Been meaning to post this.

Referring to fellow human beings as "illegals" is playing a chump's game, i.e., we are ceding the rhetoric to the knuckle-dragging pigs.

If you wish to refer to them as "illegal immigrants," fine. It's kind of dumb, since we don't refer to speeders as "illegal drivers," but whatever floats your boat.

But simply... "Illegals?" Shit--why not just call 'em Spics? Or Wetbacks?

how are we going to properly dehumanize them without slurs?

"If you don't watch it, how will you ever become desensitized to it?"

If you follow my logic...

Not to get into the immigration debate or anything but what do you think the proper term for those who have crossed the borders without going through the legal process?

I wouldn't call speeders illegal drivers but I would refer to drivers who have lost their license but still drive illegal drivers.

at least that's what some here want.

:sarcasm:

a) it annoys Freepers
b) it annoys Freepers
c) it reinforces the notion that these are people who are here to WORK, dammit.

It ignores the fact that they are here illegally, in violation of United States law. That's a little more than just "undocumented."

then qualify it.

You're using a right-wing bullshit talking point without qualifying what law or laws they've "broken", why their actions are allegedly "illegal".


Try "Illegal Alien"; that's a legal definition and if you must demonize people (and you seem to really, really want to) then be accurate.

You're certainly right on that, after all of your amnesty/open borders talking points. "Illegal alien" is a legal term. And an "illegal alien" is someone who's in this country "illegally."
That's about all of the "qualifying" terminology necessary.

The 'undocumented workers' nonsense puts piously correct euphemisms ahead of fighting for working class Americans (which, I thought, was what the left was supposed to be doing).

Globalization means that we live in a planet full of people who want our jobs and will do them for less than us. Why shouldn't they ? They owe us nothing. From the vantage point of the American worker, the illegal is quite frankly a strike breaker. Glutting the American labor market destroys the ability of American workers to bargain for wages and benefits and the illegal is an instrument in that goal.

A left that will not fight for American workers has no valid reason to exist. It has to stand for more than fantasy multiculturalism (did you think that all dark skinned people are allies ? Look at how illegals are practically driving Blacks out of the job market in California and how Black-Hispanic relations there are becoming as violently hostile as Black-Irish relations in the mid 19th century.) and knowledge worker manners and mores.

not with our fellow workers who are in this country without documentation being exploited by the same sick fucks who are exploiting us...

The anger should be directed at the sick fucks who own and run this system.

To allow them to misdirect your attention onto our fellow workers is just what they want us to do.

is not your 'fellow worker'.

The global labor glut that cheap labor interests certainly use to their advantage directly pits the American worker against the illegal. No, they are not our friends or our 'fellow workers'. They are the zero sum socioeconomic rivals of working class Americans.

.."Illegal drivers".

I certainly don't mean it in a strong derogatory way though...
Also...when I think of the term: Illegals, I don't think specifically of any race or country, just that they are here illegally.

There's lots of folks here from Canada, Australia, Germany (I know 2 ..good friends)

but trust me, when John Q. Goopervoter does, he's thinking of "Messicans" or "Mexcrement" (two lovely terms I've seen of late.)

but we can stop enabling his puppeteers from using racist language without calling them on it, if only passively.

If only for cold, hard political reason--forget that it's the decent thing to do--it's stupid to have a me-too approach and mis-represent yourself as a Republicanish Democrat. It's as stupid as using the term "War on Terror" -- you've already conceded the match by doing so.

How overt should we be about it? How much should we bitch about Republicans doing it? That's not clear to me, but I think we should at minimum stop using the term ourselves.

I think of illegal immigrants as "Wage Suppressors," -- as people who'll work for sub-market-level wages, who enable employers to continue paying sub-market wages to illegal workers, instead of having to pay higher wages to employ Americans.

of power in that equation -- the employers and their hirelings in Congress...Not with the human beings who are mainly trying to survive and help their families at home survive...

Don't shit on your brothers and sisters but save your ire for those really in power who created the system, drive it and benefit the most from it.

The "wage suppressors" are those in power not those being exploited...

... means that the illegal is not in any way, shape, or form the American worker's "brother and sister".

