illegal Immigration?  A logical explanation will suffice.


Is thread derailment logical?


----------



## sky dancer

catzmeow said:


> Let me ask you....What is Mexico's immigration policy regarding Guatemala and Honduras?  I'm perfectly fine with adopting whatever Mexico does to protect its southern border.


That's another topic.  This topic is about the term illegal alien.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> That's another topic.  This topic is about the term illegal alien.



It's relevant.  The vast majority of Illegal aliens in the U.S. are Mexican.  I'd be happy to adopt Mexico's border-protection policies here.  Would you?


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> Is thread derailment logical?



You mean like when you ignore a direct response to you?

Here you go...I think you missed this one:

Very clever. The term "undocumented" implies that they are here for a good reason, but simply lack paperwork. Way to cloak the actual status of their presence here, which is a FELONY CRIME, in p.c. non-speak.

I contend that you WANT to mask the status of these people here because you don't believe that the U.S. should have immigration policy at all. I suspect it has something to do with some wacky hippy/buddhist/Neo-Native American sage-burning and kumbaya-singing bullshit that suggests that borders are evil and should be eradicated.

To which I reply in Frost: "Good fences make good neighbors." If people from neighboring countries want to live/work here, let them apply to immigrate, LEGALLY, and I, for one, will welcome their presence here. Until then, I will call them what they are: illegal immigrants.


----------



## sky dancer

The term undocumented accurately describe illegal immigration status.  This thread is about the use of the term 'illegals' as a noun to describe undocumented immigrants or immigrant who have entered with US illegally.

This thread is about language use in a court of law.

Borders change.  They are not solid.  We make them up.   People move here and don't wait for the immigration process because the law is outdated.   Address the problem of employers hiring these folks and the immigration problem takes care of itself.


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> You asked.  Why did you bring up cowboys?  I provided a reasonable answer.  Are you quibbling with it?
> 
> I used the term hippy as slang for Skydancer/Wind's mentality, overall.  But, a preferred term, for me at least, would be "hippy/buddhist/neo-Native American sage-burning kumbaya-singing wealth-transferring social-power-redistributing flower-wearing mantra-chanting silly asses."
> 
> Does that work for you?




I call your debate logic an "ad hominen" attack.  Hey, there is a board for everyone...  Maybe you will fit right in here:

Armed Volunteers Patrol Mexican Border - AOL Message Boards


----------



## sky dancer

It's easier for some folks to slap a label on a poster than to address the points in a post, Gris.

Using the term undocumented immigrants or even illegal immigrants instead of 'illegals' is a way to humanize the immigrants regardless of status.

Nazi's used language in order to set the Jews up for extermination.  They used similar arguments to today's nativists.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> The term undocumented accurately describe illegal immigration status.



Then what are the objections to using the term illegal, if the term undocumented has the same meaning?


----------



## Sunni Man

catzmeow said:


> But, a preferred term, for me at least, would be "hippy/buddhist/neo-Native American sage-burning kumbaya-singing wealth-transferring social-power-redistributing flower-wearing mantra-chanting silly asses."


Dang!!! You go girl!!!!


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> It's easier for some folks to slap a label on a poster than to address the points in a post, Gris.
> 
> Using the term undocumented immigrants or even illegal immigrants instead of 'illegals' is a way to humanize the immigrants regardless of status.
> 
> Nazi's used language in order to set the Jews up for extermination.  They used similar arguments to today's nativists.



This comparison you keep making between illegal aliens and nazis burning jews is simply moronic. It's like comparing a go kart to a Boeing 757. There is nothing the two have in common.

All I can do at this point is thank God that there aren't many like you around. If there were our country would be a third world shit hole.


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> I call your debate logic an "ad hominen" attack.  Hey, there is a board for everyone...  Maybe you will fit right in here:
> 
> Armed Volunteers Patrol Mexican Border - AOL Message Boards



You can call it ad hominem, but that is inaccurate because I didn't attack her person. I attacked HER LOGICAL POSITIONS, which uniformly fall into the realm way to the left of normal liberal idiocy.  Hope that helps.  Also, thanks for the red dot in which you acknowledged that you are having difficulty keeping up with discussion.  You are right, there is a board for everyone.  Since you seem to have difficulty discussing complex topics, and only seem capable, for the most part, of one-word responses, perhaps this one will be a better fit for you.


----------



## catzmeow

Pale Rider said:


> This comparison you keep making between illegal aliens and nazis burning jews is simply moronic.



Wind/SkyDancer has difficulty avoiding the hitler fallacy.  In practice, it seems that the first person to bring up hitler or the nazis on a discussion forum is acknowledging defeat.


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> You can call it ad hominem, but that is inaccurate because I didn't attack her person. I attacked HER LOGICAL POSITIONS, which uniformly fall into the realm way to the left of normal liberal idiocy.  Hope that helps.  Also, thanks for the red dot in which you acknowledged that you are having difficulty keeping up with discussion.  You are right, there is a board for everyone.  Since you seem to have difficulty discussing complex topics, and only seem capable, for the most part, of one-word responses, perhaps this one will be a better fit for you.



Your derogatory view of a hippie enters in the equation of arguing logical positions?  How so?


----------



## Grismonda

Pale Rider said:


> This comparison you keep making between illegal aliens and nazis burning jews is simply moronic. It's like comparing a go kart to a Boeing 757. There is nothing the two have in common.
> 
> All I can do at this point is thank God that there aren't many like you around. If there were our country would be a third world shit hole.



Ironically that gas used on Jews in concentration camps, was first tested on Mexicans in the USA....did you not know this?  ...it was used to "clean" their clothes.


----------



## Sunni Man

Grismonda said:


> Ironically that gas used on Jews in concentration camps, was first tested on Mexicans in the USA....did you not know this?  ...it was used to "clean" their clothes.


Maybe the Nazis were just trying to clean the Jews clothes!!


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> Wind/SkyDancer has difficulty avoiding the hitler fallacy.  In practice, it seems that the first person to bring up hitler or the nazis on a discussion forum is acknowledging defeat.




 Yet another stink-bomb, well-played girl!


----------



## sky dancer

1. In Nazi Germany Jews were scapegoated as the source of Germany's economic woes. In the United States, Lou Dobbs has insinuated repeatedly that the economic troubles of the "middle class" is a direct result of U.S. jobs being exported overseas and by extension -- immigrants are either stealing jobs from "middle class" directly and/or driving down wages. There is some truth in the "wage" element of this assertion, but without bothering to explain the "mechanics" of this claim, Lou's over simplification results in "uninformed" contempt by his viewers of immigrants in general.

2. In Nazi Germany, audiences were continually reminded of the struggle of the Nazi Party and Germany against foreign enemies and internal enemies, especially Jews. In the present United States, Lou Dobbs always reminds his audience, that millions of foreigners and criminal illegal immigrants are running rampant in the United States, quite contrary to official statistics. He often invites "white-supremacists" and demagogue politicians from racially intolerant constituencies, as analysts and commentators in his shows -- while denouncing civil rights groups such as the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center as "despicable" and "reprehensible." The few pro-immigrant guests invited to Mr. Dobbs' shows are routinely scolded and lambasted for their stance. To stir the pot further, Mr. Dobbs' always ends his TV shows with un-scientific impromptu polls, that are always skewed and probably doctored -- maliciously presented as the view of the majority.

3. Propagandists lauded Germany as the sole defender of what they called "Western European culture" against the "Bolshevist hordes(Russians)." In his highly touted town hall meetings, the issue of English as an official language came up -- the fear that English will be "replaced," by the Spanish language [...a subliminal insinuation that the white Anglo-Saxon culture in being contaminated] has been used repeatedly by Lou Dobbs and co., to drive fear up the spines of Americans. 

4. Jews in Nazi Germany were branded as disease carriers, contaminants of the pure German race -- last year, Lou Dobbs and despite being confronted with undisputed evidence to the contrary, maintained his claim that there have been 7,000 new cases of leprosy in the U.S. in recent years attributing the increase to "unscreened illegal immigrants." Such irresponsible utterances in mainstream media, only help to embolden hate groups -- who gather often to keep the 'Cradle of the Confederacy' safe from leprosy, pedophiles, Spanish and rampant godlessness. 
Lou Dobbs Radio - Anti Immigrant Propaganda Radio Network. Xenophobia and Hate Radio


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> Your derogatory view of a hippie enters in the equation of arguing logical positions?  How so?



I used the term hippy in this case to characterize a political worldview that is hilariously out of touch with reality, like most hippies.  Hope that helps.  

So, when you visualize the position, it is a position that is non-wage earning, non-contributing, mantra-chanting, mindless rhetoric spouting, language-culling, 3rd world appeasing, punily pacifist one.

Aka, a logical/political position that, were it a picture, would look like this:







I'm sorry if I've offended your hippy sensibilities, but I calls them as I sees them.


----------



## Grismonda

All I see is a giant billboard size pic of some people sitting around a park or something?  Have you not yet learned to resize photos?  It's rather easy, if you take the time out to learn....


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> Yet another stink-bomb, well-played girl!



It's a "stink bomb" to point out that Reductio ad Hitlerum is the last refuge of the intellectually overwhelmed?  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> 1. In Nazi Germany Jews were scapegoated as the source of Germany's economic woes.



I actually think that, in the interest in intellectual credibility, when posting other people's thoughts, it's important to identify that you are doing so, by QUOTING THEM obviously.  Offering nothing to an argument but someone else's words is intellectually lazy and dishonest.


----------



## Grismonda

Grismonda said:


> All I see is a giant billboard size pic of some people sitting around a park or something?  Have you not yet learned to resize photos?  It's rather easy, if you take the time out to learn....



Thank you moderator for resizing the photo.


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> Thank you moderator for resizing the photo.



No moderators were involved.  If they had been, this software would show the edit, and the name of the moderator who performed it.  Please try to stay on topic.  I've responded to every single one of your off-topic comments, and you keep going further astray.  Is it your intention to actually discuss the topic?


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> Grismonda, are you capable of actually discussing the topic, or should I just work around you?



The topic is as Sky Dancer states so brilliantly and eloquently...  The use of a qualifer like illegal or alien added to a immigrant (someone migrating) is disingenuous AND bad grammar.  I have been prone to use it myself....

It is sort of like explaining to someone why "parital birth abortions" are really not births....


----------



## WillowTree

well, lessee here now..

a. they are here

b. they are here unlawfully  (illegally)

c. this is an alien land to them


so 


d. they are illegal aliens



not a thing disingenuious about that. it's calling a duck a duck


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> The topic is as Sky Dancer states so brilliantly and eloquently...  The use of a qualifer like illegal or alien added to a immigrant (someone migrating) is disingenuous AND bad grammar.  I have been prone to use it myself....



In what way do you believe that the adjective "illegal" is disingenuous given that it is used in the context of a person who is actively committing a felony offense in this country purely by being here?

Disingenuous..."you keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."


----------



## catzmeow

WillowTree said:


> not a thing disingenuous about that. it's calling a duck a duck



The dictionary-disabled are such a tragedy.  Perhaps this board would get behind a fund-raising campaign to provide some board members with a dictionary of their very own.  Or, in lieu of that, there is always dictionary.com.


----------



## WillowTree

catzmeow said:


> Wind/SkyDancer has difficulty avoiding the hitler fallacy.  In practice, it seems that the first person to bring up hitler or the nazis on a discussion forum is acknowledging defeat.






In most debates around the world the first person who brings up Hitler or Nazi. is an automatic loser!! Good rule of thumb.


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> Ironically that gas used on Jews in concentration camps, was first tested on Mexicans in the USA....did you not know this?  ...it was used to "clean" their clothes.



One fact in favor of the average Mexican...they are cleaner and more hard-working than most hippies.  Perhaps we should ship our hippies to Mexico, in return for hard-working gardeners.


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> The topic is as Sky Dancer states so brilliantly and eloquently...



Wind?  Zat you?


----------



## WillowTree

catzmeow said:


> The dictionary-disabled are such a tragedy.  Perhaps this board would get behind a fund-raising campaign to provide some board members with a dictionary of their very own.  Or, in lieu of that, there is always dictionary.com.





It's not that. It's the fact that in lieu of a rational argument they prefer slapping down the "politically correct" card, which is exactly what the cowardly judge did. Amen!


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> In what way do you believe that the adjective "illegal" is disingenuous given that it is used in the context of a person who is actively committing a felony offense in this country purely by being here?
> 
> Disingenuous..."you keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."



The US Constitution was by Americans, for Americans. It is indeed exclusionary and was indeed meant to be so. That is not to say the ideals behind those rights is exclusive to Americans but rather that the specific protections afforded by the Consitution are exclusive. The Constitution of the United States is often thought of as an agreement between We the People and the Government. It is not! It is an agreement amongst We the People as to the nature of the government they will accept. The Government is not a party to that agreement, it is the result of that agreement. Some simple reflection on the nature of the agreement clearly demonstrates that it was intended to be exclusive to Americans. 

So, a non citizen can only be deported, not be tried as a felon for residing here undocumented.


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> So, a non citizen can only be deported, not be tried as a felon for residing here undocumented.



You're mistaken, my dear.  A non-citizen can be deported for the FELONY CRIME of residing here illegally, but they can indeed be tried as a felon for RETURNING, and will serve time in a federal facility for aggravated re-entry.  Furthermore, they are taken into custody AS A FELON, for their first immigration violation, and remain in U.S. custody, AS A FELON, until they are deported, AS A FELON.  Thus, they are "illegal" - in violation of U.S. law, by definition, from the day they arrive.


----------



## WillowTree

Grismonda said:


> The US Constitution was by Americans, for Americans. It is indeed exclusionary and was indeed meant to be so. That is not to say the ideals behind those rights is exclusive to Americans but rather that the specific protections afforded by the Consitution are exclusive. The Constitution of the United States is often thought of as an agreement between We the People and the Government. It is not! It is an agreement amongst We the People as to the nature of the government they will accept. The Government is not a party to that agreement, it is the result of that agreement. Some simple reflection on the nature of the agreement clearly demonstrates that it was intended to be exclusive to Americans.
> 
> So, a non citizen can only be deported, not be tried as a felon for residing here undocumented.





it's not a felony to be here illegally it is a misdemeanor. to steal identify and defraud the government is a felony..


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> You're mistaken, my dear.  A non-citizen can be deported for the FELONY CRIME of residing here illegally, but they can indeed be tried as a felon for RETURNING, and will serve time in a federal facility for aggravated re-entry.  Furthermore, they are taken into custody AS A FELON, for their first immigration violation, and remain in U.S. custody, AS A FELON, until they are deported, AS A FELON.  Thus, they are "illegal" - in violation of U.S. law, by definition, from the day they arrive.



IT IS NOT A FELONY CRIME TO RESIDE HERE "UNDOCUMENTED"!   


Now I am not interested in any further discourse with you, until you study the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights...which apply ONLY to citizens.


----------



## catzmeow

Here is a bit more on the detention/incarceration of illegal immigrants:

Cantor lauds plan to deport incarcerated illegal immigrants | Culpeper Star-Exponent

Here's some more:

Investors Business Daily reported in March 2005:

"The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California's prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces."

Bloomberg.com: U.S.

And, a bit more:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1284221.html


----------



## WillowTree

Grismonda said:


> IT IS NOT A FELONY CRIME TO RESIDE HERE "UNDOCUMENTED"!
> 
> 
> Now I am not interested in any further discourse with you, until you study the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights...which apply ONLY to citizens.





Could you please furnish a list of all the countries in the world who have constitutions that apply to the worlds population and not just to the citizens of that country? I am very interested in seeing just how uniques the constitution of the US is as compared to other countries. Thanks.


----------



## Sunni Man

Grismonda said:


> Now I am not interested in any further discourse with you, until you study the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights...which apply ONLY to citizens.


So I take it that you are some kind of self proclaimed Constitutional authority??


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> IT IS NOT A FELONY CRIME TO RESIDE HERE "UNDOCUMENTED"!
> 
> 
> Now I am not interested in any further discourse with you, until you study the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights...which apply ONLY to citizens.



Such laws are not codified in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.    These kinds of laws are passed by congress, and signed into law by the President of the U.S.  Surely you learned this in basic civics classes.  Here is the statute in question:



> TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
> 
> CHAPTER 12--IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
> 
> SUBCHAPTER II--IMMIGRATION
> 
> Part VIII--General Penalty Provisions
> 
> Sec. 1325. Improper entry by alien
> 
> 
> (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
> misrepresentation and concealment of facts
> 
> Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at
> any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
> (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3)
> attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully
> false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a
> material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be
> fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and,
> for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title
> 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
> 
> (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
> 
> Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter)
> the United States at a time or place other than as designated by
> immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of--
> (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
> attempted entry); or
> (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
> an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
> this subsection.
> 
> Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in
> lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
> 
> (c) Marriage fraud
> 
> Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose
> of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for
> not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.
> 
> (d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
> 
> Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for
> the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be
> imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18,
> or both.
> 
> (June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 8, Sec. 275, 66 Stat. 229; Pub.
> L. 99-639, Sec. 2(d), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3542; Pub. L. 101-649,
> title I, Sec. 121(b)(3), title V, Sec. 543(b)(2), Nov. 29, 1990, 104
> Stat. 4994, 5059; Pub. L. 102-232, title III, Sec. 306(c)(3), Dec. 12,
> 1991, 105 Stat. 1752; Pub. L. 104-208, div. C, title I, Sec. 105(a),
> Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-556.)
> 
> 
> Amendments
> 
> 1996--Subsecs. (b) to (d). Pub. L. 104-208 added subsec. (b) and
> redesignated former subsecs. (b) and (c) as (c) and (d), respectively.
> 1991--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102-232 substituted ``fined under title
> 18'' for ``fined not more than $2,000 (or, if greater, the amount
> provided under title 18)''.
> 1990--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101-649, Sec. 543(b)(2), inserted ``or
> attempts to enter'' after ``(1) enters'' and ``attempts to enter or''
> after ``or (3)'', and substituted ``shall, for the first commission of
> any such offense, be fined not more than $2,000 (or, if greater, the
> amount provided under title 18) or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or
> both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined
> under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years'' for ``shall, for
> the first commission of any such offenses, be guilty of a misdemeanor
> and upon conviction thereof be punished by imprisonment for not more
> than six months, or by a fine of not more than $500, or by both, and for
> a subsequent commission of any such offenses shall be guilty of a felony
> and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment for not
> more than two years, or by a fine of not more than $1,000''.
> Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101-649, Sec. 121(b)(3), added subsec. (c).
> 1986--Pub. L. 99-639 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a)
> and added subsec. (b).
> 
> 
> Effective Date of 1996 Amendment
> 
> Section 105(b) of div. C of Pub. L. 104-208 provided that: ``The
> amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to
> illegal entries or attempts to enter occurring on or after the first day
> of the sixth month beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act
> [Sept. 30, 1996].''
> 
> 
> Effective Date of 1991 Amendment
> 
> Amendment by Pub. L. 102-232 effective as if included in the
> enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649, see section
> 310(1) of Pub. L. 102-232, set out as a note under section 1101 of this
> title.
> 
> 
> Effective Date of 1990 Amendment
> 
> Amendment by section 121(b)(3) of Pub. L. 101-649 effective Oct. 1,
> 1991, and applicable beginning with fiscal year 1992, see section 161(a)
> of Pub. L. 101-649, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.
> Amendment by section 543(b)(2) of Pub. L. 101-649 applicable to
> actions taken after Nov. 29, 1990, see section 543(c) of Pub. L. 101-
> 649, set out as a note under section 1221 of this title.
> 
> Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of
> Functions
> 
> For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of
> functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under
> section 1551 of this title.
> 
> Section Referred to in Other Sections
> 
> This section is referred to in sections 1101, 1225, 1329, 1330 of
> this title; title 10 section 374.



§ 1325. &mdash;  Improper entry by alien. - US § 1325. &mdash;  Improper entry by alien. - US Code :: Justia

Illegal entry - misdemeanor offense.
Residing here illegally and working - FELONY offense.
Re-entering after deportation - FELONY offense.

Quite clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, Grismonda.


----------



## Grismonda

WillowTree said:


> Could you please furnish a list of all the countries in the world who have constitutions that apply to the worlds population and not just to the citizens of that country? I am very interested in seeing just how uniques the constitution of the US is as compared to other countries. Thanks.



Willow, just google "constitutions applicable to the world".  Not sure what you will find, but maybe you will get lucky.  

Start with the Geneva Convention....but this document doesn't apply to undocumented workers in the USA.


----------



## catzmeow

WillowTree said:


> it's not a felony to be here illegally it is a misdemeanor. to steal identify and defraud the government is a felony..



You are correct, I misspoke.


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> Such laws are not codified in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.    These kinds of laws are passed by congress, and signed into law by the President of the U.S.  Surely you learned this in basic civics classes.  Here is the statute in question:
> 
> 
> 
> § 1325. &mdash;  Improper entry by alien. - US § 1325. &mdash;  Improper entry by alien. - US Code :: Justia
> 
> Illegal entry - misdemeanor offense.
> Residing here illegally and working - FELONY offense.
> Re-entering after deportation - FELONY offense.
> 
> Quite clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, Grismonda.





The US Constitution and Bill of Rights supercedes any law Congress choses to pass....  Sorry..I know this sucks for you, but it just does. 

This is why these laws are not enforced...they can't be....because A) the defendant has to have rights, which he does not have while in the USA...  This is why an undocumented worker is either A) allowed to remain working in the USA or deported...  

Remember Elvira?  She was deported, not arrested and tried as a felon...


----------



## WillowTree

Grismonda said:


> Willow, just google "constitutions applicable to the world".  Not sure what you will find, but maybe you will get lucky.
> 
> Start with the Geneva Convention....but this document doesn't apply to undocumented workers in the USA.







thought so!


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> Nope.   They are immigrants sneaking into the US without documents in order to work.



Sneaking in, ILLEGALLY.  Hence, illegal aliens.


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> You are correct, I misspoke.



I notice you have a problem with that....


----------



## catzmeow

Sunni Man said:


> So I take it that you are some kind of self proclaimed Constitutional authority??



Apparently, Gris is under the mistaken impression that immigration law is found in the constitution.


----------



## WillowTree

catzmeow said:


> Sneaking in, ILLEGALLY.  Hence, illegal aliens.






inaccurate of Sky,, his/her argument implies that *all* who sneak in here work.. now talk about disingenious.. there ya go.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> Such laws are not codified in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.    These kinds of laws are passed by congress, and signed into law by the President of the U.S.  Surely you learned this in basic civics classes.  Here is the statute in question:
> 
> 
> 
> § 1325. &mdash; *Improper entry by alien. - US § 1325. &mdash; *Improper entry by alien. - US Code :: Justia
> 
> Illegal entry - misdemeanor offense.
> Residing here illegally and working - FELONY offense.
> Re-entering after deportation - FELONY offense.
> 
> Quite clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, Grismonda.


I'm a little sleepy so maybe I missed it. But where in what you posted does it say residing here or working here is a felony? I only see that coming back after being deported is a felony.


----------



## WillowTree

Illegal entry - misdemeanor offense.
*Residing here illegally and working - FELONY offense*.
Re-entering after deportation - FELONY offense.





here!


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> Apparently, Gris is under the mistaken impression that immigration law is found in the constitution.



You don't get to  tell me what I think! The Constitution and Bill of Rights does not cover immigration law, and why should it?  During that time, ALL Americans (by your definition) were "illegal"....


----------



## Ravi

WillowTree said:


> Illegal entry - misdemeanor offense.
> *Residing here illegally and working - FELONY offense*.
> Re-entering after deportation - FELONY offense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here!


Not what her opinion is...in the law she posted.

Sheesh!


----------



## Sunni Man

Grismonda said:


> ALL Americans (by your definition) were "illegal"....


Where?  Native American courts during the 1600's?


----------



## Grismonda

Sunni Man said:


> Where?  Native American courts during the 1600's?



I was demonstrating to that poster (forget who??) how absurd it would have been for our founding fathers to include laws regulating "illegal" immigration.  We are the founders of "illegal immigration"....


----------



## sky dancer

catzmeow said:


> Sneaking in, ILLEGALLY.  Hence, illegal aliens.



You used the adjective 'illegal' correctly in the sentence.  The topic is about using the term 'illegals' as a noun to describe undocumented immigrants. 

There are two kinds of undocumented immigrants.  One kind have entered the US with visas and permits and let those expire.  The other kind never had the visas in the first place.

It is a misdemeanor to be in the US without proper documentation.

The OP comments on language use in Arizona courts that would be less likely to reflect judicial bias.  Here is a link to the original documents:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/KFYI.McGregorLetter.pdf


----------



## 007

Grismonda said:


> The topic is as Sky Dancer states so brilliantly and eloquently...  The use of a qualifer like illegal or alien added to a immigrant (someone migrating) is disingenuous AND bad grammar.  I have been prone to use it myself....
> 
> It is sort of like explaining to someone why "parital birth abortions" are really not births....



This is where you and the dancing in the sky hippie lose the argument. A person that "sneaks" into the country "illegally" is NOT migrating. They are breaking the law which first and foremost makes them a criminal, and second, they are an alien to this country. Therefore, there is NO other term that more accurately describes this person than ILLEGAL ALIEN.

Now you and the dancing in the sky hippie can split hairs and spew psychobabble 'till you're blue in the face here, but you will NOT take ANYTHING away from the term ILLEGAL ALIEN as being 100% accurate.

It's as simple as this, you two are playing a little game, a little liberal word game, trying to polish a turd, and it's not working.


----------



## 007

catzmeow said:


> The dictionary-disabled are such a tragedy.  Perhaps this board would get behind a fund-raising campaign to provide some board members with a dictionary of their very own.  Or, in lieu of that, there is always dictionary.com.



The new Firefox browser has spell check built in. The google toolbar has spell check. Both are free.


----------



## Nevadamedic

Againsheila said:


> How about "criminal invaders"?



How about Felons? That is more accurate.


----------



## Ravi

I think that illegal alien is also incorrect. Crossing the border illegally is illegal. But once you're here you pretty much fall under the innocent until proven guilty system. No one is actually illegal until they go through their immigration hearing and are told to leave (unless they actually leave).


----------



## Nevadamedic

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhftCamIdQA]YouTube - illegal clowns[/ame]


----------



## Nevadamedic

Damn, I dont know why the video wont post.


----------



## Nevadamedic

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgvVYUyLRh0]YouTube - Van Full of Illegals Rolls[/ame]


----------



## Nevadamedic

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_wglVv-7Qo]YouTube - Cop Pulls Over A Van Full of Illegals[/ame]


----------



## sky dancer

This thread is a great example of how we can argue all day about essentially nothing.

Arizona courts are agreed to use the term 'undocumented immigrant' instead of 'illegal aliens' in order that they not appear to be judicially biased.  Good for them.

I prefer to use whatever term a minority group thinks is more respectful.  Hispanic Journalists have requested that mainstream media use the term 'undocumented immigrants or illegal immigrants' rather than the terms 'illegals' or 'aliens'.  I have no problem with using a more respectful term.  I don't have much anger toward Mexican immigrants whether they are legal or illegally in the US.

Language does define the rhetoric in the political camps one side or the other.

