Judge Bans Use Of “Illegal” and “Aliens”

[Cecilie1200]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The Arizona Supreme Court Justice ruled. Case closed.

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

 

[Cecilie1200]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.