Hard line nativists prefer to use the term 'illegals' and any other nasty words they can get away with.  They use alot of the same arguments about 'illegals' as they call them that the Nazi's used to describe the Jews.

People who don't have strongly negative feelings toward Mexican immigrants be they legal or illegal will use the term 'undocumented migrant or immigrant".   Whatever is convenient is what most of us prefer to use.  It takes a little more work to use 'undocumented'.  Some will use it and some will not.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> " I like to be in America.  OK by me in America..industry boom in America...12 in a room in America......I like to get home to San Juan...I know a boat you can get on....everyone there will give big cheer...everyone there will have moved here."
> 
> (Memory of some lyrics in the song, 'America' in West Side Story by Leonard Bernstein).
> The Official West Side Story Site -- Lyrics -- America



There ya go, confusing immigrants with illegals again.  It's legal for anyone in Puerto Rico to emmigrate here.


----------



## Againsheila

Ravi said:


> I think that illegal alien is also incorrect. Crossing the border illegally is illegal. But once you're here you pretty much fall under the innocent until proven guilty system. No one is actually illegal until they go through their immigration hearing and are told to leave (unless they actually leave).



So then a bank robber isn't really a bankrobber unless he gets caught?


----------



## sky dancer

Pale Rider said:


> This is where you and the dancing in the sky hippie lose the argument. A person that "sneaks" into the country "illegally" is NOT migrating. They are breaking the law which first and foremost makes them a criminal, and second, they are an alien to this country. Therefore, there is NO other term that more accurately describes this person than ILLEGAL ALIEN.
> 
> Now you and the dancing in the sky hippie can split hairs and spew psychobabble 'till you're blue in the face here, but you will NOT take ANYTHING away from the term ILLEGAL ALIEN as being 100% accurate.
> 
> It's as simple as this, you two are playing a little game, a little liberal word game, trying to polish a turd, and it's not working.




Are you the same fellow that Agnapostate knows from Stormfront?


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> There ya go, confusing immigrants with illegals again.  It's legal for anyone in Puerto Rico to emmigrate here.



They are both immigrants--undocumented or illegal immigrants and legal immigrants.

They are not 'illegals'.  Illegal is an adjective--immigrant is a noun.   A noun is a part of speech that names personhood.  Immigrants are persons.  No one's personhood is illegal.  Someone's immigration status can be legal or illegal.

Calling immigrants 'illegals' is a dehumanizing term and it works to whip up animosity and hatred.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> They are both immigrants--undocumented or illegal immigrants and legal immigrants.
> 
> They are not 'illegals'.  Illegal is an adjective--immigrant is a noun.   A noun is a part of speech that names personhood.  Immigrants are persons.  No one's personhood is illegal.  Someone's immigration status can be legal or illegal.
> 
> Calling immigrants 'illegals' is a dehumanizing term and it works to whip up animosity and hatred.




They are ILLEGAL ALIENS, here illegally, illegals is short for illegal alien.  But of course, you want to call them immigrants which is an insult to all the real immigrants in our country, not to mention the millions of people who have been denied entry and didn't come here illegally.


----------



## Murf76

I'm not an attorney in Arizona, or anywhere else for that matter.  But.. if I were, I would most definitely be sure to flout the court's _preference_.  That way, if I lost my case... I could appeal on the basis of court bias against my use of non-preferred, albeit adequately descriptive, language. 

_Oh the tangled webs we weave when we attempt to be PC._


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> This thread is a great example of how we can argue all day about essentially nothing.
> 
> Arizona courts are agreed to use the term 'undocumented immigrant' instead of 'illegal aliens' in order that they not appear to be judicially biased.  Good for them.
> 
> I prefer to use whatever term a minority group thinks is more respectful.  Hispanic Journalists have requested that mainstream media use the term 'undocumented immigrants or illegal immigrants' rather than the terms 'illegals' or 'aliens'.  I have no problem with using a more respectful term.  I don't have much anger toward Mexican immigrants whether they are legal or illegally in the US.
> 
> Language does define the rhetoric in the political camps one side or the other.
> 
> Hard line nativists prefer to use the term 'illegals' and any other nasty words they can get away with.  They use alot of the same arguments about 'illegals' as they call them that the Nazi's used to describe the Jews.
> 
> People who don't have strongly negative feelings toward Mexican immigrants be they legal or illegal will use the term 'undocumented migrant or immigrant".   Whatever is convenient is what most of us prefer to use.  It takes a little more work to use 'undocumented'.  Some will use it and some will not.



Calling an illegal alien and undocumented immigrant is like calling a burglar an uninvited houseguest.


----------



## Murf76

Pale Rider said:


> This is where you and the dancing in the sky hippie lose the argument. A person that "sneaks" into the country "illegally" is NOT migrating. They are breaking the law which first and foremost makes them a criminal, and second, they are an alien to this country. Therefore, there is NO other term that more accurately describes this person than ILLEGAL ALIEN.
> 
> Now you and the dancing in the sky hippie can split hairs and spew psychobabble 'till you're blue in the face here, but you will NOT take ANYTHING away from the term ILLEGAL ALIEN as being 100% accurate.
> 
> It's as simple as this, you two are playing a little game, a little liberal word game, trying to polish a turd, and it's not working.



Great post.  "Trying to polish a turd"  ....both priceless and accurate.  I'd offer a rep point if I could.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> They are ILLEGAL ALIENS, here illegally, illegals is short for illegal alien.  But of course, you want to call them immigrants which is an insult to all the real immigrants in our country, not to mention the millions of people who have been denied entry and didn't come here illegally.



I agree that they are illegal immigrants.  The term alien is technically correct as well.  Note that the word illegal is an adjective.  It is not a noun.  It is not correctly used as 'illegals'.  'Illegals' is not short for illegal immigrants.  It's improper english.  Whats the point of demanding that all American citizens speak english when we aren't willing to use correct english ourselves?

Perhaps some of the people who were denied entry and didn't come here illegally had other choices.  Good for them.  

They are all immigrants.  Some are legal immigrants and some are illegal immigrants.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Againsheila said:


> Oh, I know, we'll call them "citizens of other countries, invading ours".



Can't.  I believe he also banned any reference to "invasion", as well.

As a resident - legal - of Arizona, I can assure you that there are groups now looking into ways to have this boob impeached.

Hello to everyone, by the way.  Nice to meet you all.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> I agree that they are illegal immigrants.  The term alien is technically correct as well.  Note that the word illegal is an adjective.  It is not a noun.  It is not correctly used as 'illegals'.  'Illegals' is not short for illegal immigrants.  It's improper english.  Whats the point of demanding that all American citizens speak english when we aren't willing to use correct english ourselves?
> 
> Perhaps some of the people who were denied entry and didn't come here illegally had other choices.  Good for them.
> 
> *They are all immigrants.  Some are legal immigrants and some are illegal immigrants*.



No, they're not.  I don't care how much you try to swing it, you got it wrong.  Illegal aliens are not Immigrants, to call them such is an insult to the real immigrants in our country and to the millions of people who were not allowed to immigrate here, including friends of my family that fled Hungary when the communists took over.  It didn't matter that my father was career Air Force, he couldn't get them into this country.  They lived out their lives in Canada.  You insult them when you call an illegal alien an immigrant, it's a slap in the face to my sister in law and brother in law and many of my friends and other relatives.  be careful, or they're gonna start slapping back.


----------



## Ravi

Againsheila said:


> So then a bank robber isn't really a bankrobber unless he gets caught?


Convicted.


----------



## Shogun

thats bullshit and you know it, ravikins.. if I rape you in the ass I would still be a rapist regardless of my conviction.  You and I both know this.


----------



## Ravi

Shogun said:


> thats bullshit and you know it, ravikins.. if I rape you in the ass I would still be a rapist regardless of my conviction.  You and I both know this.


Not legally. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty simply because that's the way our court system works. But you'd be dead, so it wouldn't matter.


----------



## Murf76

Cecilie1200 said:


> Can't.  I believe he also banned any reference to "invasion", as well.
> 
> As a resident - legal - of Arizona, I can assure you that there are groups now looking into ways to have this boob impeached.
> 
> Hello to everyone, by the way.  Nice to meet you all.



Good for Arizonans.  I can't imagine your courts don't have better things to worry about than kissing the asses of illegal immigration apologists.

Welcome to the forum, btw.


----------



## sky dancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> Can't.  I believe he also banned any reference to "invasion", as well.
> 
> As a resident - legal - of Arizona, I can assure you that there are groups now looking into ways to have this boob impeached.
> 
> Hello to everyone, by the way.  Nice to meet you all.



Nice to meet you.  I hope this judge stays for a long time.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Calling an illegal alien and undocumented immigrant is like calling a burglar an uninvited houseguest.



I call them poor people who want to work.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> No, they're not.  I don't care how much you try to swing it, you got it wrong.  Illegal aliens are not Immigrants, to call them such is an insult to the real immigrants in our country and to the millions of people who were not allowed to immigrate here, including friends of my family that fled Hungary when the communists took over.  It didn't matter that my father was career Air Force, he couldn't get them into this country.  They lived out their lives in Canada.  You insult them when you call an illegal alien an immigrant, it's a slap in the face to my sister in law and brother in law and many of my friends and other relatives.  be careful, or they're gonna start slapping back.




I don't know your family and I wouldn't and haven't slapped anyone in the face.   Technically, I think you are right and I am wrong.  I just looked up the definition of the word immigrant and it implies legal residence.

I stand corrected.  The definition of 'immigrant' is someone who has become a lawful permanent resident.  I checked and there is more than one dictionary definition.  Here is another:
immigrant n. A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.  With this definition, my reference to illegal or undocumented immigrants fits.

Please keep your relatives civil.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> I call them poor people who want to work.



Of course you do.  They aren't shutting down YOUR community hospitals and draining YOUR state budget.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> I prefer to use whatever term a minority group thinks is more respectful.



I don't really care what term a group that disrespects the laws of my country by violating them with impunity cares is respectful.  I'm going to use the term that accurately describes their presence here, which is ILLEGAL.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Illegal aliens . . . undocumented immigrants?

Illegal:  adjective 

1. forbidden by law or statute. 
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.:  

Undocumented  adjective 

1. lacking documentation or authentication. 
2. lacking proper immigration or working papers. 

Immigrant  noun

1. A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another. 
2.  A plant or animal that establishes itself in an area where it previously did not exist.

Alien noun 

1. a resident born in or belonging to another country *who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization *(distinguished from citizen ). 
2. a foreigner. 
3. a person who has been estranged or excluded. 
4. a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial.

Alien  adjective 

5. *residing under a government or in a country other than that of one's birth without having or obtaining the status of citizenship there. *

While these 'non-citizens' are immigrants and undocumented refers to 'lacking proper immigration/working papers', the fact that these non-citizens are coming here *illegally* takes prescidence over the fact that they are immigrants.  They are illegal, not undocumented.

While immigrant does describe these people fairly well, look at the definition of alien.  _Very accurately _describes these people.  "residing under a government or in a country other than that of one's birth *without having or obtaining the status of citizenship there*." and *who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization*.  They are aliens.

Illegal aliens.  That is, they come here illegally.  The only reason some judge or anyone for that matter would want to change the term is to 'soften' the fact that they are here illegally.  

Illegal alien or undocumented worker?  Come on, just reading it which sounds worse?  They want to make it seem as if illegally coming here is not a big deal, let's just give 'em a helping hand.  Yeah, I'll give 'em a helping hand right back to Mexico.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> Nice to meet you.  I hope this judge stays for a long time.



Even though you live in the state of Arizona, don't pay taxes in Arizona, and don't support the local economy in Arizona that is being raped and pillaged by illegal aliens, right?


----------



## catzmeow

Againsheila said:


> Calling an illegal alien and undocumented immigrant is like calling a burglar an uninvited houseguest.



Ooo...I like this game.  Using these terms, a rapist becomes an assertive date.


----------



## sky dancer

That's your view.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> That's your view.


Well, hello Princess Obvious.


----------



## Shogun

Ravi said:


> Not legally. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty simply because that's the way our court system works. But you'd be dead, so it wouldn't matter.



uh, so even if I don't get caught and convicted then you think I wouldn't be a RAPIST for RAPING you?





oooook, ravi.


----------



## catzmeow

WillowTree said:


> inaccurate of Sky,, his/her argument implies that *all* who sneak in here work.. now talk about disingenious.. there ya go.



I think she prefers to pretend that they come here and distribute rose petals and rainbows.


----------



## sky dancer

catzmeow said:


> Even though you live in the state of Arizona, don't pay taxes in Arizona, and don't support the local economy in Arizona that is being raped and pillaged by illegal aliens, right?



Yes.  I support the Arizona Judge's decision.  I haven't wavered in that view since we started the thread.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> Yes.  I support the Arizona Judge's decision.



Then after we impeach him, we'll be certain to suggest that he move to your state.


----------



## Zoom-boing

sky dancer said:


> Yes.  I support the Arizona Judge's decision.  I haven't wavered in that view since we started the thread.



Why do you want to soft pedal illegal aliens?  Are you ok with people entering the USA illegally?  Why?


----------



## sky dancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> Then after we impeach him, we'll be certain to suggest that he move to your state.



He won't be impeached.


----------



## catzmeow

Cecilie1200 said:


> Then after we impeach him, we'll be certain to suggest that he move to your state.



He'll be right at home, when he moves to Sky's town, he can work for the 9th District Court of Appeals.  In fact, with this ruling, he may even be polishing his impeccable liberal credentials to get on Obama's slate of new judicial appointees.


----------



## sky dancer

Zoom-boing said:


> Why do you want to soft pedal illegal aliens?  Are you ok with people entering the USA illegally?  Why?




I support the judges decision to change the terms that are used in court lest they demonstrate judicial bias.  That's the issue outlined in the OP links.


----------



## Zoom-boing

And calling them undocumented immigrants doesn't demonstrate bias?  Look at the definitions I provided; undocumented immigrants demonstrates the judges bias.  Maybe someone is slipping the judge some grade-A Mexican tequila.


----------



## sky dancer

Zoom-boing said:


> And calling them undocumented immigrants doesn't demonstrate bias?  Look at the definitions I provided; undocumented immigrants demonstrates the judges bias.  Maybe someone is slipping the judge some grade-A Mexican tequila.



Telli it to the judge.   Did you happen to read the court letter?  I provided links in this thread.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> He won't be impeached.



I wouldn't bet on that.  Arizona likes to impeach public officials.  Ever hear of Evan Meacham?


----------



## Zoom-boing

The judge is wrong.  They are illegal aliens.  He is soft-pedaling this.  Oh yes, let's call them undocumented immigrants.  That will morph into undocumented workers.  That will morph into what?  underpaid workers?  Soon people won't even realize they are here _illegally_.  And that's the whole point, isn't it?  Please, give it a rest.  They are and always will be ILLEGAL ALIENS as long as they come into the country *illegally. * You can sugarcoat it any way you want -- so can the judge apparently -- but a spade is a spade.  

You didn't answer my question -- Are you ok with people entering the USA illegally? Why?


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> Telli it to the judge.   Did you happen to read the court letter?  I provided links in this thread.



We are all discussing the subject here, including those of us who disagree with the decision handed down by the judge.  I have no doubt it will be overturned by a higher court.  It's an attempt to rewrite accurate terms in order to use softened terms that downplay the illegal status of these individuals (who have also committed crimes, for which they are being prosecuted).

See, these aren't just little maids cleaning your hotel room or cutting your neighbor's grass, Sky.  These are folks appearing before the judge not because of their illegal status, but because they have ALSO COMMITTED CRIMES HERE.  People are rarely hauled into court simply for being here illegally.   The individuals at question in this instance are criminals AND are here illegally.  So, they came here illegally, they remain here illegally, and they prey criminally on the legal citizens and residents of Arizona.

And, instead of sympathizing with their victims, you sympathize with the predators out of some misguided sense of tolerance and peace.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Frankly, this is akin to banning the use of the word "rape" in a rape trial, for fear that mentioning the name of the crime the person is accused of might prejudice the jury into believing he did it.  Next thing you know, we'll be deciding that trying people for crimes at all is prejudicial, because it might lead people to believe they're guilty.


----------



## sky dancer

That entire post is a stretch beyond imagination from anything I have stated on this thread.


----------



## catzmeow

Cecilie1200 said:


> Frankly, this is akin to banning the use of the word "rape" in a rape trial, for fear that mentioning the name of the crime the person is accused of might prejudice the jury into believing he did it.  Next thing you know, we'll be deciding that trying people for crimes at all is prejudicial, because it might lead people to believe they're guilty.



Rape is just another word for "she really wanted it."


----------



## Cecilie1200

catzmeow said:


> Rape is just another word for "she really wanted it."



I thought it was a shorter way of saying, "He couldn't get lucky in the monkey house with a fistful of bananas."


----------



## sky dancer

Zoom-boing said:


> The judge is wrong.  They are illegal aliens.  He is soft-pedaling this.  Oh yes, let's call them undocumented immigrants.  That will morph into undocumented workers.  That will morph into what?  underpaid workers?  Soon people won't even realize they are here _illegally_.  And that's the whole point, isn't it?  Please, give it a rest.  They are and always will be ILLEGAL ALIENS as long as they come into the country *illegally. * You can sugarcoat it any way you want -- so can the judge apparently -- but a spade is a spade.
> 
> You didn't answer my question -- Are you ok with people entering the USA illegally? Why?



Am I ok with people who enter the country illegally?   Yes.  I am OK with them as people.  They have violated immigration law.  They ought to have a hearing and then be deported.


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> We are all discussing the subject here, including those of us who disagree with the decision handed down by the judge.  I have no doubt it will be overturned by a higher court.  It's an attempt to rewrite accurate terms in order to use softened terms that downplay the illegal status of these individuals (who have also committed crimes, for which they are being prosecuted).
> 
> See, these aren't just little maids cleaning your hotel room or cutting your neighbor's grass, Sky.  These are folks appearing before the judge not because of their illegal status, but because they have ALSO COMMITTED CRIMES HERE.  People are rarely hauled into court simply for being here illegally.   The individuals at question in this instance are criminals AND are here illegally.  So, they came here illegally, they remain here illegally, and they prey criminally on the legal citizens and residents of Arizona.
> 
> And, instead of sympathizing with their victims, you sympathize with the predators out of some misguided sense of tolerance and peace.



Little maids and that clean hotels are legally allowed to work unless proven they are not.  It is the hotel management's job to make sure they hire "legally" able workers.  If they do not, and are caught and convicted then they face punishment.  The illegally residing person, will be deported.  If he isn't, then ICE is complacent.  This isn't the fault of some poor Mexican or Guatemalan who wants to work...


----------



## catzmeow

Cecilie1200 said:


> I thought it was a shorter way of saying, "He couldn't get lucky in the monkey house with a fistful of bananas."



Kinda like Roofies:  When you're too ugly to get laid in a houseful of drunk sorority girls.


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> Little maids and that clean hotels are legally allowed to work unless proven they are not.



Welcome back, Queen o' the Constitution.  This is pretty damn obvious.  Did you think I was unaware of immigration law?  I posted a snippet of it for you.

If the little maid is in fact working here illegally, she is guilty of a felony.  Furthermore, if she is using illegally purchased identity papers, she is guilty of identity theft and that's another felony offense.

Welcome to the joy of illegal aliens in the U.S.


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> Welcome back, Queen o' the Constitution.  This is pretty damn obvious.  Did you think I was unaware of immigration law?  I posted a snippet of it for you.
> 
> If the little maid is in fact working here illegally, she is guilty of a felony.  Furthermore, if she is using illegally purchased identity papers, she is guilty of identity theft and that's another felony offense.
> 
> Welcome to the joy of illegal aliens in the U.S.



My favorite new rule last night...

"We're Americans and only Americans can look at a brick of ice cream, two chocolate cookies dipped in hot fudge and think, "Can we deep-fry this?". And the answer is, YES, WE CAN!"


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> My favorite new rule last night...
> 
> "We're Americans and only Americans can look at a brick of ice cream, two chocolate cookies dipped in hot fudge and think, "Can we deep-fry this?". And the answer is, YES, WE CAN!"



Psht, I live in the south.  I can top that.  Only in America do people look at a stick of BUTTER, and think, "We can deep fry this."


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grismonda said:


> My favorite new rule last night...
> 
> "We're Americans and only Americans can look at a brick of ice cream, two chocolate cookies dipped in hot fudge and think, "Can we deep-fry this?". And the answer is, YES, WE CAN!"



And people say that American ingenuity is dead.


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> Psht, I live in the south.  I can top that.  Only in America do people look at a stick of BUTTER, and think, "We can deep fry this."



I prefer Mexican food...it's quit healthy for you...


----------



## Againsheila

Grismonda said:


> I prefer Mexican food...it's quit healthy for you...



  Love the unintended truth.

Don't get me wrong, I love Mexican food, I just know it's not that healthy for you.


----------



## Grismonda

Againsheila said:


> Love the unintended truth.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love Mexican food, I just know it's not that healthy for you.



Oh?  How so?


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> I prefer Mexican food...it's quit healthy for you...



Some of it is...the stuff that isn't prepared in lard.  My kids and I like chili verde or carnitas.


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> Oh?  How so?



Generically speaking, tortillas are made with flour and lard ...Refried beans, in restaurants at least, also often contain pork fat.


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> Some of it is...the stuff that isn't prepared in lard.  My kids and I like chili verde or carnitas.



Lard was introduced into the Mexican cuisine by Americans...  Weird, huh?


----------



## catzmeow

Cecilie1200 said:


> And people say that American ingenuity is dead.



American ingenuity will never die as long as there is a fry daddy to be fired up.


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> Generically speaking, tortillas are made with flour and lard ...Refried beans, in restaurants at least, also often contain pork fat.



Of course I'm talking about REAL Mexican food...not that crap Americanized stuff....


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> Lard was introduced into the Mexican cuisine by Americans...  Weird, huh?



We love us some fat and white flour.


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> Of course I'm talking about REAL Mexican food...not that crap Americanized stuff....



agreed.  We make a lot of it at home.  I lived out west, and loved eating fresh mexican.


----------



## Againsheila

Grismonda said:


> Of course I'm talking about REAL Mexican food...not that crap Americanized stuff....



Tortillas and refried beans are served at EVERY meal.  If you get bread and ask for butter, they give you lard.  Too much lard down there, and yes, I used to live in Mexico.  Can't beat our senora's fresh lemonaid in the afternoon, but in general the meals aren't any healthier than American food and some of them are just as bad.  Lot's of frying down there and all of it in lard.


----------



## Cecilie1200

catzmeow said:


> Psht, I live in the south.  I can top that.  Only in America do people look at a stick of BUTTER, and think, "We can deep fry this."



Deep-fried cheese.  That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Againsheila said:


> Love the unintended truth.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love Mexican food, I just know it's not that healthy for you.



Depends on the Mexican food in question.


----------



## Againsheila

Cecilie1200 said:


> Depends on the Mexican food in question.



Well, like I said, tortillas and refried beans at EVERY meal.


----------



## Grismonda

Againsheila said:


> Tortillas and refried beans are served at EVERY meal.  If you get bread and ask for butter, they give you lard.  Too much lard down there, and yes, I used to live in Mexico.  Can't beat our senora's fresh lemonaid in the afternoon, but in general the meals aren't any healthier than American food and some of them are just as bad.  Lot's of frying down there and all of it in lard.



Honey, I hate to break the news to you, but you were not eating Mexican food.   You were eating food IN Mexico...  You chose it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grismonda said:


> Lard was introduced into the Mexican cuisine by Americans...  Weird, huh?



Americans like to change other people's cuisine and improve it.  Pizza as we know it isn't Italian.  It's American.  Pizza in Italy bears very little resemblance to ours.  Chow mein and fortune cookies?  American.

Give us a cuisine, and we'll say, "We can make that better . . . probably by deep frying it."


----------



## Againsheila

Grismonda said:


> Honey, I hate to break the news to you, but you were not eating Mexican food.   You were eating food IN Mexico...  You chose it.



Honey, I hate to break it to you but I lived with a Mexican family and we ate what they ate.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Againsheila said:


> Well, like I said, tortillas and refried beans at EVERY meal.



Neither has to be made with lard, though, and both can be quite good for you if they aren't.  Like many cuisines, the least healthy versions are the ones used by the poorest members of that culture.  Lard is a large health concern in the diets of North American aborigines (we used to know them as Indians) living on reservations as well, because it's the cheapest cooking oil they can get, and they suffer from enormous nutrition issues.  Those who live in the city rather than the reservations, of course, don't have those problems, because they aren't as poor.

Baja Mexican food, for example, includes a lot of fish and seafood and fresh vegetables.  They also serve black beans rather than refried.


----------



## Grismonda

Againsheila said:


> Honey, I hate to break it to you but I lived with a Mexican family and we ate what they ate.



If all you ate was larded food, then they were just being kind to their "gringo"
 guest.   Did you not get out much while you lived there?

Typical Mexican food...chicken, fish (red snapper, grouper, etc.) pork (in the Yucatan), rice, beans (not the gringo refried crap), avacadoes, tomatoes, onions, greens,peppers,  corn, tortillas (Mexicans use these sparingly as a complement to a meal....and are mostly grilled or baked, not fried in lard).

This is very much like the Mediterean diet.  Mexicans, like Italians and Spanish are not fat people....


----------



## catzmeow

Cecilie1200 said:


> Neither has to be made with lard, though, and both can be quite good for you if they aren't.


I often make seasoned black beans for my kids (black beans, onions, carrots, green pepper, celery, chopped tomatoes, cooked slow until they are very tender) and then we eat them over brown rice.  Yums.


----------



## Againsheila

Grismonda said:


> If all you ate was larded food, then they were just being kind to their "gringo"
> guest.   Did you not get out much while you lived there?
> 
> Typical Mexican food...chicken, fish (red snapper, grouper, etc.) pork (in the Yucatan), rice, beans (not the gringo refried crap), avacadoes, tomatoes, onions, greens,peppers,  corn, tortillas (Mexicans use these sparingly as a complement to a meal....and are mostly grilled or baked, not fried in lard).
> 
> This is very much like the Mediterean diet.  Mexicans, like Italians and Spanish are not fat people....




"gringas" there were 4 of us, all girls, in a household of girls.  Our senora had lost her husband and had to take in borders to survive.  When he was alive she was wealthy, had a maid and everything, but when he died, he left her with the house and that was it.  

Beautiful house too.  

Oh, and our senora complained because her maid went to America because she could make more money there.  Ironic, isn't it?


----------



## Cecilie1200

catzmeow said:


> I often make seasoned black beans for my kids (black beans, onions, carrots, green pepper, celery, chopped tomatoes, cooked slow until they are very tender) and then we eat them over brown rice.  Yums.



I like to snack on reduced-fat corn chips and fresh _pico de gallo_.  All kinds of good, and a low-fat alternative to potato chips.


----------



## sky dancer

This is a *funny* thread.  Now we're on mexican food?  Good thing there is no 'stay on topic' cops.


----------



## Grismonda

Againsheila said:


> "gringas" there were 4 of us, all girls, in a household of girls.  Our senora had lost her husband and had to take in borders to survive.  When he was alive she was wealthy, had a maid and everything, but when he died, he left her with the house and that was it.
> 
> Beautiful house too.
> 
> Oh, and our senora complained because her maid went to America because she could make more money there.  Ironic, isn't it?



I hope you were a  "legal" alien, antennas and all..


----------



## sky dancer

"In my sweet dreams we are in a bar and it's my birthday, drinking salty margueritas with Fernando".

Bonnie Raitt song


----------



## Grismonda

sky dancer said:


> "In my sweet dreams we are in a bar and it's my birthday, drinking salty margueritas with Fernando".
> 
> Bonnie Raitt song



What in the world would Americans do, if Mexico were to refuse exporting tequila to the US?


----------



## sky dancer

Grismonda said:


> What in the world would Americans do, if Mexico were to refuse exporting tequila to the US?



What would they do without all the drugs?


----------



## Grismonda

sky dancer said:


> What would they do without all the drugs?



What would they do without Mexico's oil?

 (Mexico being America's 3rd largest importer of oil)


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grismonda said:


> What in the world would Americans do, if Mexico were to refuse exporting tequila to the US?



Drink bourbon, or invade Mexico.  If we have to have the people, we might as well get the real estate that goes with 'em.


----------



## WhiteLion

Vel6377 said:


> Judge Bans Use Of Illegal and Aliens
> Thu, 11/06/2008 - 17:10  Judicial Watch Blog
> Arizonas Supreme Court chief justice has agreed to enforce the Hispanic Bar Associations demands of banning the terms illegal and aliens in all of the states courtrooms.
> Claiming that the terms are inflammatory, the president of Arizonas Hispanic Bar Association, (known as Los Abogados) has asked state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor to stop using them at trials or hearings because they create perceptions of judicial bias.
> 
> Judge Bans Use Of ?Illegal? and ?Aliens? | Judicial Watch


He cant ban shit, that goes against the 1rst Amendment, well at least the 1rst Amendment still counts in my home state....


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grismonda said:


> What would they do without Mexico's oil?
> 
> (Mexico being America's 3rd largest importer of oil)



What would we do if Mexico refused to sell us oil?  Wait a month until their ramshackle economy completely collapsed, then negotiate new trade agreements with the new government.


----------



## Grismonda

WhiteLion said:


> He cant ban shit, that goes against the 1rst Amendment, well at least the 1rst Amendment still counts in my home state....



Haven't you read this thread in it's entirety?  We have already discussed the constitution, and how Congress' laws trumps anything in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.


----------



## Grismonda

Cecilie1200 said:


> What would we do if Mexico refused to sell us oil?  Wait a month until their ramshackle economy completely collapsed, then negotiate new trade agreements with the new government.



errrrr...can you say China and a billion + people?


----------



## Cecilie1200

WhiteLion said:


> He cant ban shit, that goes against the 1rst Amendment, well at least the 1rst Amendment still counts in my home state....



Um, I don't think the First Amendment applies to attorneys in a courtroom.  The judge has always had the ability to restrict what people say in his court, and to hold them in contempt for violating his rules.


----------



## WhiteLion

Cecilie1200 said:


> Um, I don't think the First Amendment applies to attorneys in a courtroom.  The judge has always had the ability to restrict what people say in his court, and to hold them in contempt for violating his rules.


 Oh i see i thought for a minute you meant regional wise my bad. However somethings were never taught in school because of much history rewriting, one that very few people know of, that after the civil war some of the states are still seperate from the union and one that i know of is legally allowed to fly its flag on top of the USA flag...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grismonda said:


> errrrr...can you say China and a billion + people?



Errrr, China isn't going to replace the US as Mexico's major trading partner any time soon, and certainly not fast enough to keep them from collapsing in the interim.


----------



## Vel

sky dancer said:


> In California, it's called Proposition 8--but that's another topic.
> 
> I'm all for no borders.  They're all made up anyway.





 Hmm.. Since you're for no borders, how do you feel about government entitlement programs? Since so many of the illegal aliens that come to this nation end up utilizing government give away programs, how does that work with your open borders philosophy?


----------



## sky dancer

Vel6377 said:


> Hmm.. Since you're for no borders, how do you feel about government entitlement programs? Since so many of the illegal aliens that come to this nation end up utilizing government give away programs, how does that work with your open borders philosophy?


What programs are you referring to specifically?

There is philosophy and then there is what is practical and will work.  Just because I like the idea of the whole world with open borders doesn't mean it will work anytime soon on a practical level.


----------



## Againsheila

Grismonda said:


> I hope you were a  "legal" alien, antennas and all..



Yes, Gris, I went to the Mexican embassy in Seattle and got all my paperwork in order before entering their country.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> Welcome back, Queen o' the Constitution.  This is pretty damn obvious.  Did you think I was unaware of immigration law?  I posted a snippet of it for you.
> 
> If the little maid is in fact working here illegally, she is guilty of a felony.  Furthermore, if she is using illegally purchased identity papers, she is guilty of identity theft and that's another felony offense.
> 
> Welcome to the joy of illegal aliens in the U.S.


The immigration law you posted did not say that working here illegally is a felony.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ravi said:


> The immigration law you posted did not say that working here illegally is a felony.



I think he/she was referring to being here illegally in the first place.


----------



## Ravi

Cecilie1200 said:


> I think he/she was referring to being here illegally in the first place.


Then perhaps you should learn to read. That isn't a felony either, btw.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ravi said:


> Then perhaps you should learn to read. That isn't a felony either, btw.



I should learn to read?  I wasn't the one who couldn't discern a simple context to a sentence.

On the other hand, I'm also not the one who can't master basic, kindergarten-level courtesy and civility.  I will demonstrate now.  I apologize for erroneously assuming that you were a mature adult who could be conversed with politely, and I'm very sorry for having put the heavy burden of such unattainable expectations on you.  Rest assured, my mistake in addressing you as someone worthy of my time and attention and expecting you to respond as same will never, ever be repeated.

Bye now.


----------



## Ravi

Cecilie1200 said:


> I should learn to read?  I wasn't the one who couldn't discern a simple context to a sentence.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm also not the one who can't master basic, kindergarten-level courtesy and civility.  I will demonstrate now.  I apologize for erroneously assuming that you were a mature adult who could be conversed with politely, and I'm very sorry for having put the heavy burden of such unattainable expectations on you.  Rest assured, my mistake in addressing you as someone worthy of my time and attention and expecting you to respond as same will never, ever be repeated.
> 
> Bye now.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> Are you the same fellow that Agnapostate knows from Stormfront?



No. I am, however, someone who isn't going to buy your liberal line of psychobabble bull shit. You sneak into this country, you break our laws, you're a criminal, that makes you illegal. You weren't born here, that makes you an alien. Put the two together and you get illegal alien. Sorry your brain is too full of hippie kool aide to understand that.

And I have no hate of Mexicans at all. None what so ever. I happen to like hispanics and the Mexican culture, their food, their music, and I like to vacation in Mexico. It's the ACTION of SNEAKING INTO MY COUNTRY that I despise, and it's got NOTHING to do with ones nationality.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> The immigration law you posted did not say that working here illegally is a felony.



Do I need to post the relevant law, or can you do your own homework?  If you'd followed the thread, you'd realize that Cecelie or someone corrected me.  Being here illegally is a MISDEMEANOR, punishable by up to 6 months in federal prison.  Working here illegally usually involves at least 2 felonies.  First, the act of working here is ILLEGAL, and is a felony offense, if you are not legally in this country.  Secondly, in order to work here, this person must have provided fraudulent documents, another felony.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> Do I need to post the relevant law, or can you do your own homework?


You posted something that you claimed showed that residing or working in the USA as an undocumented person was a felony. It showed nothing of the sort. If you don't wish to prove your assertion it matters not to me.


----------



## Vel

sky dancer said:


> What programs are you referring to specifically?
> 
> There is philosophy and then there is what is practical and will work.  Just because I like the idea of the whole world with open borders doesn't mean it will work anytime soon on a practical level.




Food stamps..housing subsidies...Medicaid...W.I.C. .... free and reduced lunch programs..etc.


----------



## Zoom-boing

sky dancer said:


> Am I ok with people who enter the country illegally?   Yes.  I am OK with them as people.  *They have violated immigration law.  They ought to have a hearing and then be deported*.



If you believe this then why are you ok with a judge changing the term 'illegal alien' to 'undocumented immigrant?'  The whole point of changing the words -- and face it, it's the word ILLEGAL that they are trying to get rid of -- is to gloss over the fact that these people, whoever they are and what ever their circumstances that they are coming from , _are entering the United States illegally._  Why do you want to make it even harder to have them deported, because that is what will happen with softening what they are called.  Do you really not see the big picture in all of this?


----------



## Grismonda

Ravi said:


> You posted something that you claimed showed that residing or working in the USA as an undocumented person was a felony. It showed nothing of the sort. If you don't wish to prove your assertion it matters not to me.



Of course, not.  She/he was only trying to debate what I posted...so she/he created this fallacy...


----------



## Againsheila

Pale Rider said:


> No. I am, however, someone who isn't going to buy your liberal line of psychobabble bull shit. You sneak into this country, you break our laws, you're a criminal, that makes you illegal. You weren't born here, that makes you an alien. Put the two together and you get illegal alien. Sorry your brain is too full of hippie kool aide to understand that.
> 
> And I have no hate of Mexicans at all. None what so ever. I happen to like hispanics and the Mexican culture, their food, their music, and I like to vacation in Mexico. It's the ACTION of SNEAKING INTO MY COUNTRY that I despise, and it's got NOTHING to do with ones nationality.



I lived in Mexico for awhile, with a Mexican family.  They are a wonderful people.  Their values and morals are a bit different than ours, but they have a beautiful culture.  Some of their architecture just blows ours away.  I will however, say that I will never again go to a bullfight.  I see nothing "heroric" about it.  I should have listened to my Senora and not gone.  The only good thing about it is when the bull is killed, the meat goes to the local orphanage.

I've suggested before that these that want the illegals here sponsor them and their families so they can come here legally.  They could organize a websight and people could volunteer to sponsor people from the websight.  Heck, we'd even sponsor someone, perhaps a whole family.  

I cannot and will never condone the behavior of sneaking into our country illegally or staying passed your visa just because you want to.  Elvira was middleclass in Mexico.  She had a college education and was building a house but she came up here and stole an American's ss# to work so she could send money home and build her home faster.  She had a kid here and collected welfare on him, probably still does.  If an American stole someone's ss#, they'd be in jail.  She should have had to do jailtime before being deported.  It's time we got tough on these criminals so that it would discourage others from doing the same thing.

BTW, I'm all in favor of punishing those who hire illegal aliens or rent to them or aid them in anyway.


----------



## Grismonda

Againsheila said:


> I will however, say that I will never again go to a bullfight.  I see nothing "heroric" about it. .




Yes, better to just take out a hunting rifle and shoot it dead on the spot!   Now that is heroic!  

(of course I'm being facetious...for those who haven't "guessed")


----------



## Againsheila

Grismonda said:


> Yes, better to just take out a hunting rifle and shoot it dead on the spot!   Now that is heroic!
> 
> (of course I'm being facetious...for those who haven't "guessed")



For those that don't know, the Bullfight is started by a bunch of men on horses with long spears.  They throw the spears at the bull, when he gets weaker, then men come out with these dart like things and run passed him, shoving those long darts into him.  Then, after he's bled enough, and gotten weak enough, only then does the matador come out with his red cape.  

To me, it's just torturing the bull to death.

Yeah, the matador is taking a chance, but only if the other guys didn't do their jobs right and someone made the wrong call on how weak the bull was.

BTW, I was cheering for the Bull.


----------



## sky dancer

Pale Rider said:


> No. I am, however, someone who isn't going to buy your liberal line of psychobabble bull shit. You sneak into this country, you break our laws, you're a criminal, that makes you illegal. You weren't born here, that makes you an alien. Put the two together and you get illegal alien. Sorry your brain is too full of hippie kool aide to understand that.
> 
> And I have no hate of Mexicans at all. None what so ever. I happen to like hispanics and the Mexican culture, their food, their music, and I like to vacation in Mexico. It's the ACTION of SNEAKING INTO MY COUNTRY that I despise, and it's got NOTHING to do with ones nationality.



The issue is using the term 'illegals' as a noun to describe the personhood of human beings.  I agree that some folks who enter the US without our governments knowledge and consent are considered undocumented or illegal immigrants.

Do you understand the difference between an adjective like 'illegal' and the improper use of the adjective 'illegal' in a sentence as a noun like 'illegals'?

If we are going to demand that our citizens and citizen candidates speak english we ought to be more concerned that our judges use proper english in the courtroom.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> The issue is using the term 'illegals' as a noun to describe the personhood of human beings.  I agree that some folks who enter the US without our governments knowledge and consent are considered undocumented or illegal immigrants.
> 
> Do you understand the difference between an adjective like 'illegal' and the improper use of the adjective 'illegal' in a sentence as a noun like 'illegals'?
> 
> If we are going to demand that our citizens and citizen candidates speak english we ought to be more concerned that our judges use proper english in the courtroom.



Actually, I don't think that was the issue at all.  The judge wants to ban the word illegal AND the word alien to discribe illegal aliens.  All in an effort to make it "non-biased".  Like I said before, calling an illegal alien and undocumented worker is like calling a burglar an uninvited houseguest.


----------



## Grismonda

sky dancer said:


> The issue is using the term 'illegals' as a noun to describe the personhood of human beings.  I agree that some folks who enter the US without our governments knowledge and consent are considered undocumented or illegal immigrants.
> 
> Do you understand the difference between an adjective like 'illegal' and the improper use of the adjective 'illegal' in a sentence as a noun like 'illegals'?
> 
> If we are going to demand that our citizens and citizen candidates speak english we ought to be more concerned that our judges use proper english in the courtroom.



Honey, we are living in an age when Palin wants to write a book...do you really think you stand a chance explaining to some the proper use of an adjective?

If she would actually write it herself (and not have her creation audited), it should be hilarious.

Not even Bush could demolish the English language the way she does.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> You posted something that you claimed showed that residing or working in the USA as an undocumented person was a felony. It showed nothing of the sort. If you don't wish to prove your assertion it matters not to me.



I never made that claim.  Re-read the post.  It was at the specific request of someone who suggested that being here illegally is not a crime.  It is, in fact, a criminal offense (misdemeanor), punishable by up to 6 months in jail.  Learn to read.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> The issue is using the term 'illegals' as a noun to describe the personhood of human beings.



It doesn't describe their personhood.  It describes their status in this country as a result of their concerted attempt to subvert American immigration laws.  Whitewashing that status with terms like undocumented will not change the fact that they are illegal.

Furthermore, in the cases in question, the term illegal is used in reference to someone who is charged WITH OTHER OFFENSES.  So, not only is their immigration status criminal, they have also preyed on Americans in other ways.


----------



## sky dancer

Changing the terminology won't change the fact that the immigrants have entered the US illegally.   It makes sense to use approriate english--proper use of adjectives and nouns-- in court.

Since the Hispanic Lawyers and the Hispanic Journalists and Latino civil rights organizations have requested the change in terminology, I see no harm in respecting their wishes.

It all depends on whether you want to use inflammatory language or not.  I'd rather not, myself.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Changing the terminology won't change the fact that the immigrants have entered the US illegally.   It makes sense to use approriate english--proper use of adjectives and nouns-- in court.
> 
> Since the Hispanic Lawyers and the Hispanic Journalists and Latino civil rights organizations request the change in terminology, I see no harm in respecting their wishes.



Strange, only the hispanics are requesting this.  Perhaps the immigrants from Germany, Thailand, Japan, Korea, and other places object to the illegal aliens being called immigrants?

I know I would, and I know my sister in law from Thailand does and I know my cousin in law from Germany does.  They consider it an insult.  

Why would you want to pacify illegal aliens and the cost of insulting legal immigrants?


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Changing the terminology won't change the fact that the immigrants have entered the US illegally.   It makes sense to use approriate english--proper use of adjectives and nouns-- in court.
> 
> Since the Hispanic Lawyers and the Hispanic Journalists and Latino civil rights organizations have requested the change in terminology, I see no harm in respecting their wishes.
> 
> It all depends on whether you want to use inflammatory language or not.  I'd rather not, myself.



I guess we would have to exclude other word too then --felon, sex offender etc etc  ?


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Strange, only the hispanics are requesting this.  Perhaps the immigrants from Germany, Thailand, Japan, Korea, and other places object to the illegal aliens being called immigrants?
> 
> I know I would, and I know my sister in law from Thailand does and I know my cousin in law from Germany does.  They consider it an insult.
> 
> Why would you want to pacify illegal aliens and the cost of insulting legal immigrants?



The Hispanics are requesting this in part because anti-latino racist increased.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> The Hispanics are requesting this in part because anti-latino racist increased.



Shocking-- I wonder why ?


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> I guess we would have to exclude other word too then --felon, sex offender etc etc  ?



No.  I didn't say that.  Felons and sex offenders are nouns--not adjectives like 'illegal'.


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> Shocking-- I wonder why ?



You do understand that American citizens who are brown skinned and Hispanic are being targeted?  Doesn't that concern you?

"Although the overall number of reported hate crime incidents remained steady from 2006 to 2007, of particular note in the 2007 statistics are continued increases in reported violent attacks against persons of Hispanic origin and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons. According to the new FBI report, there were 595 incidents of anti-Hispanic hate crimes in 2007, an increase of 3.3% from the 576 incidents reported in 2006. There was also a rise in the number of hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation bias, with a 5.5% increase in incidents from 2006 to 2007 (from 1195 to 1265 incidents). 

This confirms trends reported in Human Rights First's 2008 Hate Crime Survey. Anti-Hispanic violence rose by 35 percent between 2003 and 2006, according to an analysis conducted by the Southern Poverty Law Center of FBI crime reports; anti-Hispanic incidents rose in 2007 in both the State of California and Los Angeles County, according to official statistics. *The violence targets both U.S. citizens and foreigners, and both legal and illegal immigrants, and has taken place amidst recent mainstreaming of anti-immigrant rhetoric and fears.* Many incidents appear to target those perceived to be or provide assistance to illegal immigrants."

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/ij/2007/alert/354/


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> No.  I didn't say that.  Felons and sex offenders are nouns--not adjectives like 'illegal'.



felony is also an adjective.  Felony conviction.  See?  Anyone can play with semantics.  

Offender is the noun, sex is the adjective.

Now tell me, why do you want to pacify illegal aliens at the cost of insulting legal immigrants?


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> felony is also an adjective.  Felony conviction.  See?  Anyone can play with semantics.
> 
> Offender is the noun, sex is the adjective.
> 
> Now tell me, why do you want to pacify illegal aliens at the cost of insulting legal immigrants?




Nope.  Look up the word 'felon' in the dictionary.  It is a noun meaning criminal.

I want to respect the wishes of Hispanic-American citizens who object to the use of the term.

Why are you unconcerned about insulting other American citizens?  Only care about your relatives?

Latinos care just as much about their relatives as you do about yours.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> No.  I didn't say that.  Felons and sex offenders are nouns--not adjectives like 'illegal'.



Talk about your hairsplitting.  "It's not about people being offended by a completely accurate reference to their behavior.  It's about nouns versus adjectives!"

In case you missed it, the word "alien" is also a noun, and the judge in question banned THAT, too.


----------



## catzmeow

Cecilie1200 said:


> Talk about your hairsplitting.  "It's not about people being offended by a completely accurate reference to their behavior.  It's about nouns versus adjectives!"
> 
> In case you missed it, the word "alien" is also a noun, and the judge in question banned THAT, too.


 Furthermore, these terms AREN'T used to refer to American Hispanics aka Latinos, so WHY DO THEY HAVE A SAY IN WHAT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE CALLED?

oh, wait.  Because they are the DEFENSE ATTORNEYS for illegal aliens convicted of crimes in the U.S., and they want to remove yet another stigma from their client (that of being a criminal, already, who disrespects the laws here).  That is the context in which these attorneys are arguing that the phrase illegal aliens should not be used...to refer to offenders IN COURT.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> Nope.  Look up the word 'felon' in the dictionary.  It is a noun meaning criminal.
> 
> I want to respect the wishes of Hispanic-American citizens who object to the use of the term.
> 
> Why are you unconcerned about insulting other American citizens?  Only care about your relatives?
> 
> Latinos care just as much about their relatives as you do about yours.



She didn't say "felon".  She said "felony", which in the phrase "felony offender" is an adjective.

Why would any "Hispanic-American" object to the term "illegal alien" or find it offensive?  THEY are neither illegal nor aliens.

And by the way, I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that a bunch of lawyers trying to get their scumbag clients off and a bunch of bleeding heart lefties represent the "Hispanic community".  I live in Tucson, surrounded by Mexicans - hey, it's Arizona, they aren't likely to be Cubans, okay? - and "illegal alien" is probably the nicest and cleanest thing THEY call those people.

Any "Latino" whose relatives are here illegally and who actually defends that sort of behavior has just lost any claim on me giving a rat's ass if he's offended or not.


----------



## sky dancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> Talk about your hairsplitting.  "It's not about people being offended by a completely accurate reference to their behavior.  It's about nouns versus adjectives!"
> 
> In case you missed it, the word "alien" is also a noun, and the judge in question banned THAT, too.



I object less to the term alien than I do 'illegals'.  The term 'alien' at least appears in immigration legislation.

The OP stresses a point about what is appropriate terminology to use in court to not appear to be demonstrating judical bias.

I comment on the general use of the terms as well as the point in the OP.  Here is a resource:
http://www.wecanstopthehate.org/

This links to a pdf on 'Code Words of Hate'
http://www.wecanstopthehate.org/uploads/FS-CodeWordsDebate-FNL.pdf


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> I object less to the term alien than I do 'illegals'.  The term 'alien' at least appears in immigration legislation.
> 
> The OP stresses a point about what is appropriate terminology to use in court to not appear to be demonstrating judical bias.
> 
> I comment on the general use of the terms as well as the point in the OP.  Here is a resource:
> We Can Stop The Hate | Take the Hate Out of the Immigration Debate
> 
> This links to a pdf on 'Code Words of Hate'
> http://www.wecanstopthehate.org/uploads/FS-CodeWordsDebate-FNL.pdf



PLEASE don't waste my time posting links to leftist PC propaganda sites.  I'm well aware of where you get this nonsense.

Last time I checked, the word "illegal" appears all throughout the criminal code, so if THAT'S your criteria . . .

My personal feeling is that this is more about being sympathetic to a bunch of criminals than it is about attempting to ensure any sort of fair or efficient court operation.  If you can't say that an illegal act is illegal in court, where CAN you say it?

By the way, I'm tired of your endless and incorrect assertion that the word "illegal" is not a noun.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 2illegal 
Function: noun 
Date: 1939 
: an illegal immigrant

So let's hear no more of that egregious hairsplitting, okay?


----------



## sky dancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> PLEASE don't waste my time posting links to leftist PC propaganda sites.  I'm well aware of where you get this nonsense.
> 
> Last time I checked, the word "illegal" appears all throughout the criminal code, so if THAT'S your criteria . . .
> 
> My personal feeling is that this is more about being sympathetic to a bunch of criminals than it is about attempting to ensure any sort of fair or efficient court operation.  If you can't say that an illegal act is illegal in court, where CAN you say it?
> 
> By the way, I'm tired of your endless and incorrect assertion that the word "illegal" is not a noun.
> 
> From Merriam-Webster:
> 
> Main Entry: 2illegal
> Function: noun
> Date: 1939
> : an illegal immigrant
> 
> So let's hear no more of that egregious hairsplitting, okay?


Nope.

The judge decided.  You lose.

PS Are dictionary wars 'hair splitting'?  I previously posted other dictionary references that show the term 'illegal' is an adjective.  Even your own example places the word 'illegal' before immigrant thereby using it as an adjective.

If you're tired of discussing the topic--step away from the computer or post on another topic.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> Nope.
> 
> The judge decided.  You lose.
> 
> PS Are dictionary wars 'hair splitting'?  I previously posted other dictionary references that show the term 'illegal' is an adjective.  Even your own example places the word 'illegal' before immigrant thereby using it as an adjective.
> 
> If you're tired of discussing the topic--step away from the computer or post on another topic.



For there to be a "dictionary war", you would have had to actually provide a dictionary definition.  You didn't.  You provided your own personal understanding, which was incorrect.  I provided the CORRECT information, thus ending your interminable "interpretation war".

And "even the definition uses illegal as an adjective" is the epitome of utterly pointless, irrelevant remarks masquerading as meaningful dialogue.  Congratulations.  

I'm not tired of discussing the topic.  I'm tired of listening to you either lie or obnoxiously assert mistakes as truth, whichever one it is you're doing.  That would be why I provided the facts necessary to settle the question.  Now if you would do us all the courtesy of simply accepting that you were proven wrong and not waste endless posts trying to rationalize it away, perhaps we could move on to a clearer and less tiresome discussion involving the truth.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> Nope.
> 
> The judge decided.  You lose.



No.  A single judge, in a single state, decided.  This wasn't even the Arizona Supreme Court.  This was an isolated decision that may or may not be upheld in subsequent challenges.  It is certainly open to debate whether this judge ruled correctly, or not.  Certainly, he did so at the urging of advocacy groups that have a vested interest in downplaying their clients' criminality.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Nope.  Look up the word 'felon' in the dictionary.  It is a noun meaning criminal.
> 
> I want to respect the wishes of Hispanic-American citizens who object to the use of the term.
> 
> Why are you unconcerned about insulting other American citizens?  Only care about your relatives?
> 
> Latinos care just as much about their relatives as you do about yours.



You want to pacify one group by insulting another.  Again, why?

BTW, my cousin in law isn't an American, my sister in law is, they are both immigrants and they both want illegal aliens deported.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Againsheila said:


> You want to pacify one group by insulting another.  Again, why?
> 
> BTW, my cousin in law isn't an American, my sister in law is, they are both immigrants and they both want illegal aliens deported.



It's funny how many legal immigrants seem to be even more virulent in their dislike of illegals than those of us born and raised here.  My mother-in-law was also a naturalized citizen, and she never had a single positive thing to say about illegals.


----------



## Againsheila

Cecilie1200 said:


> It's funny how many legal immigrants seem to be even more virulent in their dislike of illegals than those of us born and raised here.  My mother-in-law was also a naturalized citizen, and she never had a single positive thing to say about illegals.



I think it's pretty logical.  You pay to get into the movie theater, you're not happy when the people next to you came in without paying.  Worse, your friends and family can't come in because those people that snuck in are taking their seats.

My brother tried for over 20 years to get his mother in law here from Thailand and was unable to do so.  Why on earth does anyone believe someone that sneaks into our country against the law has more rights than she did is beyond me.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Againsheila said:


> I think it's pretty logical.  You pay to get into the movie theater, you're not happy when the people next to you came in without paying.  Worse, your friends and family can't come in because those people that snuck in are taking their seats.
> 
> My brother tried for over 20 years to get his mother in law here from Thailand and was unable to do so.  Why on earth does anyone believe someone that sneaks into our country against the law has more rights than she did is beyond me.



Ingenuity?

Seriously, I have no idea.  To me, it's like comparing the guy who brings you flowers and a ring and gets on one knee to propose with the guy who throws you down, tears your clothes off and rapes you.  Worse, it's like treating the second guy MORE favorably because he "got there first".


----------



## sky dancer

catzmeow said:


> No.  A single judge, in a single state, decided.  This wasn't even the Arizona Supreme Court.  This was an isolated decision that may or may not be upheld in subsequent challenges.  It is certainly open to debate whether this judge ruled correctly, or not.  Certainly, he did so at the urging of advocacy groups that have a vested interest in downplaying their clients' criminality.



The Arizona Supreme Court Justice ruled.  Case closed.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> The Arizona Supreme Court Justice ruled.  Case closed.



Well, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> The Arizona Supreme Court Justice ruled.  Case closed.



I've always been fascinated by how leftists consider any court decision that goes their way to be carved in stone by the hand of God, and any court decision they DON'T like - not to mention silly inconsequentials like acts of legislature - to merely be a jumping off place for further negotiations/campaigning/guerilla warfare.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Well, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong.



It's not my opinion, it's the Supreme Court Justice of Arizona's opinion.  You win some, you lose some.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> It's not my opinion, it's the Supreme Court Justice of Arizona's opinion.  You win some, you lose some.



Well, on the bright side, at least when we "lose some", we don't go berserk and trample little old ladies or cause riots in churches.


----------



## sky dancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, on the bright side, at least when we "lose some", we don't go berserk and trample little old ladies or cause riots in churches.



Who does that?


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> Who does that?



What, you don't read the news?  Oh, that's right, they were so busy reporting on all the alleged "hate" directed toward Obama's election that they glossed right over the reports of the crazed Prop 8 opponents assaulting people.

Go look it up.


----------



## sky dancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> What, you don't read the news?  Oh, that's right, they were so busy reporting on all the alleged "hate" directed toward Obama's election that they glossed right over the reports of the crazed Prop 8 opponents assaulting people.
> 
> Go look it up.



No need to look it up.  You've given me the story with your own spin.  Just like my own private Fox News network.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the thread topic.

You sound like you have quite a few axes to grind.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> No need to look it up.  You've given me the story with your own spin.  Just like my own private Fox News network.
> 
> Of course, none of this has anything to do with the thread topic.
> 
> You sound like you have quite a few axes to grind.



Spin?  I'm sorry, how do you "spin" assaulting an old lady and rioting in a church?  "Spin" makes it sound like I'm ignoring the "good side" of things, and I'm hard-pressed to picture what the good side might be.


----------



## Grismonda

Cecilie1200 said:


> Spin?  I'm sorry, how do you "spin" assaulting an old lady and rioting in a church?  "Spin" makes it sound like I'm ignoring the "good side" of things, and I'm hard-pressed to picture what the good side might be.



There are but two judges who have "final" opinion....

God and a "judge".  The Arizona judge's opinion trumps that of your's and mine...  In fact ours is irrelevant.


----------



## sky dancer

You're off topic, for one thing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grismonda said:


> There are but two judges who have "final" opinion....
> 
> God and a "judge".  The Arizona judge's opinion trumps that of your's and mine...  In fact ours is irrelevant.



How charmingly surreal and unrelated to the post it allegedly responded to.


----------



## Grismonda

sky dancer said:


> You're off topic, for one thing.


----------



## Againsheila

Grismonda said:


> There are but two judges who have "final" opinion....
> 
> God and a "judge".  The Arizona judge's opinion trumps that of your's and mine...  In fact ours is irrelevant.



If you think our opinons are so irrelevent, what are you even doing here?


----------



## sky dancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> How charmingly surreal and unrelated to the post it allegedly responded to.



What is surreal is how off the topic these posts all are.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> You're off topic, for one thing.



By all means, then, deprive me of your terribly witty ripostes.  Teach me a lesson.


----------



## Grismonda

Againsheila said:


> If you think our opinons are so irrelevent, what are you even doing here?



I thought that was obvious...  explaining to you why I support the judges opinion.  Those of you who think he is wrong, well then you think he is wrong...  But based on what?  That it just bothers the heck out of you a group of Hispanic Americans didn't like the "adjective" - illegal... because it projects prejudicial opinions by some people against a specific group of Americans...and therefore you don't see their civil rights abused..all just so you are happy!


----------



## sky dancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> By all means, then, deprive me of your terribly witty ripostes.  Teach me a lesson.




What does this have to do with the topic?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grismonda said:


> I thought that was obvious...  explaining to you why I support the judges opinion.  Those of you who think he is wrong, well then you think he is wrong...  But based on what?  That it just bothers the heck out of you a group of Hispanic Americans didn't like the "adjective" - illegal... because it projects prejudicial opinions by some people against a specific group of Americans...and therefore you don't see their civil rights abused..all just so you are happy!



Would it be impolite of me to point out that if anyone's opinion on this is irrelevant, it would be yours, given that your stated location is California?  Unlike you, I actually live in Arizona, and with my fellow Arizonans, actually have some options for dealing with this judge.  Not only are you not even remotely a constituent in this, but much of my state considers your state's behavior a rule of thumb for what NOT to do.  Seriously, every public debate in Tucson concerning things like development, water conservation, freeway construction, etc. contains the phrase, "Do we really want to be like California?"


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> What does this have to do with the topic?



You're still talking to me.  How am I ever going to learn?

By the way, unless the topic of this thread is "You're all naughty and off-topic and I'm going to tell", you're off-topic, too.  Just thought you'd like to know.


----------



## Grismonda

Cecilie1200 said:


> Would it be impolite of me to point out that if anyone's opinion on this is irrelevant, it would be yours, given that your stated location is California?  Unlike you, I actually live in Arizona, and with my fellow Arizonans, actually have some options for dealing with this judge.  Not only are you not even remotely a constituent in this, but much of my state considers your state's behavior a rule of thumb for what NOT to do.  Seriously, every public debate in Tucson concerning things like development, water conservation, freeway construction, etc. contains the phrase, "Do we really want to be like California?"



My opinion is irrelevant..compared to the judges, but not compared to yours.  Although you are in the position to exercise options, which I am not, our opinions carry the same value.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grismonda said:


> My opinion is irrelevant..compared to the judges, but not compared to yours.  Although you are in the position to exercise options, which I am not, our opinions carry the same value.



No, not really.  Yours is based on what would be popular and desirable in a state in which the issue isn't actually happening.  Mine is based on what is popular and desirable in the state actually in question.  In addition, yours is based on living in a state where you're accustomed to arrogant, unelected lawyers in robes treating you like irrelevant peons.  Mine isn't.

Only a Californian would tell a voter and a citizen that her opinion is irrelevant because "da judge has spoken".


----------



## Grismonda

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, not really.  Yours is based on what would be popular and desirable in a state in which the issue isn't actually happening.  Mine is based on what is popular and desirable in the state actually in question.  In addition, yours is based on living in a state where you're accustomed to arrogant, unelected lawyers in robes treating you like irrelevant peons.  Mine isn't.
> 
> Only a Californian would tell a voter and a citizen that her opinion is irrelevant because "da judge has spoken".



Mine opinion is mine.  You have no right to tell me how I think.  

How is Bullhead City these days?


----------



## sky dancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> You're still talking to me.  How am I ever going to learn?
> 
> By the way, unless the topic of this thread is "You're all naughty and off-topic and I'm going to tell", you're off-topic, too.  Just thought you'd like to know.



I prefer to do is discuss one topic at a time.  You loaded the decks on this topic by bringing in Proposition 8.  We are discussing illegal alens and the decision of an Arizona judge to adopt less inflammatory language in court.


----------



## Vel

Grismonda said:


> I thought that was obvious...  explaining to you why I support the judges opinion.  Those of you who think he is wrong, well then you think he is wrong...  But based on what?  That it just bothers the heck out of you a group of Hispanic Americans didn't like the "adjective" - illegal... because it projects prejudicial opinions by some people against a specific group of Americans...and therefore you don't see their civil rights abused..all just so you are happy!




Actually, some people are just disgusted to see political correctness pollute the justice system. Things ARE what they ARE and we shouldn't have to spend our lives calling a pigeon an eagle just because that's what someone wants it to be.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grismonda said:


> Mine opinion is mine.  You have no right to tell me how I think.
> 
> How is Bullhead City these days?



I have every right to tell you how to think, because that's MY opinion.  I don't have the right to expect you to listen, and don't care anyway.

As far as I know, Bullhead City is as it always is:  small, boring, dusty, and glad to be across the border from Nevada.

For the record, I live in Tucson.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> I prefer to do is discuss one topic at a time.  You loaded the decks on this topic by bringing in Proposition 8.  We are discussing illegal alens and the decision of an Arizona judge to adopt less inflammatory language in court.



I didn't bring up Prop 8.  I brought up the fact that side of the political aisle takes loss more rationally and maturely than the other.  Trust me when I tell you I wasn't starved for examples to choose from.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vel6377 said:


> Actually, some people are just disgusted to see political correctness pollute the justice system. Things ARE what they ARE and we shouldn't have to spend our lives calling a pigeon an eagle just because that's what someone wants it to be.



I still haven't figured out what is "inflammatory" about calling something illegal when it's illegal, particularly when you're in a courtroom.  It's not like the attorneys were routinely referring to them as "dirty wetbacks", which terminology I would heartily support the justice in banning.


----------



## sky dancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> I didn't bring up Prop 8.  I brought up the fact that side of the political aisle takes loss more rationally and maturely than the other.  Trust me when I tell you I wasn't starved for examples to choose from.



That's your perception and your belief.  It doesn't make it absolutely true.  Good luck trying to prove it.

Proposition 8 is off topic for this thread.

BTW if you are interested in the topic, I provided a link to the original letters that were sent to the judge.

If you read them it may give you more insight into the request of the court by Hispanic lawyers.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> That's your perception and your belief.  It doesn't make it absolutely true.  Good luck trying to prove it.
> 
> Proposition 8 is off topic for this thread.
> 
> BTW if you are interested in the topic, I provided a link to the original letters that were sent to the judge.
> 
> If you read them it may give you more insight into the request of the court by Hispanic lawyers.



Who else's perception and belief matters when its about what I was talking about?  And has it occurred to you that it might be just a tad arrogant and presumptuous to think YOU have something to tell ME about what's going on in my own state supreme court?  I KNOW it's arrogant and presumptuous to assume that the only reason I disagree with you is because I'm just not as informed as you are.  Trust me, that's not the problem here.


----------



## sky dancer

Proposition 8 is not the topic of this thread.  I thought you might find the letter to the judge interesting because you didn't seem to understand why the term 'illegals' and 'aliens' would be considered inflammatory. 

Take it easy.


----------



## eots

Mexican  drug dealing death squads roaming Texas are a little inflammatory


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> Proposition 8 is not the topic of this thread.  I thought you might find the letter to the judge interesting because you didn't seem to understand why the term 'illegals' and 'aliens' would be considered inflammatory.
> 
> Take it easy.



I'm still not talking about Proposition 8, nor was I ever.

I sincerely doubt that anything is going to make me think that referring to someone who is an illegal as an illegal is "inflammatory".  It's a clear, concise description of their US residency status.  If they don't wish to fit that label, perhaps they should consider that before entering the country illegally.  Just a thought.


----------



## eots

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm still not talking about Proposition 8, nor was I ever.
> 
> I sincerely doubt that anything is going to make me think that referring to someone who is an illegal as an illegal is "inflammatory".  It's a clear, concise description of their US residency status.  If they don't wish to fit that label, perhaps they should consider that before entering the country illegally.  Just a thought.



a perfect example of pre-QBAMA logic.. in a post - OBAMA world....sorry it just doesn't cut it... so get with the newspeak...they are .._unregistered immigrants_see doesn't that feel better...hardly sounds like a problem at all...really...


----------



## Cecilie1200

eots said:


> a perfect example of pre-QBAMA logic.. in a post - OBAMA world....sorry it just doesn't cut it... so get with the newspeak...they are .._unregistered immigrants_see doesn't that feel better...hardly sounds like a problem at all...really...



That might work . . . if I had any feelings.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> I never made that claim.  Re-read the post.  It was at the specific request of someone who suggested that being here illegally is not a crime.  It is, in fact, a criminal offense (misdemeanor), punishable by up to 6 months in jail.  Learn to read.


You made it at least twice on this thread:

"Residing here illegally and working - FELONY offense."


"If the little maid is in fact working here illegally, she is guilty of a felony."


----------



## 007

Againsheila said:


> I lived in Mexico for awhile, with a Mexican family.  They are a wonderful people.  Their values and morals are a bit different than ours, but they have a beautiful culture.  Some of their architecture just blows ours away.  I will however, say that I will never again go to a bullfight.  I see nothing "heroric" about it.  I should have listened to my Senora and not gone.  The only good thing about it is when the bull is killed, the meat goes to the local orphanage.
> 
> I've suggested before that these that want the illegals here sponsor them and their families so they can come here legally.  They could organize a websight and people could volunteer to sponsor people from the websight.  Heck, we'd even sponsor someone, perhaps a whole family.
> 
> I cannot and will never condone the behavior of sneaking into our country illegally or staying passed your visa just because you want to.  Elvira was middleclass in Mexico.  She had a college education and was building a house but she came up here and stole an American's ss# to work so she could send money home and build her home faster.  She had a kid here and collected welfare on him, probably still does.  If an American stole someone's ss#, they'd be in jail.  She should have had to do jailtime before being deported.  It's time we got tough on these criminals so that it would discourage others from doing the same thing.
> 
> BTW, I'm all in favor of punishing those who hire illegal aliens or rent to them or aid them in anyway.


Well it isn't going to happen now, with lop ear the liberal junior hitler President elect. Illegals will be given amnesty and DL's next. We should see another 10 or 15 million new ones cross the border, and coming in with them the next terrorist attack. Course the lame brained liberals don't give a shit about that.



sky dancer said:


> The issue is using the term 'illegals' as a noun to describe the personhood of human beings.  I agree that some folks who enter the US without our governments knowledge and consent are considered undocumented or illegal immigrants.
> 
> Do you understand the difference between an adjective like 'illegal' and the improper use of the adjective 'illegal' in a sentence as a noun like 'illegals'?
> 
> If we are going to demand that our citizens and citizen candidates speak english we ought to be more concerned that our judges use proper english in the courtroom.



This noun adjective line is pure psychobabble. No one gives two shits about whether or not it's proper english. It is however a proper description. Illegal because they've entered this country ILLEGALLY, and alien because they are not native born to America which makes them an ALIEN. Put the two together and you have an ILLEGAL ALIEN. Each word onto it's own 100% accurate in it's description. Face it.


----------



## 007

Grismonda said:


> I thought that was obvious...  explaining to you why I support the judges opinion.  Those of you who think he is wrong, well then you think he is wrong...  But based on what?  That it just bothers the heck out of you a group of Hispanic Americans didn't like the "adjective" - illegal... because it projects prejudicial opinions by some people against *a specific group of Americans*...and therefore you don't see their civil rights abused..all just so you are happy!



*You have GOT to be kidding me... AMERICANS? Please... tell me you did NOT refer to ILLEGAL ALIENS as AMERICANS!*


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

One thing stands out here about the pro-Illegal alien crowd. To quote one of these fine people: "Using the term ILLEGAL ALIENS is dehumanizing..." But these same people don't hesitate to imply opponents on this board are NAZIS. Funny how that works, isn't that? That double standard seems to be a symptom of a schizophrenic mind set.  It is also apparent that these same folks  don't have to deal with the many problems illegal aliens cause. I love how they minimize the simple fact  Illegal aliens CAN JUST AS WELL IMMIGRATE LEGALY.But they don't, because....well, it's no big deal...?  Like, being an illegal alien is akin to some minor infraction, like littering or jay-walking. Some of us disagree. It is a felony...If illegal immigrants want to be treated fairly, it's only fair they  follow international immigration laws. Why not? Nobody out there in blogger land can rationally answer that simple little question. But, illegal aliens are only half of the problem here. The people that hire them, that look the other way, that smuggle them or glowingly support them morally are the other part of the problem. I am sick and tired of the circular set of arguments that solve nothing. I can only give all you Illegal alien supporters this advice: get a good realtor, and find a nice barrio to live in. Do it for 15 years, then we'll see how well that  supportive attitude lasts. By the way, I did that, and that is why I am against ILLEGAL ALIENS . And banning that word smacks of Orwell and foolish naivete. They are human, yes. And they are foreign nationals that entered another country without consent.  They are not legitimate immigrants and deporting them is not some sort of  genocidal  pogrom or racist persecution. Some of you folks are sort of exaggerating just a wee bit.


----------



## sky dancer

The National Association of Hispanic Journalists is concerned with the increasing use of pejorative terms to describe the estimated 11 million undocumented people living in the United States. NAHJ is particularly troubled with the growing trend of the news media to use the word &#8220;illegals&#8221; as a noun, shorthand for "illegal aliens". Using the word in this way is grammatically incorrect and crosses the line by *criminalizing the person, not the action* they are purported to have committed. NAHJ calls on the media to never use &#8220;illegals&#8221; in headlines. 

Shortening the term in this way also stereotypes undocumented people who are in the United States as having committed a crime. *Under current U.S. immigration law, being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime, it is a civil violation. Furthermore, an estimated 40 percent of all undocumented people living in the U.S. are visa overstayers, meaning they did not illegally cross the U.S. border. *

In addition, the association has always denounced the use of the degrading terms &#8220;alien&#8221; and &#8220;illegal alien&#8221; to describe undocumented immigrants because it casts them as adverse, strange beings, inhuman outsiders who come to the U.S. with questionable motivations. *&#8220;Aliens&#8221; is a bureaucratic term that should be avoided unless used in a quote. *

NAHJ, a 2,300-member organization of reporters, editors and other journalists, addresses the use of these words and phrases by the news media in its Resource Guide for Journalists. The following are excerpts for some of the terms prevalent in the current news coverage: 

Alien 

A word used by the U.S. government to describe a foreign-born person who is not a citizen by naturalization or parentage. People who enter the United States legally are called resident aliens and they carry alien registration cards also known as "green cards," because they used to be green. 

While Webster's first definition of the term "alien" is in accordance with the government's interpretation, the dictionary also includes other, darker, meanings for the word, such as &#8220;a non-terrestrial being," "strange," "not belonging to one," "adverse," "hostile." And the Encyclopedia Britannica points out that "in early times, the tendency was to look upon the alien as an enemy and to treat him as a criminal or an outlaw." It is not surprising then that in 1798, in anticipation of a possible war with France, the U.S. Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which restricted "aliens" and curtailed press freedoms. By 1800 the laws had been repealed or had expired but they still cast a negative shadow over the word. 

In modern times, with science-fiction growing in popularity, "alien" has come to mean a creature from outer space, and is considered pejorative by most immigrants. 

Illegal alien 

Avoid. Alternative terms are "undocumented worker," or "undocumented immigrant." The pertinent federal agencies use this term for individuals who do not have documents to show they can legally visit, work or live here. Many find the term offensive and dehumanizing because it criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering or residing in the United States. The term does not give an accurate description of a person's conditional U.S. status, but rather demeans an individual by describing them as an alien. At the 1994 Unity convention, the four minority journalism groups &#8211; NAHJ, Asian American Journalists Association, Native American Journalists Association and National Association of Black Journalists &#8211; issued the following statement on this term: "Except in direct quotations, do not use the phrase illegal alien or the word alien, in copy or in headlines, to refer to citizens of a foreign country who have come to the U.S. with no documents to show that they are legally entitled to visit, work or live here. Such terms are considered pejorative not only by those to whom they are applied but by many people of the same ethnic and national backgrounds who are in the U.S. legally." 

Illegal immigrant 

While many national news outlets use the term "illegal immigrant," this handbook calls for the discussion and re-evaluation of its use. Instead of using illegal immigrant, alternative labels recommended are "undocumented worker" or "undocumented immigrant." Illegal immigrant is a term used to describe the immigration status of people who do not have the federal documentation to show they are legally entitled to work, visit or live here. People who are undocumented according to federal authorities do not have the proper visas to be in the United States legally. Many enter the country illegally, but a large number of this group initially had valid visas, but did not return to their native countries when their visas expired. Some former students fall into the latter category. The term criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering or residing in the United States without federal documents. Terms such as illegal alien or illegal immigrant can often be used pejoratively in common parlance and can pack a powerful emotional wallop for those on the receiving end. Instead, use undocumented immigrant or undocumented worker, both of which are terms that convey the same descriptive information without carrying the psychological baggage. Avoid using illegal(s) as a noun. 

Illegal 

Avoid. Alternative terms are "undocumented immigrant" or "undocumented worker." This term has been used to describe the immigration status of people who do not have the federal documentation to show they are legally entitled to work, visit or live here. The term criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering, residing in the U.S. without documents. 

Immigrant 

Similar to reporting about a person's race, mentioning that a person is a first-generation immigrant could be used to provide readers or viewers with background information, but the relevancy of using the term should be made apparent in the story. Also, the status of undocumented workers should be discussed between source, reporter and editors because of the risk of deportation. 

Undocumented immigrant 

Preferred term to "illegal immigrant," "illegal(s)" and "illegal alien." This term describes the immigration status of people who do not have the federal documentation to show they are legally entitled to work, visit or live here. Some Latinos say this term more accurately describes people who are in the United States illegally because the word points out that they are undocumented, but does not dehumanize them in the manner that such terms as &#8220;aliens&#8221; and &#8220;illegals&#8221; do. 

Undocumented worker 

Preferred term to "illegal alien," "illegal immigrant," or "illegal(s)." This term describes the immigration status of people who do not have the federal documentation to show they are legally entitled to work, visit or live here. 

The National Association of Hispanic Journalists


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Skydancer: We are talking past each other. You are talking about abstractions. I am talking about reality. Besides all that obvious rehearsed twaddle, what real experience do you have on the issue?  I am real as these people. And I still advise all of you nice people to move out of those all- white gated communities and live in the real world with the rest of us plebes. Admit it, honey, you don't actually...live with these charming folks, do you? You can give the pedantic lectures  a break. Please.


----------



## Ravi

That was pretty interesting, Sky. So it actually behooves the Republicans to continue using that terminology...it will help them rebound with the hispanics they lost last election.


----------



## sky dancer

Ravi said:


> That was pretty interesting, Sky. So it actually behooves the Republicans to continue using that terminology...it will help them rebound with the hispanics they lost last election.



I don't know.  I think it's entirely possible that Republicans and Democrats use that terminology.


----------



## Ravi

sky dancer said:


> I don't know.  I think it's entirely possible that Republicans and Democrats use that terminology.


Wait, I thought the Dems were pc? I'm pretty sure I've never heard a Democratic politician railing against "illegal aliens."


----------



## sky dancer

Ravi said:


> Wait, I thought the Dems were pc? I'm pretty sure I've never heard a Democratic politician railing against "illegal aliens."



I think it's a hard claim to substantiate or qualify.  "All Dems are this, all Reps are that."


----------



## Zoom-boing

Skydancer -- in both references where 'avoid' was advised, the word that was being 'avoided' is ILLEGAL.  Do you seriously not get this?  This is all a bunch of leftist bullshit to reword the truth.  If you change what you call illegal aliens then you reduce their being here as 'no big deal'.  Newsflash -- it's a helluva big deal.  

These people have zero rights in this country.  None.  They have no rights as to what term they are called.   Undocumented vs. illegal.  Illegal is self-explanitory -- NOT LEGAL.  What's undocumented?  Hmmm, maybe illegal but hey, maybe they just forgot to get their paperwork in order before crossing the border, maybe they just forgot to mail something in, maybe this, maybe that.  Give it a rest.  This is just one more far-left- illegal-alien-hugging load of crap.


----------



## Ravi

sky dancer said:


> I think it's a hard claim to substantiate or qualify.  "All Dems are this, all Reps are that."


True enough. But I would be amazed to hear a Democratic politician giving speeches against_ illegal aliens_. Certainly many of them are for tightening the borders and sending home those that aren't citizens. But their terminology is a lot less reactionary.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> Wait, I thought the Dems were pc? I'm pretty sure I've never heard a Democratic politician railing against "illegal aliens."



How about Cesar Chavez?

SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Op-Ed > Ruben Navarrette Jr. -- The Arizona Minutemen and César Chavez



> Here's the ironic part: Despite the fact that Chávez is these days revered among Mexican-American activists, the labor leader in his day was no more tolerant of illegal immigration than the Arizona Minutemen are now. *Worried that the hiring of illegal immigrants drove down wages, Chávez &#8211; according to numerous historical accounts &#8211; instructed union members to call the Immigration and Naturalization Service to report the presence of illegal immigrants in the fields and demand that the agency deport them. UFW officials were even known to picket INS offices to demand a crackdown on illegal immigrants*.
> 
> *And in 1973, in one of the most disgraceful chapters in UFW history, the union set up a "wet line" to prevent Mexican immigrants from entering the United States. Under the guidance of Chávez 's cousin, Manuel, UFW members tried at first to convince the immigrants not to cross. When that didn't work, they physically attacked the immigrants and left some bloody in the process. It happened in the same place that the Minutemen are now planning to gather: the Arizona-Mexico border*.
> 
> At the time, The Village Voice said that the UFW conducted a "campaign of random terror against anyone hapless enough to fall into its net." In their book, "The Fight in the Fields," Susan Ferris and Ricardo Sandoval recall the border incident and write that the issue of how to deal with the undocumented was "particularly vexing" for Chávez.



Or, Barbara Jordan, the first African American member of Congress from Texas:

In 1995, Representative Jordan chaired the Commission on Immigration Reform. Jordan was quoted in 1995 before the committee as stating "Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."


----------



## catzmeow

And, here's another one:

Brad Carson, a former Democratic Congressman from Oklahoma.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Democrats Must Fight Illegal Immigration



> By recognizing the harmful effects of illegal immigration on low-skilled citizens and by supporting legislation to prohibit untrammeled immigration, Democrats would boost the economic prospects of their core constituencies while driving a wedge into the Republican base. Democrats could even oppose illegal immigration while welcoming legal immigration, especially of the high-skilled variety. Immigration presents Democrats with an unusual opportunity to shake up the coalitions that have guided the political parties for a generation, while proving to the struggling middle and working classes that the Democratic Party is serious about reclaiming its historic role as their champion. The overclass might frown, but I would bet that millions and millions of American workers would reward the Democratic Party with their electoral gratitude.


----------



## Ravi

Kitty, I'm getting sleepy again. Can you show me where any of those people used the term _illegal alien_? btw, Chavez was not a democratic politician.


----------



## KGB

sky dancer said:


> Actually, sir, words are weapons in a propaganda war.  "Illegals' and "aliens" are more derogatory terms.  Calling people 'trash' is another derogatory term.  Your post is full of those kinds of terms.
> 
> There is a difference between an adjective and a noun.
> 
> The word 'illegal' is an adjective.  It describes an unlawful action.  The term 'illegals' is being used as a noun.
> 
> Undocumented immigrants are people who are coming here to work without proper permission.  Undocumented status describes people who came here legally and did not renew their visas.
> 
> By the way, does it bother you at all if a heterosexual man has anal intercourse with his consenting wife?  What business is it of yours?



if a non-US citizen is here who has not gone through the official immigration process & has not received official permission to be here, they have violated our laws & thus, are here ILLEGALLY.  That is why the term "illegal alien" exists.....you libs can be so dumb sometimes.....


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> Kitty, I'm getting sleepy again. Can you show me where any of those people used the term _illegal alien_? btw, Chavez was not a democratic politician.



Of course Chavez wasn't a democratic politician.  He was FAR to the left of any elected democrat in this country, even Kucinich.  You asked which Democrats might be opposed to illegal immigration, or at least, that was my understanding of your comment.  And, my point is that MANY have opposed it, historically, and they are correct in doing so.

Currently, the Democratic party has sold out to the cheap labor philosophy that serves only one group in America:  multinational corporations.  It certainly doesn't benefit the underclass in America.  Hence, my opposition to illegal immigration, as someone who has worked professionally with unskilled inner city youths for the past 19 years.


----------



## sky dancer

Zoom-boing said:


> Skydancer -- in both references where 'avoid' was advised, the word that was being 'avoided' is ILLEGAL.  Do you seriously not get this?  This is all a bunch of leftist bullshit to reword the truth.  If you change what you call illegal aliens then you reduce their being here as 'no big deal'.  Newsflash -- it's a helluva big deal.
> 
> These people have zero rights in this country.  None.  They have no rights as to what term they are called.   Undocumented vs. illegal.  Illegal is self-explanitory -- NOT LEGAL.  What's undocumented?  Hmmm, maybe illegal but hey, maybe they just forgot to get their paperwork in order before crossing the border, maybe they just forgot to mail something in, maybe this, maybe that.  Give it a rest.  This is just one more far-left- illegal-alien-hugging load of crap.



Do you know the difference between a noun and an adjective?  Do you understand that 40% of the undocumented immigrants are people who entered the US legally?

The OP is about a decision made by an Arizona Supreme Court Justice.  I also included an appeal made by Hispanic Journalist requesting that media adjust the terminology--this is a separate but related appeal to the OP.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> Of course Chavez wasn't a democratic politician.  He was FAR to the left of any elected democrat in this country, even Kucinich.  You asked which Democrats might be opposed to illegal immigration, or at least, that was my understanding of your comment.  And, my point is that MANY have opposed it, historically, and they are correct in doing so.
> 
> Currently, the Democratic party has sold out to the cheap labor philosophy that serves only one group in America:  multinational corporations.  It certainly doesn't benefit the underclass in America.  Hence, my opposition to illegal immigration, as someone who has worked professionally with unskilled inner city youths for the past 19 years.


No, you misunderstood me. I acknowledged that many Democratic politicians are for tightening the border and sending people home that don't have a right to be here. I was just pointing out that Democratic politicians don't normally use xenophobic terminology. On this issue, anyway.


----------



## sky dancer

Ravi said:


> True enough. But I would be amazed to hear a Democratic politician giving speeches against_ illegal aliens_. Certainly many of them are for tightening the borders and sending home those that aren't citizens. But their terminology is a lot less reactionary.



Exactly.  The use of reactionary terminology is a political tool.  That's the reason we are arguing about words.  Words are weapons in a propaganda war.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Exactly.  The use of reactionary terminology is a political tool.  That's the reason we are arguing about words.  Words are weapons in a propaganda war.



Like "burning"  (not really tho ) crosses.


----------



## Grismonda

Cecilie1200 said:


> I
> 
> As far as I know, Bullhead City is as it always is:  small, boring, dusty, and....



AND...more "felon" Americans reside in Bullhead City, Arizona than any city in the USA.  "Felon" Americans?  How is that for an adjective...or better yet,  Felon Arizonians.  Or use it as a noun...Felons, when just referring to Arizonians...see how that works?    I guess being an Arizonian yourself, you have stake in their cause...


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> No, you misunderstood me. I acknowledged that many Democratic politicians are for tightening the border and sending people home that don't have a right to be here. I was just pointing out that Democratic politicians don't normally use xenophobic terminology. On this issue, anyway.



They have.  They've just been either cowed or purchased into p.c. submission, without realizing that they've sold America's poor down the river for a bunch of non-citizens who can't even get them into office.  I'll tell you what.  You want to hear xenophobic terminology?  Spend some time in the inner city with American blacks and ask them about the impact of illegal immigration  on their lives.  Cesar Chavez understood that illegal immigration was undermining the legitimate economic and political gains being made by Chicanos. And, he was right.  This isn't xenophobia, it's fact.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> Do you know the difference between a noun and an adjective?



Do you know the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL?


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> They have.  They've just been either cowed or purchased into p.c. submission, without realizing that they've sold America's poor down the river for a bunch of non-citizens who can't even get them into office.


Of course, that mus be it.


----------



## Grismonda

Pale Rider said:


> Do you know the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL?



The question here, is do you know why the judge in Arizona ruled in favor of "labeling" illegal immigrants...this term?


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> Of course, that mus be it.



What else do you think it is, Ravi?  They're so anxious to cater to the Latino vote that they've essentially written off the black lower class.  Who else are the blacks going to vote for anyway?  Illegal immigration, while it harms all of us, harms the poor in America the most.  And, of the poor, it has the harshest impact on Americans of color.

Is it xenophobia to suggest that these criminals (illegal immigrants) be called what they are?


----------



## dilloduck

catzmeow said:


> What else do you think it is, Ravi?  They're so anxious to cater to the Latino vote that they've essentially written off the black lower class.  Who else are the blacks going to vote for anyway?  Illegal immigration, while it harms all of us, harms the poor in America the most.  And, of the poor, it has the harshest impact on Americans of color.
> 
> Is it xenophobia to suggest that these criminals (illegal immigrants) be called what they are?



na--it's just another word of hate the liberals use.


----------



## Grismonda

catzmeow said:


> What else do you think it is, Ravi?  They're so anxious to cater to the Latino vote that they've essentially written off the black lower class.  Who else are the blacks going to vote for anyway?  Illegal immigration, while it harms all of us, harms the poor in America the most.  And, of the poor, it has the harshest impact on Americans of color.
> 
> Is it xenophobia to suggest that these criminals (illegal immigrants) be called what they are?



Immigrants residing illegally in the USA?


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> What else do you think it is, Ravi?  They're so anxious to cater to the Latino vote that they've essentially written off the black lower class.  Who else are the blacks going to vote for anyway?  Illegal immigration, while it harms all of us, harms the poor in America the most.  And, of the poor, it has the harshest impact on Americans of color.
> 
> Is it xenophobia to suggest that these criminals (illegal immigrants) be called what they are?


If you can prove that is true I'll agree with you. But it isn't true, at least it is nothing more than a theory. Poor people have a lot of problems, but being out-competed for low wage, dead end jobs isn't one of them.


----------



## 007

Grismonda said:


> The question here, is do you know why the judge in Arizona ruled in favor of "labeling" illegal immigrants...this term?



No, there is no question. It's a hispanic judge who is legislating from the bench who is sympathetic to illegal aliens. He should be removed.


----------



## catzmeow

Grismonda said:


> Immigrants residing illegally in the USA?



They aren't immigrants.  Immigrants are those who follow the law to emigrate here legally.


----------



## Grismonda

Ravi said:


> If you can prove that is true I'll agree with you. But it isn't true, at least it is nothing more than a theory. Poor people have a lot of problems, but being out-competed for low wage, dead end jobs isn't one of them.



Fisheries in South Carolina have closed because they can't fill the jobs necessary for daily operations.  There is too much red tape to use foriegn workers...


----------



## sky dancer

Hispanics Target of Incitement and Violence:
Extremists Declare 'Open Season' on Immigrants: Hispanics Target of Incitement and Violence


----------



## 007

Grismonda said:


> Immigrants residing illegally in the USA?



They aren't immigrants either. An immigrant follows the law and comes here legally. They're criminals, and the best description there is for them is illegal alien.


----------



## sky dancer

Pale Rider said:


> Do you know the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL?


I do.

Skinheads don't.  John Tanton started most anti-immigration groups.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpiq1nAK4a0[/ame]


----------



## Grismonda

Pale Rider said:


> They aren't immigrants either. An immigrant follows the law and comes here legally. They're criminals, and the best description there is for them is illegal alien.



An immigrant "migrates"...  Legal or illegal is irrelevant to what the term discribes.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> If you can prove that is true I'll agree with you. But it isn't true, at least it is nothing more than a theory. Poor people have a lot of problems, but being out-competed for low wage, dead end jobs isn't one of them.



Lax immigration hurts the poor - The Boston Globe


> SUPPOSE SOMEONE offered to import 350 foreign workers to New Bedford to work for less than the minimum wage. Since the unemployment rate is over 8 percent, we would expect public outrage. The city needs jobs, not more unskilled laborers. So it is no surprise that citizens seeking jobs started lining up at the Michael Bianco plant after Immigration and Customs Enforcement uncovered 350 illegal immigrants.
> 
> Similarly, after the Crider chicken-processing plant in Stillmore, Ga., was raided in January, it boosted wages and hired US citizens, according to the Wall Street Journal.
> ...
> A 1997 study by the National Academy of Sciences found that wages of high school dropouts plummeted 30 percent between 1980 and 1985, with about half of the losses due to competition from immigrants. Citizens without a high school degree are another group of victims with no voice. Mass immigration depresses their wages because it floods the market with cheap labor.



http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060518/OPINION/605170334/1014


> In fact, scholars such as Andrew Sum of Northeastern University in Boston have shown that illegal aliens are increasing unemployment among our poorest citizens. They are also depressing wages, and what we're ending up with among the illegals themselves is the growth of an exploited, impoverished class that widens the gap between rich and poor.
> are matched by the taxes they pay.



Illegal Immigration Victims - The Working Poor - The Oregon Catalyst



> Who suffers most from the influx of illegal immigrants? Did you think it was the taxpayers? So did I, but we were wrong. It is the working poor. At least according to Harvard economist George Borjas who is recognized as one of the nations leading experts on the economic impact of illegal immigration.
> 
> ...In response Maricopa County (Phoenix and surrounding areas) retained Borjas, the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at
> Harvard University to undertake a study of the economic impact on the Arizona labor forces. Borjas did not include in his study the adverse impact of illegal immigrants on the welfare system, the public education system or the healthcare system in Arizona. He looked solely at the impact on employment.
> 
> Borjas found that the illegal immigrants had artificially enlarged the labor pool. When the supply is in excess of demand, the price for labor falls. Add to that that the illegals have little recourse for substandard wages (or working conditions) because any protest runs the risk of exposure and deportation. Borjas noted that in such instances the impact is greatest on those who make the least  entry level, unskilled workers. Borjas found that wages for entry level workers were, on average, 4.7% less than they would have been absent the illegal immigrants. In total that cost Arizona workers approximately $1.4 Billion in 2005. And here is an extra kicker, Borjas found that even this estimate is probably low because federal officials (census takers) routinely undercount the number of illegals and the number of illegals in entry level, unskilled jobs has a greater concentration than estimated by those same federal officials.
> 
> Borjas did not take into account the impact that illegals have on the migration of unskilled workers to skilled workers through on the job training. In other words because the illegals are already on site, they are given the opportunity to learn the skills necessary to advance in lieu of legal residents who are denied the entry level jobs because of the artificially suppressed wage levels. For instance, in the construction industry where the illegals may begin as go-fers they advance to framing carpenters and then to finish carpenters because they are present for the training. Each improvement in skill level brings a higher wage opportunity and meanwhile those here legally sit idly waiting for a turn.
> 
> You would think that organized labor and advocates for the poor would be first in line to protest this impact on Americas working poor. But these groups seem more interested in political power than personal opportunity and they see the illegal immigrant problem as an opportunity for votes rather than improvement in the conditions of the poor. Both sides of the aisle have equivocated on this issue in hopes of attracting a new voting block and meanwhile, as usual, the least able suffer the brunt of the politicians dalliance.


Use google.  Type in:  "illegal immigration hurts the poor."  You'll have more proof than you can swing a dead cat at.  It's been studied extensively.  As someone who has spent my career working with the urban poor, I am vehemently opposed to illegal immigration.  Our first responsibility is to our OWN poor people, not the world's.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> Hispanics Target of Incitement and Violence:
> Extremists Declare 'Open Season' on Immigrants: Hispanics Target of Incitement and Violence



So what... they're a bunch of school boys compared to this gang.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> I do.
> 
> Skinheads don't.  John Tanton started most anti-immigration groups.
> YouTube - Behind The Veil: America's Anti-Immigration Network



Wait for it...next, the comparison to hitler.  

And, calling people what they are is a hate crime.


----------



## sky dancer

Study who John Tanton is and get back to me.


----------



## catzmeow

Pale Rider said:


> So what... they're a bunch of school boys compared to this gang.



NO JOKE.  This is a link to an article from Michelle Malkin (we all know where she stands on immigration policy), but it is sourced and contains accurate information on a horrific school-yard slaying of young black kids in Newark, NJ by members of MS-13.  I'm friends with one of the detectives who worked on this case, and I'm amazed that Newark hasn't had race riots over it.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/13/newark-exection-murders-update-the-ms-13-connection/


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

It boggles my mind,  these mind games. Anyone that opposed illegal aliens is some lowbrow Neanderthal trailer trash scazwag loser. White Trash racist NAZI that deserve to be treated like crap . It is amazing to me,  this insular elitist ANGLO  intellectual  SH*T  double standard  some of you buy into. We are ALL Human beings and we all have the same needs. Illegal aliens made a choice to violate international laws. Now, that might make the dark EXPLOITIVE Hearts of all you rich jackasses glow, but hey, guess what? This isn't a political partisan thing. It isn't some intellectual abstraction, either. All they have to do is IMMIGRATE LEGALY. But, hey, lets just ignore or re-write the rules because it doesn't  fit. But, just as long as you rich ANGLOS don't have to live with the new class of neo-slaves, what do YOU  care? YOU  intellectualize and make excuses, isn't that right, Ms. popular, Sky?  What rules did the poor underclass break. sweety  and why are we less than some immigration cheats?  Do you really think the American underclass deserves to be forgotten ,written off or treated less? All  the homeless  people, all  those that  lose their jobs disserved that ? Illegal aliens are immune to fairness AND  DESERVE better? I can tell some of you live in cloud-coo coo land. Nice rationalizations, though. The magic eight ball sez: try again. We can tell were YOU are coming from, you elitist snob.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> Study who John Tanton is and get back to me.



I don't care who John Tanton is.  You're subscribing to a logical fallacy known as guilt by association.  John Tanton's identity id IRRELEVANT to the conversation we're having here.  No one participating in this discussion is a follower of Tanton, and none of the articles that people have posted (including me) sources an organization like FAIR whose partiality is well-documented.  People are ignoring you because you are trying to subvert actual discussion through the use of fallacious reasoning.  Want people to pay attention to you?  Try espousing an actual argument that makes rational sense.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> I do.
> 
> Skinheads don't.  John Tanton started most anti-immigration groups.
> YouTube - Behind The Veil: America's Anti-Immigration Network


I don't believe it. Because if you did, you'd have admitted long ago that the term ILLEGAL ALIEN is simply the best term to describe a person who has broken our laws and entered this country illegally.



Grismonda said:


> An immigrant "migrates"...  Legal or illegal is irrelevant to what the term discribes.


Wrong. An immigrant obeys the laws of the country to which they enter. Criminals sneak into a country, and that makes them an illegal alien.


----------



## catzmeow

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> It boggles my mind,  these mind games. Anyone that opposed illegal aliens is some lowbrow Neanderthal trailer trash scazwag loser. White Trash racist NAZI that deserve to be treated like crap . It is amazing to me,  this insular elitist ANGLO  intellectual  SH*T  double standard  some of you buy into. We are ALL Human beings and we all have the same needs. Illegal aliens made a choice to violate international laws. Now, that might make the dark EXPLOITIVE Hearts of all you rich jackasses glow, but hey, guess what? This isn't a political partisan thing. It isn't some intellectual abstraction, either. All they have to do is IMMIGRATE LEGALY. But, hey, lets just ignore or re-write the rules because it doesn't  fit. But, just as long as you rich ANGLOS don't have to live with the new class of neo-slaves, what do YOU  care? YOU  intellectualize and make excuses, isn't that right, Ms. popular, Sky?  What rules did the poor underclass break. sweety  and why are we less than some immigration cheats?  Do you really think the American underclass deserves to be forgotten ,written off or treated less? All  the homeless  people, all  those that  lose their jobs disserved that ? Illegal aliens are immune to fairness AND  DESERVE better? I can tell some of you live in cloud-coo coo land. Nice rationalizations, though. The magic eight ball sez: try again. We can tell were YOU are coming from, you elitist snob.



I suspect that your post will be similarly ignored since you represent what is incomprehensible to Sky...a person of color rebuking her for racism of the most arrogant sort.  She's towing the PC party line with no real understanding of the actual impact of illegal aliens on Chicanos.

The simple fact of the matter is that most poor Latinos are also the most contemptuous of illegal aliens because they have to deal with them the most often and the most directly.  Sky only has to deal with illegals when they mow her lawn.  It's all pie in the sky theory to her, not real life that she has any actual experience with.


----------



## sky dancer

John Tanton started and funds most of the anti-immigration groups that mainstream media cites for comments on immigration.

He is a white supremacist.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi,

I have to pack a suitcase and fly to Omaha today.  I'm off for the rest of the day.  But, I hope you will actually review the names of the Ph.D.s who have studied this issue, and that we can discuss this topic further.  It's something that I find very interesting and definitely a discussion worth having.

ciao, y'all.


----------



## sky dancer

catzmeow said:


> I suspect that your post will be similarly ignored since you represent what is incomprehensible to Sky...a person of color rebuking her for racism of the most arrogant sort.  She's towing the PC party line with no real understanding of the actual impact of illegal aliens on Chicanos.
> 
> The simple fact of the matter is that most poor Latinos are also the most contemptuous of illegal aliens because they have to deal with them the most often and the most directly.  Sky only has to deal with illegals when they mow her lawn.  It's all pie in the sky theory to her, not real life that she has any actual experience with.



I don't live in San Francisco.  I mow my own lawn.  Address the points in my post please.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> John Tanton started and funds most of the anti-immigration groups that mainstream media cites for comments on immigration.
> 
> He is a white supremacist.



So what does that have to do with anything? An illegal alien is still an illegal alien, and you've done nothing but spread psychobabble.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> I don't live in San Francisco.  I mow my own lawn.  Address the points in my post please.





catzmeow said:


> I don't care who John Tanton is.  You're subscribing to a logical fallacy known as guilt by association.  John Tanton's identity id IRRELEVANT to the conversation we're having here.  No one participating in this discussion is a follower of Tanton, and none of the articles that people have posted (including me) sources an organization like FAIR whose partiality is well-documented.  People are ignoring you because you are trying to subvert actual discussion through the use of fallacious reasoning.  Want people to pay attention to you?  Try espousing an actual argument that makes rational sense.



Try reading my responses, it would help you, A LOT.  This is what you did above:



> The following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."
> 
> The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.



Let's see if you can go an entire day without a logical fallacy.  That would be an awesome accomplishment for you.


----------



## sky dancer

Pale Rider said:


> So what does that have to do with anything? An illegal alien is still an illegal alien, and you've done nothing but spread psychobabble.



John Tanton is pivotal to the discussion on reactionary anti-immigration rhetoric.

He is the founder of the movement.


----------



## sky dancer

catzmeow said:


> Try reading my responses, it would help you, A LOT.  This is what you did above:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see if you can go an entire day without a logical fallacy.  That would be an awesome accomplishment for you.



Try posting without an insult for one day.  That would be an awesome accomplishment for you.  I know you can do it.


----------



## Grismonda

sky dancer said:


> Try posting without an insult for one day.  That would be an awesome accomplishment for you.  I know you can do it.



Originally Posted by catzmeow View Post
_Let's see if you can go an entire day without a logical fallacy. _

Pray tell, what is a logical fallacy?  The use of the term,  illegal alien?


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Sky dancer has every right to tell me what a idiot racist moron I am. It's her deluded right  and I defend it. But, She can't defend illegal aliens. Well  she can try. She has done a bang-up job, Kudos. Why she does this,  damned if I know. Plenty of poor Americans that deserve better. I am one of them but, hey, she is an intellectual and that seems to trump real experience, right,  lassie? Tell me it's GOOD FOR ECONOMY? Why   is the economy tanking now? Who can say what is good for the ECONOMY or AMERICA? Not you pseudo-intellectuals. Not anymore.You don't know what it is all about.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> Lax immigration hurts the poor - The Boston Globe
> 
> 
> http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060518/OPINION/605170334/1014
> 
> 
> Illegal Immigration Victims - The Working Poor - The Oregon Catalyst
> 
> 
> Use google.  Type in:  "illegal immigration hurts the poor."  You'll have more proof than you can swing a dead cat at.  It's been studied extensively.  As someone who has spent my career working with the urban poor, I am vehemently opposed to illegal immigration.  Our first responsibility is to our OWN poor people, not the world's.


You've given me op ed pieces. Sure, it sounds logical. But high school drop outs losing jobs to the immigrants is the fault of the drop outs on one hand (for dropping out), and the companies that hire people for below minimum wage on the other hand. Demonizing hispanics does nothing to solve the problem of lack of education and unscrupulous employers.


----------



## Zoom-boing

sky dancer said:


> Do you know the difference between a noun and an adjective?



Do you?

Illegal: adjective 

1. forbidden by law or statute. 
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: 

Alien noun 

1. a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen ). 
2. a foreigner. 
3. a person who has been estranged or excluded. 

Alien adjective 

5. residing under a government or in a country other than that of one's birth without having or obtaining the status of citizenship there. 

Alien can be a noun or an adjective.  When used with the adjective illegal, it is a noun.  Hence,* illegal alien*.  Get over the whole grammar thing.  



> Do you understand that 40% of the undocumented immigrants are people who entered the US legally?



That makes 60% of *illegal aliens *entering the US . . .um, what's the word?  Oh yeah, *illegally*. 


> The OP is about a decision made by an Arizona Supreme Court Justice.



The judge is WRONG.    

In a previous post you wrote ". They have violated immigration law. They ought to have a hearing and then be deported."

If you believe this then why are you ok with a judge changing the term 'illegal alien' to 'undocumented immigrant?', as this will make it even harder to find and deport *illegal aliens*?


----------



## sky dancer

Grismonda said:


> Originally Posted by catzmeow View Post
> _Let's see if you can go an entire day without a logical fallacy. _
> 
> Pray tell, what is a logical fallacy?  The use of the term,  illegal alien?



There are many kinds of logical fallacies.  What usually happens is the person making the claim that another person's statement is a logical fallacy engages in logical fallacies as well.

Here's a resource on logical fallacies:
Fallacies

Here is an example of a logical fallacy that used in one of her posts and I quote catzmew--

"The simple fact of the matter is that *most poor Latinos *are also the most contemptuous of illegal aliens because they have to deal with them the most often and the most directly."


It is an example of the logical fallacy called generalization, assumption or stereotype.


----------



## Grismonda

sky dancer said:


> Try posting without an insult for one day.  That would be an awesome accomplishment for you.  I know you can do it.





Zoom-boing said:


> Do you?
> 
> Illegal: adjective
> 
> 1. forbidden by law or statute.
> 2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.:
> 
> Alien noun
> 
> 1. a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen ).
> 2. a foreigner.
> 3. a person who has been estranged or excluded.
> 
> Alien adjective
> 
> 5. residing under a government or in a country other than that of one's birth without having or obtaining the status of citizenship there.
> 
> Alien can be a noun or an adjective.  When used with the adjective illegal, it is a noun.  Hence,* illegal alien*.  Get over the whole grammar thing.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes 60% of *illegal aliens *entering the US . . .um, what's the word?  Oh yeah, *illegally*.
> 
> 
> The judge is WRONG.
> 
> In a previous post you wrote ". They have violated immigration law. They ought to have a hearing and then be deported."
> 
> If you believe this then why are you ok with a judge changing the term 'illegal alien' to 'undocumented immigrant?', as this will make it even harder to find and deport *illegal aliens*?



There are those on this board that do not seem to know the "function" of an adjective and a noun.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> John Tanton is pivotal to the discussion on reactionary anti-immigration rhetoric.
> 
> He is the founder of the movement.



There is nothing reactionary about the term illegal alien. It's nothing more than the purest term to use to describe a person who has entered this country illegally, and is not a native.

The only thing reactionary in this whole thread is you trying to use every possible form of spin and obfiscation to clowd the issue. You are an illegal alien supporter. We get it. You don't care about the poor people of this country that were born here, or legally migrated, you only care about those who snuck in here and broke our laws. How your priorities got so fucked up is hard to tell, but they are FUCKED UP!

Here is a prime example. You invite a relative over for dinner and they tell you they've fallen on hard times, but your response is tough shit, get the hell out of my house. In contrast an illegal alien breaks into your house, eats your food, steals your money, fucks your spouse and kids, and then demands you give them more because they're not going to leave, to which you reply yes, is there anything else I can do for you?

Yeah, you're fuck up.


----------



## Zoom-boing

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Why she does this,  damned if I know.



Perhaps she is an *illegal alien *herself and her self-esteem is in the tank due to being called, ya know, an *illegal alien*.


----------



## Grismonda

sky dancer said:


> There are many kinds of logical fallacies.  What usually happens is the person making the claim that another person's statement is a logical fallacy engages in logical fallacies as well.
> 
> Here's a resource on logical fallacies:
> Fallacies
> 
> Here is an example of a logical fallacy that used in one of her posts and I quote catzmew--
> 
> "The simple fact of the matter is that *most poor Latinos *are also the most contemptuous of illegal aliens because they have to deal with them the most often and the most directly."
> 
> 
> It is an example of the logical fallacy called generalization, assumption or stereotype.



Thank you!


----------



## sky dancer

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Sky dancer has every right to tell me what a idiot racist moron I am. It's her deluded right  and I defend it. But, She can't defend illegal aliens. Well  she can try. She has done a bang-up job, Kudos. Why she does this,  damned if I know. Plenty of poor Americans that deserve better. I am one of them but, hey, she is an intellectual and that seems to trump real experience, right,  lassie? Tell me it's GOOD FOR ECONOMY? Why   is the economy tanking now? Who can say what is good for the ECONOMY or AMERICA? Not you pseudo-intellectuals. Not anymore.You don't know what it is all about.



I won't call you an idiot, a racist _or _a moron.      

I'm not defending people who break the law.  I am saying that they are human, and I understand the economic and political causes and conditions that lead to people enter the US illegally.  

I happen to agree with the Arizona Supreme Court Justice's decision to be more mindful of terminology that can express judicial bias.
I support the stopthehate campaign sponsored by the Ntional Council of La Raza.  I support the Hispanic Journalists request for mainstream meadia to use less inflammatory terms about Latinos and Hispanics in their news stories.


----------



## sky dancer

Pale Rider said:


> *There is nothing reactionary about the term illegal alien.* It's nothing more than the purest term to use to describe a person who has entered this country illegally, and is not a native.
> 
> 
> ~Snipped for inflammatory rhetoric language~
> .



Hispanic Journalists see it differently.  The National Council of La Raza--a civil rights group for Latinos sees it differently.  The Hispanic Lawyers in Arizona and the Supreme Court Justice in Arizona sees it differently.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League
see it differently.

I see it differently than you.  I think it's a small thing to do to change the terminology and I have no problem with calling these folks undocumented immigrants, or illegal immigrants.

I don't call them 'illegals' and I don't call them 'aliens' either.

I won't call their children 'anchor babies' or refer to undcoumented immigrants or illegal immigrants 'wetbacks', 'cockroaches', 'invaders', 'criminals' or 'diseased', or 'hordes' or 'swarms'.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Grismonda said:


> There are those on this board that do not seem to know the "function" of an adjective and a noun.




Yes it's a shame you don't have a grasp on it.  Here maybe this will help.

Adjectives are used to describe the noun. 

Illegal - adjective
Alien - noun

*Illegal alien*

What kind of alien?  A _green_ alien?  No.  An *ILLEGAL alien*.  

Get it?

Good, now get over it.


----------



## Grismonda

Zoom-boing said:


> Yes it's a shame you don't have a grasp on it.  Here maybe this will help.
> 
> Adjectives are used to describe the noun.
> 
> Illegal - adjective
> Alien - noun
> 
> *Illegal alien*
> 
> What kind of alien?  A _green_ alien?  No.  An *ILLEGAL alien*.
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Good, now get over it.



Adjective: modifer

Noun: Name, of a person, object, place, quality, thing or action.  It's can function as subject or  object of a verb.

"illegal" by the proper definition is an adjective.


----------



## sky dancer

Zoom-boing said:


> Yes it's a shame you don't have a grasp on it.  Here maybe this will help.
> 
> Adjectives are used to describe the noun.
> 
> Illegal - adjective
> Alien - noun
> 
> *Illegal alien*
> 
> What kind of alien?  A _green_ alien?  No.  An *ILLEGAL alien*.
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Good, now get over it.



Nice to see that you used the term 'illegal' as an adjective.  You didn't use it as a noun.  Good for you.

You did not call these folks 'illegals'.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Demonizing isn't the point, Anglo  or Hispanics. Funny though, how some of you aquaint anti-illegal immigants with ...racism . Funny that these same people can't immigrate legally, funny how pretending we are  EVIL  for noticing they  IGNORE immigration laws. Funny how that works. We are racist because we noticed.... they ignore international laws, or any other laws like, rape, murder, trespassing, fire arms possession   , YOU name it, they IGNORE IT....Hmm makes ya wonder  what they are about. What do ya think, SKY? That seem fair to ya intellectually? They can ignore ANY LAW? HMMM? Tell me. Got anymore fancy- ass excuses for that crap?


----------



## sky dancer

I did not call you or anyone else racist--silver.

I pointed out the truth--that John Tanton, a nativist responsible for starting many anti-immigration groups--including many that are mainstream--is racist.

This is not disclosed on mainstream media and it should be.  People ought to know when they send money to these groups who is behind them.

I think immigration law needs to change.  All immigrants who come here illegally are not the same.  Some come do to economic necessity and the promise of work and a better life.

Some illegal immigrants--aka undocumented immigrants *are* criminal--drug smugglers--human traffickers.

Demonizing is thinking that all who have entered the US illegally are the same--criminals.  I don't agree.  

Similarly, I don't think they're all here for economic survival reasons either.  There is a serious problem at our borders.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> I did not call you or anyone else racist--silver.
> 
> I pointed out the truth--that John Tanton, a nativist responsible for starting many anti-immigration groups--including many that are mainstream--is racist.
> 
> This is not disclosed on mainstream media and it should be.  People ought to know when they send money to these groups who is behind them.
> 
> I think immigration law needs to change.  All immigrants who come here illegally are not the same.  Some come do to economic necessity and the promise of work and a better life.
> 
> Some illegal immigrants--aka undocumented immigrants *are* criminal--drug smugglers--human traffickers.
> 
> Demonizing is thinking that all who have entered the US illegally are the same--criminals.  I don't agree.
> 
> Similarly, I don't think they're all here for economic survival reasons either.  There is a serious problem at our borders.



Yes we do---we have an entire country that won't take care of it's own people and encourages them to break American laws and get out.


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> Yes we do---we have an *entire country *that won't take care of it's own people and encourages them to break American laws and get out.



I disagree with your statement because it is an overgeneralization.  The _'entire country_' does not encourage law breaking or an unwillingness to take care of our citizens.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> I disagree with your statement because it is an overgeneralization.  The _'entire country_' does not encourage law breaking or an unwillingness to take care of our citizens.



ok ok --just the leaders and the government.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

I don't know or care about John Tanton is. So, every nation has it's version of NATIVISM, even...MEXICO. Give it a break already. I know you won't. Neither will I. Of course, HITLER invaded Poland, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Illegal aliens are being a little more subtle. A little less violent. But they are still invading using massive numbers. A passive-aggressive version of  BLITZKREIG without tanks. Zeig Heil, la raza. La RAZA ubber alles? Isn't that a little... FACIST or something?


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Don't tell me you pro illegal folks bailed already, I had so much respect for you people, What would you say if we said : UP WITH THE RACE?  Well ,  what if we said  VIVA LA RAZA? Then what would you say? It's racist? I would agree  totally. I think rational HUMANS or all ilk's would agree. Either  immigrate  legally or   shut your big fat smart shallow minded MOUTH. Please.


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> ok ok --just the leaders and the government.



Nice try.  It's just another version of a broad sweeping generalization.


----------



## eots

sky dancer said:


> Nice try.  It's just another version of a broad sweeping generalization.



ya its like saying china violates human rights in Tibet...or  china's governmet does....right ?


----------



## sky dancer

eots said:


> ya its like saying china violates human rights in Tibet...or  china's governmet does....right ?




No.   Generalizations work like this "All conservatives are idiots".  It can't be qualified.

That's different than saying China violates human rights, and then providing some evidence of the assertion.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

NOBODY needs to demonize those poor wankers that sneak in here, they do a damned good job of that themselves.  But,  we digress. The issue was:  ILLEGAL ALIENS aren't real, or we made them up or some such bullpucky.  All we have to do is click our  ruby slippers together , and say we aren't in Kansas any more, toto.   We can banish words,  words like "illegal aliens". After all, if that word didn't exist, the whole issue would just go away, like clicking those little slippers together. Damn I wish I could outlaw paying bills or getting old or getting sick. But, hells bells, life doesn't EVER work that way, ever... but illegal aliens are just as real and they aren't just gonna go away cause' ya don't like ....a word. NOPE.


----------



## Grismonda

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> NOBODY needs to demonize those poor wankers that sneak in here, they do a damned good job of that themselves.  But,  we digress. The issue was:  ILLEGAL ALIENS aren't real, or we made them up or some such bullpucky.  All we have to do is click our  ruby slippers together , and say we aren't in Kansas any more, toto.   We can banish words,  words like "illegal aliens". After all, if that word didn't exist, the whole issue would just go away, like clicking those little slippers together. Damn I wish I could outlaw paying bills or getting old or getting sick. But, hells bells, life doesn't EVER work that way, ever... but illegal aliens are just as real and they aren't just gonna go away cause' ya don't like ....a word. NOPE.



The immigration picture varies from state to state. Last year, a large immigration bust occurred at a factory in Mass. The owners of the factory were home within hours of their arrest and have resumed their normal lives. When they are finally prosecuted, if convicted, they will face fines, not jail time, fines they can well afford. Life for the more than 100 workers who were also arrested did not go back to normal. Many of them had infants and children who were suddenly left without mothers. Yes, these people are responsible for their children but some thought must be given to what happens when a parent isn't allowed to go pick the kid up from daycare. Hundreds of children were left in the lurch because our government made no plans for what to do with them when the mothers were arrested. Several babies, American citizens, ended up in hospitals because they were being breast-fed and suffered dehydration when forcibly weaned. Dozens of these women were flown to Texas and Mexico within hours of the arrest before being allowed to speak with state social workers about their children or to attorneys. Many of them were actually here legally. At least 3 of them were actually U.S. citizens! As I said dozens were sent to Mexico - problem is, few of them were from Mexico. Mass. doesn't have many Mexicans, the state is just too far away. That raid was totally botched - and the real criminals, the men who hired those *illegals* are getting away almost scott-free. That's just wrong.

There needs to be an assessment done of all our immigration laws. What does our country need? What kind of workers are needed in our various industries? Skilled workers? Where are these people? As I said, the *illegals* in many states are not from Mexico. They hail from India, China, the Dominican, Poland, and Ireland - and they often have some post high school education. Are the legal immigration rules too strict for our needs? Where can the quotas be relaxed? Where should the be tightened? And building a fence along the Mexican border is not going to keep out those who are coming into my state illegally by way of Canada. As for those who hire illegals, doing so is in itself illegal. Our government does not do a good enough job to enforce the laws we have in place now. It should do so.

This is my stand on immigration folks.  BUT, I will not tolerate hate directed at any one group of people!


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> Hispanic Journalists see it differently.  The National Council of La Raza--a civil rights group for Latinos sees it differently.  The Hispanic Lawyers in Arizona and the Supreme Court Justice in Arizona sees it differently.
> 
> The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League
> see it differently.
> 
> I see it differently than you.  I think it's a small thing to do to change the terminology and I have no problem with calling these folks undocumented immigrants, or illegal immigrants.


La Raza? The National Council of La Raza? Are you serious? Do you hear yourself? La Raza, "the race," the same ones that belong to MEChA, and believe in Aztlan, you mean that La Raza? The same ones that believe in reconquista, to repatriate eight or nine states back to Mexico and abolish the southern border. The very same ones that openly spew hate and contempt for America. You have just shown me what kind of HATE you must have for America by supporting groups like this FILTH La Raza, a.k.a., MEChA. You have identified yourself as an ENEMY to the soveriegnty of America. Here are your hero's...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc1XAQc8hS8[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQxy-q2rDpI[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajkAP_M4ZAM[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTwO457C8bQ[/ame]





sky dancer said:


> I don't call them 'illegals' and I don't call them 'aliens' either.


I understand. You hate America and are part of the problem.



sky dancer said:


> I won't call their children 'anchor babies' or refer to undcoumented immigrants or illegal immigrants 'wetbacks', 'cockroaches', 'invaders', 'criminals' or 'diseased', or 'hordes' or 'swarms'.


I call 'em like I see 'em, and if you enter this country illegally, and weren't born here, YOU are an ILLEGAL ALIEN.


----------



## Zoom-boing

sky dancer said:


> Nice to see that you used the term 'illegal' as an adjective.  You didn't use it as a noun.  Good for you.
> 
> You did not call these folks *'illegals'*.




Illegals is slang for *illegal alien*.  Get over it.


I've asked you this three times yet you haven't given an answer.

In a previous post you wrote. "They (*illegal aliens*) have violated immigration law. They ought to have a hearing and then be deported."

If you believe this then why are you ok with a judge changing the term '*illegal alien' *to 'undocumented immigrant?', as this will make it even harder to find and deport *illegal aliens*?  Don't hand me some nonsense that it won't; you can't be so blind that you don't see this is what will happen.  It's the whole point of changing what they are called.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Grismonda said:


> The immigration picture varies from state to state. Last year, a large immigration bust occurred at a factory in Mass. The owners of the factory were home within hours of their arrest and have resumed their normal lives. When they are finally prosecuted, if convicted, they will face fines, not jail time, fines they can well afford. Life for the more than 100 workers who were also arrested did not go back to normal. Many of them had infants and children who were suddenly left without mothers. Yes, these people are responsible for their children but some thought must be given to what happens when a parent isn't allowed to go pick the kid up from daycare. Hundreds of children were left in the lurch because our government made no plans for what to do with them when the mothers were arrested. Several babies, American citizens, ended up in hospitals because they were being breast-fed and suffered dehydration when forcibly weaned. Dozens of these women were flown to Texas and Mexico within hours of the arrest before being allowed to speak with state social workers about their children or to attorneys. *Many of them *were actually here legally. At least 3 of them were actually U.S. citizens! As I said dozens were sent to Mexico - problem is, few of them were from Mexico. *Mass. doesn't have many Mexicans, the state is just too far away*. That raid was totally botched - and the real criminals, the men who hired those *illegals* are getting away almost scott-free. That's just wrong.



Many of them were legal but there were some that were illegal.  One bad apple spoils the whole bunch.  Those that were legal should be outraged at the illegals that caused this mess to begin with.  The people who hired the illegal aliens should face jail time, not some namby-pamby fine.

Not many illegal aliens in Mass.?  How'd you come to that conclusion?  I live in PA and believe me they have worked their way all over the place.  You're delusional if you think otherwise.




> There needs to be an assessment done of all our immigration laws. What does our country need? What kind of workers are needed in our various industries? Skilled workers? Where are these people? As I said, the *illegals* in many states are not from Mexico. They hail from India, China, the Dominican, Poland, and Ireland - and they often have some post high school education.



It doesn't matter where illegal aliens come from.  If they are here illegally they should be booted out of the country.  Period.  If they have kids that were born here but are under 18 they either take the kids with them unless they have legal family here to take care of them. 



> And building a fence along the Mexican border is not going to keep out those who are coming into my state illegally by way of Canada.



yeah, the influx of Canadians is the problem here. 



> As for those who hire illegals, doing so is in itself illegal. Our government does not do a good enough job to enforce the laws we have in place now. It should do so.



Agreed.  People who hire *illegal aliens *should be doing serious jail time.  Maybe they'd think twice about hiring illegals if they knew there were real consequences for their crime.


----------



## Ravi

It turns out that the information in the OP wasn't true. There is no ban on the words in question in Arizona courts.

Not that anyone will pay any attention to the actual facts.


----------



## Againsheila

Grismonda said:


> The immigration picture varies from state to state. Last year, a large immigration bust occurred at a factory in Mass. The owners of the factory were home within hours of their arrest and have resumed their normal lives. When they are finally prosecuted, if convicted, they will face fines, not jail time, fines they can well afford. Life for the more than 100 workers who were also arrested did not go back to normal. Many of them had infants and children who were suddenly left without mothers. Yes, these people are responsible for their children but some thought must be given to what happens when a parent isn't allowed to go pick the kid up from daycare. Hundreds of children were left in the lurch because our government made no plans for what to do with them when the mothers were arrested. Several babies, American citizens, ended up in hospitals because they were being breast-fed and suffered dehydration when forcibly weaned. Dozens of these women were flown to Texas and Mexico within hours of the arrest before being allowed to speak with state social workers about their children or to attorneys. Many of them were actually here legally. At least 3 of them were actually U.S. citizens! As I said dozens were sent to Mexico - problem is, few of them were from Mexico. Mass. doesn't have many Mexicans, the state is just too far away. That raid was totally botched - and the real criminals, the men who hired those *illegals* are getting away almost scott-free. That's just wrong.
> 
> There needs to be an assessment done of all our immigration laws. What does our country need? What kind of workers are needed in our various industries? Skilled workers? Where are these people? As I said, the *illegals* in many states are not from Mexico. They hail from India, China, the Dominican, Poland, and Ireland - and they often have some post high school education. Are the legal immigration rules too strict for our needs? Where can the quotas be relaxed? Where should the be tightened? And building a fence along the Mexican border is not going to keep out those who are coming into my state illegally by way of Canada. As for those who hire illegals, doing so is in itself illegal. Our government does not do a good enough job to enforce the laws we have in place now. It should do so.
> 
> This is my stand on immigration folks.  BUT, I will not tolerate hate directed at any one group of people!



1)  I disagree that those children are Americans.  I have a hard time believing that an amendment that specifically denies citizenship to children born here to legal diplomats was ever intended to grant citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.

2)  The people running the factory should be in jail.  Heck, they should lose their business and never be able to run another one in this country.  

3)  The parents and ONLY the parents are responsible for putting their kids in this situation.  IMO, anyone that brings their child along while they are committing a crime should have to do at least double the maximum sentence.  Illegal aliens who have children here are putting their kids at risk.  They KNOW they could get caught and shipped home.  IMO that makes them TERRIBLE parents.  They should lose custody and those kids should be given up for adoption into loving American homes.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> You've given me op ed pieces. Sure, it sounds logical. But high school drop outs losing jobs to the immigrants is the fault of the drop outs on one hand (for dropping out), and the companies that hire people for below minimum wage on the other hand. Demonizing hispanics does nothing to solve the problem of lack of education and unscrupulous employers.



Each of those op ed pieces quotes a legitimate study from a major university.  Or, are only the op ed pieces that YOU post legitimate as evidence?


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> Do you know the difference between a noun and an adjective?  Do you understand that 40% of the undocumented immigrants are people who entered the US legally?
> 
> The OP is about a decision made by an Arizona Supreme Court Justice.  I also included an appeal made by Hispanic Journalist requesting that media adjust the terminology--this is a separate but related appeal to the OP.



Well, we're all just very impressed that they came here legally, and THEN broke the law by staying past the time they were supposed to leave.  THAT makes it all better.

"I used to be law-abiding, but then I got over it.  That's SOOOO yesterday."


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grismonda said:


> AND...more "felon" Americans reside in Bullhead City, Arizona than any city in the USA.  "Felon" Americans?  How is that for an adjective...or better yet,  Felon Arizonians.  Or use it as a noun...Felons, when just referring to Arizonians...see how that works?    I guess being an Arizonian yourself, you have stake in their cause...



I have no idea what you're babbling about.  On the other hand, I'm pretty sure you don't, either.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> John Tanton is pivotal to the discussion on reactionary anti-immigration rhetoric.
> 
> He is the founder of the movement.



What I'm hearing is, "John Tanton is pivotal to what I want to talk about, so I'm going to force him to be the topic and set him up as the straw man all my opponents have to be responsible for so that I can have the conversation I WANT, instead of the one created by free interchange of thoughts and ideas."

In other words, you don't get to argue against John Tanton until 1) someone else brings him up, or 2) he shows up to debate you in person.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Grismonda said:


> Adjective: modifer
> 
> Noun: Name, of a person, object, place, quality, thing or action.  It's can function as subject or  object of a verb.
> 
> "illegal" by the proper definition is an adjective.



"The proper definition" apparently meaning "the definition I want to accept, because I'm pissed off that the dictionary has the nerve to list a definition I don't like."

Thanks for sharing, Noah Webster, but I'm still going with the dictionary over your opinion, and the dictionary says that "illegal" is also a noun.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> Nice try.  It's just another version of a broad sweeping generalization.



Actually, it's the truth.  The policy of the Mexican government is to turn a blind eye to Mexicans crossing our border illegally, thereby tacitly giving governmental approval to the practice.

You would know that if you weren't pontificating from a safe distance.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Zoom-boing said:


> Illegals is slang for *illegal alien*.  Get over it.
> 
> 
> I've asked you this three times yet you haven't given an answer.
> 
> In a previous post you wrote. "They (*illegal aliens*) have violated immigration law. They ought to have a hearing and then be deported."
> 
> If you believe this then why are you ok with a judge changing the term '*illegal alien' *to 'undocumented immigrant?', as this will make it even harder to find and deport *illegal aliens*?  Don't hand me some nonsense that it won't; you can't be so blind that you don't see this is what will happen.  It's the whole point of changing what they are called.



Actually, the ones who show up before the Arizona Supreme Court probably aren't going anywhere for the time being, because they're usually there because they've been charged with some OTHER crime.  The justice in question doesn't want the poor dears made to look like they're bad people because they're illegal, because it might make it more likely that they're viewed as guilty of the OTHER crime, as well.

It's kind of like having a guy on trial for rape, and not being able to mention that he has a criminal history of burglary, as well.


----------



## 007

Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, it's the truth.  The policy of the Mexican government is to turn a blind eye to Mexicans crossing our border illegally, thereby tacitly giving governmental approval to the practice.
> 
> You would know that if you weren't pontificating from a safe distance.



Oh it's worse than just turning a blind eye. Mexico has been and continues to support and encourage illegal immigration.

Wake up America: Mexican President Encourages Illegal Immigration in to the U.S by "blasting" the U.S. for Deporting Illegal Aliens

Mexico Encourages Illegal Immigration

FAIR: Mexico's Defense of Illegal Immigrants


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pale Rider said:


> Oh it's worse than just turning a blind eye. Mexico has been and continues to support and encourage illegal immigration.
> 
> Wake up America: Mexican President Encourages Illegal Immigration in to the U.S by "blasting" the U.S. for Deporting Illegal Aliens
> 
> Mexico Encourages Illegal Immigration
> 
> FAIR: Mexico's Defense of Illegal Immigrants



True.  I believe they've also tried to sue Arizona ranchers who've shot illegals they found on their property.


----------



## Againsheila

Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, it's the truth.  The policy of the Mexican government is to turn a blind eye to Mexicans crossing our border illegally, thereby tacitly giving governmental approval to the practice.
> 
> You would know that if you weren't pontificating from a safe distance.



What blind eye?  They printed up comic books telling their people how to do it.  I'd say they are outright encouraging their poor to come here.  Beats the heck out of dealing with them themselves.  And now that our economy is so bad, the people of Mexico are complaining about all the ones coming home taking their jobs and lowering THEIR wages.

Funny how they claimed they didn't lower OUR wages or take OUR jobs, but when they go home they are taking jobs away from Mexican and lowering Mexican wages.


----------



## Againsheila

Cecilie1200 said:


> True.  I believe they've also tried to sue Arizona ranchers who've shot illegals they found on their property.



They succeeded in one instance and the judge actually gave the ranch to the illegal aliens.

I cannot beleive how corrupt our system is.  When I lived in Mexico, 30 years ago, I knew their government was corrupt, heck it was overt.  5 minutes across the border, the cops pulled over our bus for a bribe.

Now I'm thinking it's just as bad here, perhaps worse because we Americans aren't expecting it.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Just found this from a local Arizona News outlet:        [                                           Chief Justice accused of banning words
by Melissa Gonzalo - Nov. 11, 2008 03:23 PM
12 News 
A national public interest group accused the Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice of banning certain words in the courts. Judicial Watch claims Ruth McGregor gave in to the Hispanic Bar Association of Arizona's request to avoid using certain immigration-related terms in any documents or proceedings. But Justice McGregor denies she banned any words from Arizona courts and is concerned Judicial Watch is making these claims. Her spokeswoman, Cari Gerchick, said the Arizona Supreme Court is not in the business of banning words, and such accusations are damaging to the court system in general. Judicial Watch recently posted on its website that Justice McGregor banned the use of words, such as illegal and aliens from the courts. "We did not ban any language within the court system," said Gerchick. The Hispanic bar association of Arizona wrote a letter to Justice McGregor asking her to strongly encourage Arizona judges and court employees to avoid using words, such as illegals and illegal aliens, recommending they use undocumented immigrants or foreign nationals instead. McGregor responded in a letter that she had taken several steps to notify the judges of the group's concerns. "The court distributed that letter throughout the rest of the court system as we typically do in policy issues," said Gerchick. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a telephone interview that "it's deeply disconcerting that such a letter would be given any consideration at all." Fitton said the fact that Justice McGregor distributed the letter to judges shows she endorsed the ban. 
But the Supreme Court said that's not the case at all. "We don't know how that mistake got started, or why it's been perpetuated, but under no circumstances have any words been banned from the Arizona court system," said Gerchick. 
Gerchick said it's up to each judge to follow a code of judicial ethics and treat everyone in their courtroom with respect. She said words can be banned from courts only in particular cases.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

So after reading that...It sort of makes me wonder, Why didn't her honor, Justice McGregor either  tear up that letter from the Hispanic Bar Assn., or come out and outright BAN the word instead of this Nixonesqe   plausible-denial tactic? This doesn't settle anything. It does seem to imply she tacitly endorses removal of those words from the court. But, hey she can't LEGALLY ban the words because they are factually descriptive. So it goes....To paraphrase Shakespeare : Crap by any other name stinks just as much. Call them what ever you want.


----------



## sky dancer

Having fun?


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

You?


----------



## sky dancer

You betcha.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Good.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> Having fun?



You look like you're having fun too. You look as though you dropped a four way hit of Windowpane LSD about an hour before your avatar picture was taken. That would explain a lot about your orbital opinions.

Fifteen pages, and not one legitimate reason not to call an illegal alien an illegal alien.


----------



## sky dancer

Pale Rider said:


> You look like you're having fun too. You look as though you dropped a four way hit of Windowpane LSD about an hour before your avatar picture was taken. That would explain a lot about your orbital opinions.
> 
> Fifteen pages, and not one legitimate reason not to call an illegal alien an illegal alien.



The avatar is a picture of one of my favorite actresses--Cbarlotte Rampling.  She looks like her heart is open and her mind peaceful.

Fifteen pages of your rants hasn't convinced me that using inflammatory terms helps a respectful intelligent debate about immigration topics.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> So after reading that...It sort of makes me wonder, Why didn't her honor, Justice McGregor either  tear up that letter from the Hispanic Bar Assn., or come out and outright BAN the word instead of this Nixonesqe   plausible-denial tactic? This doesn't settle anything. It does seem to imply she tacitly endorses removal of those words from the court. But, hey she can't LEGALLY ban the words because they are factually descriptive. So it goes....To paraphrase Shakespeare : Crap by any other name stinks just as much. Call them what ever you want.



Actually, what she can't do is ban the use of those words in OTHER JUDGES' COURTS.  In the Arizona Supreme Court, she certainly does have the ability to keep attorneys from using them, and that's the little mental reservation they're not telling you here.  By circulating that information, she has essentially told any lawyer trying a case before the Arizona Supreme Court that he's in trouble if he doesn't conform to her standards of appropriate speech.


----------



## sky dancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, what she can't do is ban the use of those words in OTHER JUDGES' COURTS.  In the Arizona Supreme Court, she certainly does have the ability to keep attorneys from using them, and that's the little mental reservation they're not telling you here.  By circulating that information, she has essentially told any lawyer trying a case before the Arizona Supreme Court that he's in trouble if he doesn't conform to her standards of appropriate speech.



Good for this Justice.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> Good for this Justice.



Yes, banning words is always a productive enterprise.


----------



## sky dancer

The link in a previous post provides a list of words that the lawyers have requested be used.


----------



## sky dancer

Taken directly from the letter dated 9/12/2008 to Chief Justic Ruth Mc Gregor from the Hispanic Bar Association is the following:

"There is no place in today's immigration debate for the use of the term 'illegal' to describe a _person._  Nobody uses the term 'illegals' to describe other people who are carrying on their lives with impunity after violating the law.  Persons who fail to register for Selective Service, who do not pay their taxes, who do not have a current driver's license while driving or who violate their probation are not labeled as 'illegals'.  Putting this in perspective, even a convicted murderer is never referred to as an 'illegal' because of that conviction.

Those who use the terms as an instrument of hate know that it insults and incenses those who oppose their views.  They know it perpetrates an 'us vs them' mentality and works their supporters into a frenzy.  The word 'illegals' is used with great calculation and a wink and a nod by their proponents.  The more the term is widely used, the easier it becomes for the proponents of hate to push forward their divisive agenda."

Use the *click here *to find this letter
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008/nov/judge-ban-use-illegal-and-aliens


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> The link in a previous post provides a list of words that the lawyers have requested be used.



Then I would suggest they use them and stop trying to censor other people.

It amazes me how much leftists love to march around in t-shirts with self-righteous slogans about the evils of censorship, all the while busily trying to play Thought Police.

I'm curious about something.  Realizing, of course, that you would never sully yourself by actually getting anywhere near the actual border or any actual Mexicans, do you really think that this is going to make Arizonans - aka those of us who have to deal with the reality of illegal aliens - LESS antagonistic toward these invading locusts in human form?


----------



## sky dancer

Do you think referring to large numbers of human beings as 'invading locusts' is going to win friends and influence people?


----------



## Murf76

OMG... what I wouldn't give to be an attorney in that nutbag's courtroom. 
Just THINK of the opportunities for creative mayhem.... {Sigh}

I hope those guy's down in AZ make the most of it while they can. 
 It won't last long, 'cause she'll get rolled once she gets challenged.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Taken directly from the letter dated 9/12/2008 to Chief Justic Ruth Mc Gregor from the Hispanic Bar Association is the following:
> 
> "There is no place in today's immigration debate for the use of the term 'illegal' to describe a _person._  Nobody uses the term 'illegals' to describe other people who are carrying on their lives with impunity after violating the law.  Persons who fail to register for Selective Service, who do not pay their taxes, who do not have a current driver's license while driving or who violate their probation are not labeled as 'illegals'.  Putting this in perspective, even a convicted murderer is never referred to as an 'illegal' because of that conviction.
> 
> Those who use the terms as an instrument of hate know that it insults and incenses those who oppose their views.  They know it perpetrates an 'us vs them' mentality and works their supporters into a frenzy.  The word 'illegals' is used with great calculation and a wink and a nod by their proponents.  The more the term is widely used, the easier it becomes for the proponents of hate to push forward their divisive agenda."
> 
> Use the *click here *to find this letter
> Judge Bans Use Of âIllegalâ and âAliensâ | Judicial Watch



People who don't pay their taxes go to jail, they are called criminals.  Someone who doesn't register for the draft can go to jail, they are called draft dodgers.  The word "illegals" is short for "illegal alien", illegal alien is what they are called by law.  Murderers are called murders.  Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a burglar an uninvited houseguest.

You want us to call them immigrants which is an insult to every legal immigrant in this nation.  Why are you more concerned about insulting someone who breaks our laws than you are about someone who has followed our laws regardless of the difficulty, who's had their background check, their health check, who paid their fees, waited (some for years), people who found sponsors, etc?

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get into this country legally?  And you want to give them a slap in the face by calling someone who broke our laws to get here the same word as them "immigrant".


----------



## sky dancer

Yes.  I have an idea of how difficult it is to emigrate to the US legally.  I've helped some Bhutanese and Tibetan friends.

They're all immigrants--the lawful and the unlawful.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> The avatar is a picture of one of my favorite actresses--Cbarlotte Rampling.  She looks like her heart is open and her mind peaceful.
> 
> Fifteen pages of your rants hasn't convinced me that using inflammatory terms helps a respectful intelligent debate about immigration topics.



She looked like she was either drugged half out of her skull, or liquored up like seven barrels of shit. If that's a look you admire, I pity you.

There is absolutely NOTHING "inflamatory" about the term illegal alien. It's nothing more than the most accurate term to describe someone who enters this country illegally that was not born here. Any other term used is just watered down, half assed, make a criminal sound warm and fuzzy, bull shit.


----------



## sky dancer

Pale Rider said:


> She looked like she was either drugged half out of her skull, or liquored up like seven barrels of shit. If that's a look you admire, I pity you.
> 
> There is absolutely NOTHING "inflamatory" about the term illegal alien. It's nothing more than the most accurate term to describe someone who enters this country illegally that was not born here. Any other term used is just watered down, half assed, make a criminal sound warm and fuzzy, bull shit.




She looks like a woman with an open heart, completely relaxed and at peace.  Yes, that is a look that I find delightful.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Yes.  I have an idea of how difficult it is to emigrate to the US legally.  I've helped some Bhutanese and Tibetan friends.
> 
> They're all immigrants--the lawful and the unlawful.



Really?  So you sponsored them?  What do they think of your calling illegal aliens, immigrants and putting them on the same level with your friends?


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Really?  So you sponsored them?  What do they think of your calling illegal aliens, immigrants and putting them on the same level with your friends?



I don't call my friends 'aliens'.   I don't call human beings of any legal status 'aliens'.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> I don't call my friends 'aliens'.   I don't call human beings of any legal status 'aliens'.



Are you purposely misreading me?  What do your LEGAL IMMIGRANT friends, that you helped to get here LEGALLY think of your calling illegal aliens, IMMIGRANTS and putting them on the same level as your friends?  

The LEGAL immigrants I know object vehemently to illegals being called immigrants.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Are you purposely misreading me?  What do your LEGAL IMMIGRANT friends, that you helped to get here LEGALLY think of your calling illegal aliens, IMMIGRANTS and putting them on the same level as your friends?
> 
> *The LEGAL immigrants I know object vehemently to illegals being called immigrants.*



All the immigrants I know do not object to sharing being all considered immigrants.  They are happy to have legal status and they have kind regard for those less fortunate than they are.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> Do you think referring to large numbers of human beings as 'invading locusts' is going to win friends and influence people?



Yes, because I spend huge amounts of time worrying myself into ulcers about whether or not people like me, particularly people who have invaded my country and are busily destroying my state.

You have obviously mistaken me for you.  I just wish you would play Miss Congeniality with them using YOUR state instead of mine.  How many community hospitals in YOUR city have closed because of the influx of illegals who don't pay their bills?  How much does YOUR state spend educating the children of illegals and providing them with social services?


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> I don't call my friends 'aliens'.   I don't call human beings of any legal status 'aliens'.



Of course not.  You've already demonstrated how little you know about the correct usage of words and how little you value free and honest speech.


----------



## sky dancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yes, because I spend huge amounts of time worrying myself into ulcers about whether or not people like me, particularly people who have invaded my country and are busily destroying my state.
> 
> You have obviously mistaken me for you.  I just wish you would play Miss Congeniality with them using YOUR state instead of mine.  How many community hospitals in YOUR city have closed because of the influx of illegals who don't pay their bills?  How much does YOUR state spend educating the children of illegals and providing them with social services?



I certainly haven't mistaken me for you.

I live in California.  California is a border state with Mexico.   This is a big issue in our state as well.  We have a budget crisis.

Regardless, you and I don't share the same world view or attitude about the immigration problem and how to resolve it.

I don't harbor alot of hostility toward immigrants nor toward people I disagree with on this issue.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> All the immigrants I know do not object to sharing being all considered immigrants.  They are happy to have legal status and they have kind regard for those less fortunate than they are.



Oh please, you're saying that you only know legal immigrants and all of them are just thrilled when illegal aliens are put on the same level with them.  I don't believe you for a second.  Perhaps those "immigrants" you know are also here illegally?

An illegal alien is not less fortunate than a legal immigrant, in fact they have an advantage.  Our hospitals don't go after them for their bills, since they don't "legally" own anything in this country.  They steal social security numbers which causes all kinds of problems for americans and legal immigrants.  Or have you not read that LEGAL hispanics are having their ids stolen in record numbers?  You really think they are thrilled that an illegal stole their id?  

One more thing, if a legal immigrant or american citizen steals someone's ss#, they got to jail.  Illegals do it with impunity.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Oh please, you're saying that you only know legal immigrants and all of them are just thrilled when illegal aliens are put on the same level with them.  I don't believe you for a second.  Perhaps those "immigrants" you know are also here illegally?
> 
> An illegal alien is not less fortunate than a legal immigrant, in fact they have an advantage.  Our hospitals don't go after them for their bills, since they don't "legally" own anything in this country.  They steal social security numbers which causes all kinds of problems for americans and legal immigrants.  Or have you not read that LEGAL hispanics are having their ids stolen in record numbers?  You really think they are thrilled that an illegal stole their id?
> 
> One more thing, if a legal immigrant or american citizen steals someone's ss#, they got to jail.  Illegals do it with impunity.



That's correct.  I only know legal immigrants.  I'm a Buddhist.  The legal immigrants I know are also Buddhists.  We have kind regard for others--especially those less fortunate than ourselves.

If you don't believe me, fine.

Not all US citizens and legal immigrants feel the same animosity toward undocumented or illegal immigrants as you do.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> She looks like a woman with an open heart, completely relaxed and at peace.  Yes, that is a look that I find delightful.



She looks wasted... and you have my pity.

Bright eyed and bushy tailed is a much better look. Like you actually have something on the ball. You're alert, responsive. Not out in the ozone.

Illegal aliens are the scourge of America. The sooner you realize that the better off you'll be, and stop trying to sugar coat them. It's dishonest, and it spits on America.


----------



## sky dancer

Pale Rider said:


> She looks wasted... and you have my pity.
> 
> Bright eyed and bushy tailed is a much better look. Like you actually have something on the ball. You're alert, responsive. Not out in the ozone.
> 
> Illegal aliens are the scourge of America. The sooner you realize that the better off you'll be, and stop trying to sugar coat them. It's dishonest, and it spits on America.



She looks ravaged.  I kind of like that.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> That's correct.  I only know legal immigrants.  I'm a Buddhist.  The legal immigrants I know are also Buddhists.  We have kind regard for others--especially those less fortunate than ourselves.



It's easy to welcome illegal immigrants with open arms when you don't pay any taxes or have any children in school who are being deprived of educational services.


----------



## Zoom-boing

sky dancer said:


> I don't call my friends 'aliens'.   I don't call human beings of any legal status 'aliens'.



You act as if the word 'alien' means these people are the scum of the earth.  It doesn't and I don't believe that majority of illegal aliens who are in this country are bad people.  I don't believe that -- but I do believe that they should be rounded up and given the boot out of here because they came here_ illegally_.  Do you not get that the_ illegal _part is what we are all objecting to?  

Here is the definition of 'alien'.  How do you not see that this word IS what these people are?  How do you argue that the bolded definitions are inaccurate in describing these people who are in this country illegally?

Alien, noun 
1. *a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization *(distinguished from citizen ). 
2. a foreigner. 
3. a person who has been estranged or excluded. 

Alien, adjective 
5. *residing under a government or in a country other than that of one's birth without having or obtaining the status of citizenship there.* 




Againsheila said:


> An illegal alien is not less fortunate than a legal immigrant, in fact they have an advantage.  Our hospitals don't go after them for their bills, since they don't "legally" own anything in this country.  They steal social security numbers which causes all kinds of problems for americans and legal immigrants.  Or have you not read that LEGAL hispanics are having their ids stolen in record numbers?  You really think they are thrilled that an illegal stole their id?
> 
> One more thing, if a legal immigrant or american citizen steals someone's ss#, they got to jail.  Illegals do it with* impunity*.



Skydancer -- I don't think you understand what 'impunity' means.  Here is some information for you.  

_Impunity - exemption from punishment or loss. In the international law of human rights, it refers to the failure to bring perpetrators of human rights violations to justice and, as such, itself constitutes a denial of the victims' right to justice and redress_.

You've yet to answer my question of why, if you believe that illegal aliens  violate immigration law and should have a hearing and be deported, are you ok with a judge changing the term 'illegal alien' to 'undocumented immigrant?', as this will make it even harder to find and deport illegal aliens? Don't hand me some nonsense that it won't; you can't be so blind that you don't see this is what will happen. It's the whole point of changing what they are called.


----------



## catzmeow

What?  You're saying the term alien isn't perjorative?


----------



## sky dancer

Believe it or not, some people can welcome foreigners with open arms even though we pay taxes and have children in school.

Alien and 'illegals' are terms that are being used negatively-- along with the terms; 'invaders', 'swarms', 'hordes', 'wetbacks' and 'anchor babies'.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Believe it or not, some people can welcome foreigners with open arms even though we pay taxes and have children in school.
> 
> Alien and 'illegals' are terms that are being used negatively-- along with the terms; 'invaders', 'swarms', 'hordes', 'wetbacks' and 'anchor babies'.



How many are you going to welcome?  According to a study done in 2006, at the current rate of population growth, our state will run out of water by 2016.  Can you live without water?  I can't.  Now Americans are having children at less than replacement rate but immigrants are having an average of 7.5 children per family.  Do you really think we can handle this influx?  When I was in school we were taught all about over population.  We were urged to control the number of children we bring into the world because the world has finite resources.  Now, we have more immigrants entering this country than all the other countries in the world combined.  Just how many do you think we can support?

Now our state has been trying to solve traffic problems for the past 40 years.  Do you really think they are going to solve the water problem in 8 years?

Why do those of us who've been responsible should have to suffer because of those that are irresponsible and our government letting them in uncontrolled?


----------



## sky dancer

Gee Sheila--

I don't know.  Let's just have open borders all over the world, lol.  I've been studying open border essays just for fun.

This isn't just an American problem BTW.  It occurs all over the world.  Wherever people prosper, the poor want to move there.

Here's an essay:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.c...-open-immigration-a-qa-with-philippe-legrain/


----------



## sky dancer

"The solution to the immigration crisis, if there is such a crisis, does not rest in guest worker programs or higher visa quotas, but in the one possibility nobody is mentioning: eliminating visas altogether within the NAFTA countries, and allowing Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans with legitimate passports to travel freely among our three countries for any reason or for no reason. This was the early vision of Ronald Reagan, and it was certainly an implied outcome of the North American Free Trade Agreement. "NAFTA had an effect on the Mexican economy, in terms of encouraging campesinos to leave the farm and seek better opportunities," says Fred Tsao, policy director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant Rights, "but we've shut off the legal opportunities for people to do that." 

More at link.....


"Since all parties to this debate draw a line between legal and illegal immigration, we should note that visaless borders would greatly increase the former and virtually eliminate the latter. Is that a problem? I don't think so, and people who oppose the idea need to explain why they think it would be." 
Open the Borders: Forget guest workers&#151;why should citizens of NAFTA countries need visas at all? - Reason Magazine


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> She looks ravaged.  I kind of like that.


That's entirely different. Your new avatar also bears an uncanny resemblance to a certain female part.



sky dancer said:


> "The solution to the immigration crisis, if there is such a crisis, does not rest in guest worker programs or higher visa quotas, but in the one possibility nobody is mentioning: eliminating visas altogether within the NAFTA countries, and allowing Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans with legitimate passports to travel freely among our three countries for any reason or for no reason. This was the early vision of Ronald Reagan, and it was certainly an implied outcome of the North American Free Trade Agreement. "NAFTA had an effect on the Mexican economy, in terms of encouraging campesinos to leave the farm and seek better opportunities," says Fred Tsao, policy director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant Rights, "but we've shut off the legal opportunities for people to do that."
> 
> More at link.....
> 
> 
> "Since all parties to this debate draw a line between legal and illegal immigration, we should note that visaless borders would greatly increase the former and virtually eliminate the latter. Is that a problem? I don't think so, and people who oppose the idea need to explain why they think it would be."
> Open the Borders: Forget guest workers&#8212;why should citizens of NAFTA countries need visas at all? - Reason Magazine


Well, you're talking about throwing away everything Americans have worked, fought and died for, for two centuries. Dissolving it into a land with no borders. Turing it over to every piece of filth with no job, no education, diseased, terrorists, criminals, just let them all come and go as they please. Let me ask you, how long to you think Mexiamericanada would last?


----------



## Zoom-boing

sky dancer said:


> *Alien and 'illegals' are terms that are being used negatively*-- along with the terms; 'invaders', 'swarms', 'hordes', 'wetbacks' and 'anchor babies'.



Of course it's used negatively -- because they are here *illegally*!  Duh.  It is also 100% accurate.  Again, duh.

Four dodges on my question; guess I have my answer.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

If we take a simple word, like  "ILLEGAL"  and add it to another simple word, "ALIEN", it  magically transmogrifies into an vile and hateful slur. Wether or not this word is insulting is just a matter of opinion, isn't it?  Sky, you and this judge may agree,   I doubt  either of you have to deal with this issue other than as a abstraction... It doesn't make me  a minion of the great Satan,  John Tanton, either.  We all get lumped together because..., tell me again, something about...Guilt by association. So, what guilt  do you ascribe too? Do you hire them to clean your pool or is it some white guilt complex? Hmm.  If we  see the Buddha, we kill him. Yeah, right.  Tanton isn't my spiritual guide, I just despise  liars and frauds. That's it. Forgive me. Why you apologize for them, some of us would like to know. Why all this...ya know...defensiveness and rationalizations? I know plenty of legal immigrants too, mostly European and they had to follow all the protocols to get in. They got all their immunizations. That had to prove they weren't violent criminals or mentally ill. Trivia like that, and I don't think NAFTA lets these pecker heads from Latin America off the immigration hook. And I doubt you  that you do, either. Or you could just live with them and see just how wonderful they really arnen't. But you wont do THAT either.


----------



## sky dancer

Pale Rider said:


> That's entirely different. *Your new avatar also bears an uncanny resemblance to a certain female part.*
> 
> Well, you're talking about throwing away everything Americans have worked, fought and died for, for two centuries. Dissolving it into a land with no borders. Turing it over to every piece of filth with no job, no education, diseased, terrorists, criminals, just let them all come and go as they please. Let me ask you, how long to you think Mexiamericanada would last?



Really?  You've got a thing about my avatars.  

I'm open to new ideas.  We haven't considered open borders.  

Does our current immigration policy work well?  I don't think so.


----------



## sky dancer

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> If we take a simple word, like  "ILLEGAL"  and add it to another simple word, "ALIEN", it  magically transmogrifies into an vile and hateful slur. Wether or not this word is insulting is just a matter of opinion, isn't it?  Sky, you and this judge may agree,   I doubt  either of you have to deal with this issue other than as a abstraction... It doesn't make me  a minion of the great Satan,  John Tanton, either.  We all get lumped together because..., tell me again, something about...Guilt by association. So, what guilt  do you ascribe too? Do you hire them to clean your pool or is it some white guilt complex? Hmm.  If we  see the Buddha, we kill him. Yeah, right.  Tanton isn't my spiritual guide, I just despise  liars and frauds. That's it. Forgive me. Why you apologize for them, some of us would like to know. Why all this...ya know...defensiveness and rationalizations? I know plenty of legal immigrants too, mostly European and they had to follow all the protocols to get in. They got all their immunizations. That had to prove they weren't violent criminals or mentally ill. Trivia like that, and I don't think NAFTA lets these pecker heads from Latin America off the immigration hook. And I doubt you  that you do, either. Or you could just live with them and see just how wonderful they really arnen't. But you wont do THAT either.



My dear friend,

Unfortunately, the immigration debate is fraught with numerous side issues.  Nativism, is one.  John Tanton is behind many anti-immigration organizations that are given mainstream legitimacy, and many people have never heard of him.  

Some folks purposely use inflammatory rhetoric when discussing immigration--so it is not strange that people who feel the hatred could be tuned down a notch recommend using words that Latinos and Hispanics--especially those unfortunately lumped together and who are American citizens may find less offensive.

Hispanic Journalists, Hispanic lawyers--as the ones in Arizona--and Latino civil rights organizations all ask that the less offensive terms--undocumented immigrants or even illegal immigrants be used instead of 'illegals' and 'illegal aliens'.  I don't consider that so much to ask for.

I have been studying the history of immigration law.  It is worth taking a look at.  What is happening with the Hispanic/Mexican immigrants is not different that how every other immigrant group has gone through.   There were derogatory terms used about the Irish, the Japanese and Chinese, the Italians, the Germans.  Every immigrant group has been through this and Americans have adjusted the terminology eventually.

We discuss politics and subjects like immigration law because the topics interest us.  We don't always have the same interest in the topic and we often disagree.

I have been talking about immigration on numerous forums for about two years.  While the term 'illegal alien' may not seem like a hateful slur to you=--I have seen it used hatefully on other forums.

If you pick a label--any label--and slap it on to someone you diminish that person's individual humanity.

Some argue that all 'illegal aliens' are by definition 'criminal'.  That's wrong.  Some are--some are drug smugglers, human traffickers, and not people we are happy to see come to our country.  Others are poor, and they want to work, and current immigration policy isn't working.  They come at great personal risk to themselves and many die en route.  They come for the same reasons our ancestors came to America--seeking a better life--seeking opportunity.

All I'd like to see happen is people able to discuss immigration without resorting to stereotyping all immigrants--legal and otherwise--the same.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

I don't know what to say here. This isn't a abstraction. I won't mock or condescend, I read , I learn and I live with these people, and they don't respect us our  lofty ideals or intellect. To them, it's some sort of materialistic free-for all.  I have actually  hade these people in my home. I talk to them.  They seem like         children that can  do anything when the parents look away, but a hell of a lot more serious. A lot is at stake here. These people you seem to adore are not fleeing political oppression or death squads or oppression. They are just petty opportunists. The people WE know that immigrate legally, they do so because they respect US, our culture, and that is a beautifully thing . Respect is a two way street.


----------



## Ravi

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> I don't know what to say here. This isn't a abstraction. I won't mock or condescend, I read , I learn and I live with these people, and they don't respect us our  lofty ideals or intellect. To them, it's some sort of materialistic free-for all.  I have actually  hade these people in my home. I talk to them.  They seem like         children that can  do anything when the parents look away, but a hell of a lot more serious. A lot is at stake here. These people you seem to adore are not fleeing political oppression or death squads or oppression. They are just petty opportunists. The people WE know that immigrate legally, they do so because they respect US, our culture, and that is a beautifully thing . Respect is a two way street.


Like children, huh, just like them darkies?

I'm curious, how did you know the immigration status of "these people" that you had in your home and why were they in your home?


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> Believe it or not, some people can welcome foreigners with open arms even though we pay taxes and have children in school.



You say we, when we both know that you don't do either of these things.  So, basically, you expect OTHER PEOPLE to pay the cost of your values.

That's highly ethical.


----------



## Zoom-boing

sky dancer said:


> If you pick a label--any label--and slap it on to someone you diminish that person's individual humanity.



So according to you we should stop calling criminals 'criminals', prostitutes 'prostitutes', Democrats 'Democrats', Republicans 'Republicans', etc. because 'any label diminishes that person's individual humanity'.  Come again?



> All I'd like to see happen is people able to discuss immigration without resorting to *stereotyping all immigrants*--legal and otherwise--the same.



Once again you are missing the point, or deliberately playing dumb.  No one is 'stereotyping all immigrants'.  We object to *illegal aliens *entering this country and living off of America like parasites.  They come from poor situations, they want the American dream, they want a better life.  But they come here *illegally.*  Get it?  Say it with me -- _illegally_.  THAT is the point.  And THOSE -- _the illegals _-- are who we are talking about.


----------



## Againsheila

Originally Posted by sky dancer:  All I'd like to see happen is people able to discuss immigration without resorting to stereotyping all immigrants--legal and otherwise--the same.  


<<<

You are the one trying to stereotype legal and illegal aliens as "immigrants".  The rest of us want to call a spade a spade and an illegal alien, an illegal alien rather than an immigrant.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Ravi said:


> Like children, huh, just like them darkies?
> 
> I'm curious, how did you know the immigration status of "these people" that you had in your home and why were they in your home?



My, we are a little touchy, aren't we?   I live in a barrio LONG before this flood of unwanted immigrants  washed in. They   turned it from a diverse community into an ethnic ghetto.  It's the next best thing to going to Mexico without leaving the country. We all know that some of those nimrods aren't here legally.  There are Millions of these people. They don't respect or recognize laws like immigration ,  or most other laws of the US, if they can get away with it. Sound Mature to YOU? They act just like kids, they are rude, selfish, insensitive, careless, reckless, thoughtless,  illiterate (read: can't speak a lick of ENGLISH).  That isn't a criticism. It is a fact.  Just like them darkies?  Skip the sarcasm, please.  Let's just  say that this issue is rife with ambiguity and contradictions, and leave it at that.  These folks don't wear  an armband declaring their status. And, we can't rely on them being honest enough to admit it, either.  If they were HONEST, this wouldn't be an issue, now would it?   Anyway, a relative of mine WAS married to an illegal alien, and this person and some of his family have come over to visit my home. Well, Long story short: divorce, deportation and he's right back here in the US and his status hasn't changed. So, it's a personal matter as well as a moral one for me.  Have anymore sarcastic remarks for me, sweetheart?


----------



## Cecilie1200

catzmeow said:


> What?  You're saying the term alien isn't perjorative?



Only insofar as you consider breaking the law to be a bad thing. 

There is nothing insulting about a factual statement as to someone's lawbreaking status.  If I call someone an "inmate", and they are in fact residing in a correctional facility, have I insulted them merely because "inmate" is not a desirable thing to be?


----------



## AllieBaba

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> My, we are a little touchy, aren't we?   I live in a barrio LONG before this flood of unwanted immigrants  washed in. They   turned it from a diverse community into an ethnic ghetto.  It's the next best thing to going to Mexico without leaving the country. We all know that some of those nimrods aren't here legally.  There are Millions of these people. They don't respect or recognize laws like immigration ,  or most other laws of the US, if they can get away with it. Sound Mature to YOU? They act just like kids, they are rude, selfish, insensitive, careless, reckless, thoughtless,  illiterate (read: can't speak a lick of ENGLISH).  That isn't a criticism. It is a fact.  Just like them darkies?  Skip the sarcasm, please.  Let's just  say that this issue is rife with ambiguity and contradictions, and leave it at that.  These folks don't wear  an armband declaring their status. And, we can't rely on them being honest enough to admit it, either.  If they were HONEST, this wouldn't be an issue, now would it?   Anyway, a relative of mine WAS married to an illegal alien, and this person and some of his family have come over to visit my home. Well, Long story short: divorce, deportation and he's right back here in the US and his status hasn't changed. So, it's a personal matter as well as a moral one for me.  Have anymore sarcastic remarks for me, sweetheart?



You have to forgive Ravi. The only way she can give vent to her nazi tendencies is to spout racist gibberish...and attribute it to others.

Ignore her. That's what the rest of us do.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> Believe it or not, some people can welcome foreigners with open arms even though we pay taxes and have children in school.
> 
> Alien and 'illegals' are terms that are being used negatively-- along with the terms; 'invaders', 'swarms', 'hordes', 'wetbacks' and 'anchor babies'.



Believe it or not, some people can welcome foreigners with open arms without encouraging them to break our laws or be disrespectful of our hospitality and generosity.

"Alien" and "illegal" are used negatively because they are negative things to be.  If you don't want to be seen as an invading swarm, may I respectfully suggest that you not invade in swarms?  And if you don't wish your child to be viewed as an anchor baby, may I respectfully suggest that you not come here eight months pregnant for the express purpose of having the baby here so that he will be a citizen?  That sort of thing gives people the wrong impression.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> Really?  You've got a thing about my avatars.
> 
> I'm open to new ideas.  We haven't considered open borders.
> 
> Does our current immigration policy work well?  I don't think so.



Inasmuch as our current immigration policy involves throwing up our hands and saying, "It's hopeless", you're right.  I don't think that actually indicates a need for even more of the same, though.


----------



## Cecilie1200

catzmeow said:


> You say we, when we both know that you don't do either of these things.  So, basically, you expect OTHER PEOPLE to pay the cost of your values.
> 
> That's highly ethical.



I like how the "open arms" Sky wants to welcome them with take the practical form of MY tax dollars and MY state institutions, while she sits thousands of miles away from the problem, loftily pontificating on her compassion and generosity.

Hope she doesn't sprain an arm, patting herself on the back for her humanitarianism.


----------



## sky dancer

I don't think a thirty foot fence around all borders makes sense either.  Build a thirty foot fence and someone will build a thirty foot ladder.


----------



## AllieBaba

It is not racist to tell the truth. If somebody is in the country illegally, he's an illegal alien. I think it's about the most idiotic thing I've ever heard to claim that if you truthfully label a lawbreaker as a lawbreaker, it's "RACIST" if that criminal happens to be a different color, or "BIGOTED" if that person is of a different nationality.

Illegal alien isn't a racial term. It's a legal term. And if you are one, grow some balls and quit whining when people call you one.


----------



## sky dancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> I like how the "open arms" Sky wants to welcome them with take the practical form of MY tax dollars and MY state institutions, while she sits thousands of miles away from the problem, loftily pontificating on her compassion and generosity.
> 
> Hope she doesn't sprain an arm, patting herself on the back for her humanitarianism.



Excuse me.  It's OUR tax dollars.  Yours and mine.   We _all_ vote in America.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> I don't think a thirty foot fence around all borders makes sense either.  Build a thirty foot fence and someone will build a thirty foot ladder.



Yes, but it's going to take him longer to climb that ladder than to just walk across the border.  Time in which to catch him or stop him.  We need a wall, like the Great Wall in China.  Just stand up there and when they put a ladder against it, just push it back down, and if you want to be really mean, wait until they're almost at the top.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Yes, but it's going to take him longer to climb that ladder than to just walk across the border.  Time in which to catch him or stop him.  We need a wall, like the Great Wall in China.  Just stand up there and when they put a ladder against it, just push it back down, and if you want to be really mean, wait until they're almost at the top.



Sheila--

If it would work I'd be in favor of it.  It won't work.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> Excuse me.  It's OUR tax dollars.  Yours and mine.   We _all_ vote in America.



Yes, dear, but I actually PAY them.  You know, me and the other people who work for a living.


----------



## sky dancer

catzmeow said:


> Yes, dear, but I actually PAY them.  You know, me and the other people who work for a living.


You are funny.  What makes you think I don't pay taxes?


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> You are funny.  What makes you think I don't pay taxes?



Do you work for a living, Sky Dancer?


----------



## sky dancer

catzmeow said:


> Do you work for a living, Sky Dancer?



Yes, I work for a living.  I pay plenty of taxes.  Employment taxes and property taxes.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> Yes, I work for a living.


Oh really?  That's not what your introduction here said.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Sheila--
> 
> If it would work I'd be in favor of it.  It won't work.



How do you know it won't work?  Same way you know open borders will vet criminals??????


----------



## catzmeow

Againsheila said:


> How do you know it won't work?  Same way you know open borders will vet criminals??????



She has special pot-inspired mind powers.  Also, her llamas are bad ass.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> Excuse me.  It's OUR tax dollars.  Yours and mine.   We _all_ vote in America.



We DON'T all vote in the border states, though, nor do we ALL pay taxes in those states.

You don't really imagine that all the tax money being spent on the tidal wave of illegals is coming from the FEDERAL coffers, do you?  The school systems that are buckling under the weight of swarms of illegals' offspring are funded by state and local taxes.  The community hospitals that are shutting down because of the influx of illegals were funded by state and local dollars.  The prisons whose populations are swelling with illegals who commit other crimes are funded by state and local tax dollars (and by the way, the citizens being robbed and killed by illegals aren't residents of YOUR state).  The law enforcement agencies that have to deal with the increased crime rates caused by this invasion of illegals are funded by state and local tax dollars.  The child welfare systems that are being strained to the breaking point are funded with . . . say it with me here, state and local tax dollars.

So excuse me, but it's NOT "our" tax dollars.  YOUR ass isn't here in Arizona, and YOUR taxes aren't being spent on this mess, and YOUR community isn't being forced to deal with this.  And I will thank you to stop playing Lady Bountiful with MY state.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Againsheila said:


> Yes, but it's going to take him longer to climb that ladder than to just walk across the border.  Time in which to catch him or stop him.  We need a wall, like the Great Wall in China.  Just stand up there and when they put a ladder against it, just push it back down, and if you want to be really mean, wait until they're almost at the top.



Unfortunately, a wall really wouldn't help much.  Illegals are already entering the country by means which wouldn't be stopped by a wall.


----------



## Againsheila

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unfortunately, a wall really wouldn't help much.  Illegals are already entering the country by means which wouldn't be stopped by a wall.



Yeah, and most of those are coming on visas and then just overstaying, our government refuses to keep track of them.  Heck even one of the 9/11 terrorists was granted a visa AFTER the 9/11 attack.


I still like the idea of pushing the ladder over though :grin:


----------



## sky dancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> We DON'T all vote in the border states, though, nor do we ALL pay taxes in those states.
> 
> You don't really imagine that all the tax money being spent on the tidal wave of illegals is coming from the FEDERAL coffers, do you?  The school systems that are buckling under the weight of swarms of illegals' offspring are funded by state and local taxes.  The community hospitals that are shutting down because of the influx of illegals were funded by state and local dollars.  The prisons whose populations are swelling with illegals who commit other crimes are funded by state and local tax dollars (and by the way, the citizens being robbed and killed by illegals aren't residents of YOUR state).  The law enforcement agencies that have to deal with the increased crime rates caused by this invasion of illegals are funded by state and local tax dollars.  The child welfare systems that are being strained to the breaking point are funded with . . . say it with me here, state and local tax dollars.
> 
> So excuse me, but it's NOT "our" tax dollars.  YOUR ass isn't here in Arizona, and YOUR taxes aren't being spent on this mess, and YOUR community isn't being forced to deal with this.  And I will thank you to stop playing Lady Bountiful with MY state.



It is our tax dollars and our country.  I also live in a border state.(California).

I am entitled to express my approval of your Supreme Court Justices response to the Hispanic lawyers request in the state of Arizona, whether you like it or not.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> How do you know it won't work?  Same way you know open borders will vet criminals??????




On a practical level, consider the size of our border and the cost of fencing it in.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> On a practical level, consider the size of our border and the cost of fencing it in.



All we need is more manpower that has the strong mandate to enforce the laws. Sanctuary cities are criminal. I know--I live in one and see what is happening.


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> All we need is more manpower that has the strong mandate to enforce the laws. Sanctuary cities are criminal. I know--I live in one and see what is happening.


Really?  Tell me what it's like for you there.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Really?  Tell me what it's like for you there.



The town is dividing into racial enclaves with gangs fighting over turf. Social services may as well raise the white flag. Same with health service. Manual labor jobs are converting into Mexican only jobs as the illegals form informal labor groups consisting of their family and friends. Construction crews and yard maintaince crews are formed around one legal who has the illegals all working for him. The primarily liberal town feels like they are really helping Jose by allowing him to mow the yard for $5 and other menial labor tasks. The white work force is going under and not because they won't pick lettuce.
etc etc etc


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> The town is dividing into racial enclaves with gangs fighting over turf. Social services may as well raise the white flag. Same with health service. Manual labor jobs are converting into Mexican only jobs as the illegals form informal labor groups consisting of their family and friends. Construction crews and yard maintaince crews are formed around one legal who has the illegals all working for him. The primarily liberal town feels like they are really helping Jose by allowing him to mow the yard for $5 and other menial labor tasks. The white work force is going under and not because they won't pick lettuce.
> etc etc etc



Your description is chilling.  What do you think needs to happen in your town?  It sounds like a war zone.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Your description is chilling.  What do you think needs to happen in your town?  It sounds like a war zone.



A huge dose of reality might be nice but I don't expect that anytime soon in a town with around 75 thousand voting college students. Law and order failed when the NAACP stepped in along with the ACLU. I had my apt robbed--eye witness --(the perp lived in the same complex). Cops NEVER showed up to even talk to me after months of me calling etc. Black perp and illegal eyewitnesses--they wished me good luck finding my stuff. 

Lots of talk--none actionable. We do spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on an endangered lizard every year tho !

When everyone has a built in "excuse", there is no one left to be accountable.


----------



## Ravi

dilloduck said:


> The town is dividing into racial enclaves with gangs fighting over turf. Social services may as well raise the white flag. Same with health service. Manual labor jobs are converting into Mexican only jobs as the illegals form informal labor groups consisting of their family and friends. Construction crews and yard maintaince crews are formed around one legal who has the illegals all working for him. The primarily liberal town feels like they are really helping Jose by allowing him to mow the yard for $5 and other menial labor tasks. The white work force is going under and not because they won't pick lettuce.
> etc etc etc


Wow, Miami is a sanctuary city and we've never had any such problems. Must be your attitude.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Againsheila said:


> Yeah, and most of those are coming on visas and then just overstaying, our government refuses to keep track of them.  Heck even one of the 9/11 terrorists was granted a visa AFTER the 9/11 attack.
> 
> 
> I still like the idea of pushing the ladder over though :grin:



I'd be in favor of collapsing the drug tunnels on them, or just shooting them on sight, the way the Mexican government polices its southern border.

It's not that I don't sympathize with the ones who genuinely just want to escape a lousy situation.  I do.  On the other hand, I think if you're going to risk your life flouting the law, perhaps you should do so in service of improving your OWN country, rather than fleeing it and screwing up someone else's country.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sky dancer said:


> It is our tax dollars and our country.  I also live in a border state.(California).
> 
> I am entitled to express my approval of your Supreme Court Justices response to the Hispanic lawyers request in the state of Arizona, whether you like it or not.



Leftists always confuse "I have a right to . . ." with "It's a good idea for me to . . ."  

You have a right to express your opinion.  I have a right to tell you that your opinion is ignorant and unwelcome.  That's how this "free speech for everyone" thing works.


----------



## dilloduck

Ravi said:


> Wow, Miami is a sanctuary city and we've never had any such problems. Must be your attitude.



Miami was already a ghetto. 
Who the hell are you kidding ?


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> A huge dose of reality might be nice but I don't expect that anytime soon in a town with around 75 thousand voting college students. Law and order failed when the NAACP stepped in along with the ACLU. I had my apt robbed--eye witness --(the perp lived in the same complex). Cops NEVER showed up to even talk to me after months of me calling etc. Black perp and illegal eyewitnesses--they wished me good luck finding my stuff.
> 
> Lots of talk--none actionable. We do spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on an endangered lizard every year tho !
> 
> When everyone has a built in "excuse", there is no one left to be accountable.




I'm sorry to hear of your experience.  It puts your views into understandable context.

Do you consider moving?


----------



## sky dancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> Leftists always confuse "I have a right to . . ." with "It's a good idea for me to . . ."
> 
> You have a right to express your opinion.  I have a right to tell you that your opinion is ignorant and unwelcome.  That's how this "free speech for everyone" thing works.



Yes.  I have a right to my opinion and you have a right to question my opinion.

We make choices in _how_ we communicate to each other.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> I'm sorry to hear of your experience.  It puts your views into understandable context.
> 
> Do you consider moving?



no--something about being run out of town would leave a bad taste in my mouth.


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> no--something about being run out of town would leave a bad taste in my mouth.




I know what you mean.    I chose to move from a bad situation and I felt that I was being run out of town.    What it gets down to is 'choose your battles' and something akin to 'is this the hill you want to die on".  For me, I decided to move.

It was a property issue for me too.

I feel for your situation.  What I finally came to was nothing was worth the level of aggravation I experienced daily.  I sold my place, we moved, I bought another and it has been the best choice all around.


----------



## 007

Pale Rider said:


> Your new avatar also bears an uncanny resemblance to a certain female part.





sky dancer said:


> Really?  You've got a thing about my avatars.


Well look at it, and then you tell me... 



sky dancer said:


> I'm open to new ideas.  We haven't considered open borders.


This is a sovereign nation. Why should we?



Pale Rider said:


> Does our current immigration policy work well?  I don't think so.


Maybe we ought to try enforcing our laws once and find out. As it is we don't, so you can't blame it on our laws. However, you can blame it on our government for looking the other way.

We have good immigration laws, we just need to enforce them. The only thing I'd do away with is anchor babies.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> On a practical level, consider the size of our border and the cost of fencing it in.



On the contrary, the cost of the illegal tidal wave we're already bearing is far more than a one time price for a fence.

Take a look at your own state. The illegal aliens are costing you poor slobs dearly. If I was you, I wouldn't be on here trying to blow smoke up people's rear ends talking nonsense about open borders and amnesty, I'd be doing quite the opposite...


*Cost of illegal immigration in California estimated at nearly $9 billion


By: EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer | Sunday, December 5, 2004 9:22 PM PST &#8734;*

California's nearly 3 million illegal immigrants cost taxpayers nearly $9 billion each year, according to a new report released last week by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington, D.C.-based group that promotes stricter immigration policies.

Educating the children of illegal immigrants is the largest cost, estimated at $7.7 billion each year, according to the report. Medical care for illegal immigrants and incarceration of those who have committed crimes are the next two largest expenses measured in the study, the author said.

Pro-immigrant groups and Latino researchers dispute the federation's findings, calling them biased and incomplete.

Jack Martin, who wrote the report, said Thursday that the $9 billion figure does not include other expenses that are difficult to measure, such as special English instruction, school lunch programs, and welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal immigrant workers.

"It's a bottom of the range number," Martin said

Cost of illegal immigration in California estimated at nearly $9 billion : North County Times - Californian


----------



## Ravi

dilloduck said:


> Miami was already a ghetto.
> Who the hell are you kidding ?


No it wasn't. But even if it had been, what difference does that make? People struggled with their prejudice here and people are still prejudiced, but overall, the immigrant population has thrived.

Do you also post here as William Joyce?


----------



## Ravi

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'd be in favor of collapsing the drug tunnels on them, or just shooting them on sight, the way the Mexican government polices its southern border.
> 
> It's not that I don't sympathize with the ones who genuinely just want to escape a lousy situation.  I do.  On the other hand, I think if you're going to risk your life flouting the law, perhaps you should do so in service of improving your OWN country, rather than fleeing it and screwing up someone else's country.


That's beautiful. Kill people that want to make enough money to feed their kids. This is the attitude that is destroying the Republican party. Please keep up the good work. Most of my latino friends that used to support the GOP have all recoiled in horror from them recently.


----------



## Againsheila

Ravi said:


> That's beautiful. Kill people that want to make enough money to feed their kids. This is the attitude that is destroying the Republican party. Please keep up the good work. Most of my latino friends that used to support the GOP have all recoiled in horror from them recently.



If they can't afford to feed their kids, why are they having them????

I can understand people who already have kids that get into situations where they can't support them, but let's face it, it's not our job to pay for YOUR kids.  Besides, a great majority of these people don't come here because they can't feed their kids.  They come here to have kids so that they can collect money on them.  Plus, it's costs them $200 to have a baby in Mexico, they can use our hospitals for free.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Againsheila said:


> If they can't afford to feed their kids, why are they having them????
> 
> I can understand people who already have kids that get into situations where they can't support them, but let's face it, it's not our job to pay for YOUR kids.  Besides, a great majority of these people don't come here because they can't feed their kids.  They come here to have kids so that they can collect money on them.  Plus, it's costs them $200 to have a baby in Mexico, they can use our hospitals for free.



Not to mention that we aren't talking about people "trying to provide for their kids", as though they're just selling newspapers on the street corner or flipping burgers somewhere.  We're talking about people whose method of providing for their children involves breaking the law.  If someone decides to "provide for his children" by robbing 7-11s or mugging old ladies, do I think that should in any way mitigate the cops blowing his ass away?


----------



## Ravi

You two are idiots, no offense.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

To say I'm a little disappointed  by posters on this board, is a understatement. Hyperbole. Racist  thugs building fences  to the other extreme, open boarders and quisling-collaborators sell outs.  It isn't quite that simple, is it?  Things never are.    There is a better way of looking at this issue. It's about respect, and it  works BOTH ways. Immigration and immigrants built this country. So did greed and exploitation . Hiring these people and overlooking their failure to immigrate legally  is just as despicable. It's exploitation and it is Faustian bargain. It's not humanitarian, it's GREED. And hypocrisy . Hypocrisy has been a touchstone of America. Let's end that. Perhaps expecting people to immigrate LEGALLY isn't  silly, maybe it's human need for respect.  Immigrate legally, it is  all we ask.   Humor us, it's a little game we like to play. Do that, and acclimate, (WHY NOT?),  and we welcome all comers.  Otherwise, this little cyclical debate will never end. I think we all want the same thing in the end.


----------



## Againsheila

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> To say I'm a little disappointed  by posters on this board, is a understatement. Hyperbole. Racist  thugs building fences  to the other extreme, open boarders and quisling-collaborators sell outs.  It isn't quite that simple, is it?  Things never are.    There is a better way of looking at this issue. It's about respect, and it  works BOTH ways. Immigration and immigrants built this country. So did greed and exploitation . Hiring these people and overlooking their failure to immigrate legally  is just as despicable. It's exploitation and it is Faustian bargain. It's not humanitarian, it's GREED. And hypocrisy . Hypocrisy has been a touchstone of America. Let's end that. Perhaps expecting people to immigrate LEGALLY isn't  silly, maybe it's human need for respect.  Immigrate legally, it is  all we ask.   Humor us, it's a little game we like to play. Do that, and acclimate, (WHY NOT?),  and we welcome all comers.  Otherwise, this little cyclical debate will never end. I think we all want the same thing in the end.



We can't welcome all comers.  We have limited resources.  Would you welcome so many people into your home that you run out of food for your own family?


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> People struggled with their prejudice here and people are still prejudiced, but overall, the immigrant population has thrived.



Are you freaking kidding me?  I've worked in Miami. Go and visit Miami Gardens, and see how the native blacks have thrived.  High crime, overcrowded schools, and the thriving immigrants have replaced them economically.  Miami has experienced massive white flight.  It's a great place to live if you have the means, but if you don't, it's hell...bad schools, high crime.  The Haitian community is doing great, if you consider murdering each other in the streets great.  Miami is one of the main reasons why I oppose unchecked illegal immigration.  Do you know that Miami has more HIDTAs (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas) than almost any other major city in the country?


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Againsheila said:


> We can't welcome all comers.  We have limited resources.  Would you welcome so many people into your home that you run out of food for your own family?



Howdy, Sheila. Yes, I meant what I said. LEGAL immigrants are always welcome, they are so few are far between and besides the point. I hope you are not confusing ALL immigrants with illegal aliens...we aren't arguing semantics here. Big difference.  like apples and.....snails or something. Of course, you are preaching to the pope, sister. I get it, and then some.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> Are you freaking kidding me?  I've worked in Miami. Go and visit Miami Gardens, and see how the native blacks have thrived.  High crime, overcrowded schools, and the thriving immigrants have replaced them economically.  Miami has experienced massive white flight.  It's a great place to live if you have the means, but if you don't, it's hell...bad schools, high crime.


Well, Kitty, last time I checked Miami Gardens wasn't a sanctuary city. So your point escapes me.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> To say I'm a little disappointed  by posters on this board, is a understatement. Hyperbole. Racist  thugs building fences  to the other extreme, open boarders and quisling-collaborators sell outs.  It isn't quite that simple, is it?  Things never are.    There is a better way of looking at this issue. It's about respect, and it  works BOTH ways. Immigration and immigrants built this country. So did greed and exploitation . Hiring these people and overlooking their failure to immigrate legally  is just as despicable. It's exploitation and it is Faustian bargain. It's not humanitarian, it's GREED. And hypocrisy . Hypocrisy has been a touchstone of America. Let's end that. Perhaps expecting people to immigrate LEGALLY isn't  silly, maybe it's human need for respect.  Immigrate legally, it is  all we ask.   Humor us, it's a little game we like to play. Do that, and acclimate, (WHY NOT?),  and we welcome all comers.  Otherwise, this little cyclical debate will never end. I think we all want the same thing in the end.



No, we really don't all want the same thing in the end.  If we did, this wouldn't be such a thorny argument.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Howdy, Sheila. Yes, I meant what I said. LEGAL immigrants are always welcome, they are so few are far between and besides the point. I hope you are not confusing ALL immigrants with illegal aliens...we aren't arguing semantics here. Big difference.  like apples and.....snails or something. Of course, you are preaching to the pope, sister. I get it, and then some.



"Legal immigrants are welcome" is not the same as "welcome all comers". We have limits and requirements on who we will allow to immigrate here.  We used to have even higher standards on that than we do now.  We're not looking to become the world's homeless shelter and soup kitchen, nor should we.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Cecilie1200 said:


> "Legal immigrants are welcome" is not the same as "welcome all comers". We have limits and requirements on who we will allow to immigrate here.  We used to have even higher standards on that than we do now.  We're not looking to become the world's homeless shelter and soup kitchen, nor should we.



Just when I thought the pro-illegal alien crowd was petty and splitting hairs, I get this crap. I'm so glad those same high standards included my great grand parents that immigrated here from Germany.  They didn't speak English, but they and their children learned and they didn't have TELEMUNDO or some weasels pandering to them , and they couldn't bloody well swim the Atlantic either like  these illegals  walk over the Rio Grande. Those legal IMMIGRANTS  are  the people I refer to, Cecile. Let me ask YOU: aren't you here because past relatives immigrated here legally?  That is what this issue is all about. Don't twist it around.


----------



## Againsheila

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Just when I thought the pro-illegal alien crowd was petty and splitting hairs, I get this crap. I'm so glad those same high standards included my great grand parents that immigrated here from Germany.  They didn't speak English, but they and their children learned and they didn't have TELEMUNDO or some weasels pandering to them , and they couldn't bloody well swim the Atlantic either like  these illegals  walk over the Rio Grande. Those legal IMMIGRANTS  are  the people I refer to, Cecile. Let me ask YOU: aren't you here because past relatives immigrated here legally?  That is what this issue is all about. Don't twist it around.



We did allow pretty much unfettered immigration for a short period of time.  We now allow more legal  immigration than all other countries combined.  We have limited resources.  When my father was stationed in England, our family took in an Hungarian couple that fled Hungary when the communists took over.  This was in 1956.  It didn't matter than my father was career Air Force.  It didn't matter that both he and my mother were American citizens, they couldn't get our friends into our own country.  They ended up living their lives out in Canada.  We have limited resources.  We can't open our doors to everyone.  Again, are you going to welcome so many people into your home that you run out of food to feed your own family?  That's what it's coming to here. 

One study I read said that with the current level of immigration into this state, we would run out of water by 2016.  Can you live without water?  Americans have aready limited their children to replacement value, immigrants don't do the same.  We have to close our borders until we get control on those that are here.  Only when every American that wants a job has one that pays a living wage, should we even consider allowing more people into this country.

This is America, Americans should come first.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> Well, Kitty, last time I checked Miami Gardens wasn't a sanctuary city. So your point escapes me.



My point generally escapes you, you have difficulty keeping up.  Miami Gardens is one of the largest predominantly black communities in the U.S.  Unrestricted immigration has caused urban blacks to fall behind, economically, educationally, and otherwise, because immigration increases the competition for the resources that are already in short supply for them (good jobs, good schools, etc.).

In your zeal to make things wonderful for immigrants, you have clearly forgotten that some Americans have been out-competed, mainly our poorest and most vulnerable citizens....people who don't need more competition since they are already struggling enough.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> My point generally escapes you, you have difficulty keeping up.  Miami Gardens is one of the largest predominantly black communities in the U.S.  Unrestricted immigration has caused urban blacks to fall behind, economically, educationally, and otherwise, because immigration increases the competition for the resources that are already in short supply for them (good jobs, good schools, etc.).
> 
> In your zeal to make things wonderful for immigrants, you have clearly forgotten that some Americans have been out-competed, mainly our poorest and most vulnerable citizens....people who don't need more competition since they are already struggling enough.


Oh, you don't have one besides getting on your high horse to pretend that immigration is why the black sections of mdcounty have stayed in poverty for decades. You must really hate black people. And that's sad.

Regardless, we were discussing sanctuary cities. Perhaps next time you'll be able to stay on topic.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> Oh, you don't have one besides getting on your high horse to pretend that immigration is why the black sections of mdcounty have stayed in poverty for decades. .



We weren't discussing sanctuary cities.  You were.  If you knew anything at all about the black population of Miami, you'd understand that just about the time that the black community started to make strides into the middle class, the overwhelming influx of Cuban immigrants replaced them, professionally and economically.  This is history.  Read up.  It's sad when I understand your community better than you do (though, unsurprising).  I've probably spent way more time in Miami Gardens, Oppalocka, and Carol City than you have.

So, who runs things in Miami these days?  Just a hint:  it isn't the black folks.  



> You must really hate black people. And that's sad.


Please, feel free to explain this statement.  I'm dying to hear how you got this off base.


----------



## catzmeow

Againsheila said:


> This is America, Americans should come first.



My point, exactly.  When we have handled the problems of poverty with our own people, THEN we can increase our responsibility to handle the poverty of other countries' citizens.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Seems to me that there is no deterrent to coming here illegally.   Cross the border - if you get caught crossing they throw you back if not, keep on trucking, take refuge in already existing illegal and/or legal hispanic communities, get a job illegally - someone will hire you, don't pay taxes, don't pay for health care, have a kid that automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, hell they don't even have to learn English. Telemundo, signs in Spanish, you name it.  We cater to them and make it easy.

Change a few things and maybe, must maybe, it will deter the massive amounts of people flowing in here from Mexico.  

Put up an electrified barrier -- no, not some lame fence, a concrete barrier too big for a ladder that has electrified barbed wire running across the top.  Shoot people trying to sneak in.  Yes, shoot them.  No Spanish anything, PERIOD.  No tv, signs, stores, etc.  Nothing.  You come here you speak English, end of story.  Bag the 'fines' that employers get for hiring illegals.  One year mandatory jail time per each illegal an employer hires, no fine, no chance to reduce the sentence.  Raid, raid, raid employers who hire illegals.  Deport illegals who are found, including their children who are under 18.  Change the law so that children born to illegals in the U.S. are not automatically U.S. citizens.  Stop making it worth their while to come here; stop making it so damn easy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Just when I thought the pro-illegal alien crowd was petty and splitting hairs, I get this crap. I'm so glad those same high standards included my great grand parents that immigrated here from Germany.  They didn't speak English, but they and their children learned and they didn't have TELEMUNDO or some weasels pandering to them , and they couldn't bloody well swim the Atlantic either like  these illegals  walk over the Rio Grande. Those legal IMMIGRANTS  are  the people I refer to, Cecile. Let me ask YOU: aren't you here because past relatives immigrated here legally?  That is what this issue is all about. Don't twist it around.



Yada, yada, meaningless personal anecdote, appeal to emotions . . . blah, blah.

Do you have a point to make, that you erroneously thought was going to made by pointing out that my ancestors happened to be among the immigrants that met the immigration standards?  Because to be honest, I fell asleep halfway through your rambling discourse and don't have any idea how any of this vitriol changes a DAMNED thing I said.


----------