We live in a planet awash in cheap labor. We live in a planet full of people who want our jobs. And will do them for a great deal less than us. And people who want to take your job are not your friends or your "brothers and sisters".

The "wage suppression" is the very fact of supply and demand created by a labor glut. It is American wages inexhorably sinking to third world levels, something that cheap labor business interests exploit.

That means that to protect himself and his livelihood the American worker has to be tough on illegals. Compassionate ? No. Self-interest ? Yes.

You're directing your anger at the wrong group of people...

... of recognizing a zero sum rivalry and a fundamental clash of interests.

You are refusing to. A zero sum socioeconomic rivalry cannot be wished away or evaded by pious pretenses of brotherhood.

it doesn't lie with our working class sisters and brothers --

it lies with those in power who are very happy to see us wasting our time with discussions like this one.

The socioeconomic rivalry appears zero sum because those in power skim off 90% of the resources and leave the other 5.9 Billion of us to fight over the crumbs left over.

When has it ever been a reality ? It has never been more than a left intelligentsia delusion. A 'noble savage' idealization of working people having no relation to the flesh and blood reality. When push comes to shove working people, being human beings, always choose kith and kin and tribe and country.

Illegals certainly don't consider themselves any 'working class brothers and sisters' of displaced American workers. Indian H1b's certainly don't consider themselves any 'working class brothers and sisters' of displaced American workers. They are out to advance their own up the class ladder and if it means pushing another ethnic group down, fine.

Immigration has never been to the benefit of Blacks. For all of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee's pro-illegal sentimentalism, if she thinks that the minute her district turns majority Hispanic that she will still have a seat she is a fool. The Irish turned on Blacks in the mid 19th century and the same dynamic is at work in California.

That's the point being made in the OP. Nobody is saying that "illegal" is a word that we should never use.

The point is that it's not acceptable to say "there were 10 illegals living in one house".

But I don't like "illegal immigrants" much either. We are all of us "people".

Maybe we should propose an alternative like "irregular residents"?

Many people who come over on guest work visas stay past their visa expiration date so maybe we could call them people who remain in the country illegally.

I think the op just wants us to remember when you make a derogatory word a noun and use it to label a person you dehumanize the person. Since it often involves people who are a different race than ourselves, it becomes a racist comment.

We are all using them like they were everyday phrases

What's so hard about that???

No human is "illegal", they just are...

If someone asks me to prove something I've said, and I can't do it, then my statement is "undocumented."
If I'm trespassing on someone's property without permission, that's "illegal," and it's in violation of the law.

If someone is in this country in violation of the law, that's "illegal," not "undocumented."

ignorantly and incorrectly use the English language.

Have fun with it... :eyes:

who cares if they want to become American citizens? :crazy:

n/t

Doesn't really bother me. (Nor does "illegal immigrants", for that matter.)

I really, really want to keep this focused, though. We shouldn't be referring to human beings as "illegals." Trashy, stupid, FoxNoise-y. Beneath us.

Make THOSE fuckers do it, and call them out. Make it an issue.

I am not a freeper, but I don't support this amnesty deal. Come into the US legally, get in line like so many other people did.

While I have an objective of truly humane globalization, wherein worker's AND investor's rights were respected, along with Mother Earth's, leading to the elimination of borders, period...

Meanwhile, in this lifetime, I live in the real world where pre-existing deals, over and under the table, make it messy.

And this thread isn't really where I want to discuss the messiness. I just want to discuss the language.

Illegal aliens could properly be called non-resident aliens, but that term doesn't distinguish them from tourists and students who are here with valid visas.

I agree with you. "Alien" is legal language. And I don't support this amnesty bill either. And making the presence of 12-20 million illegal immigrants a lawful presence is amnesty, pure and simple.

If you go back a ways, most of the ancestors of those who make these laws and bitch and moan about the "illegal immigrants" didn't go through any formal process to gain citizenship...they just walked across the borders or were conquered and assimilated.

Other than for despised minority groups once they were no longer "needed" by those in power, "immigration" has seldom been an "issue" in this country.

Basically the entire "immigration" question as posed and promoted in the media is at base, Racist.

Now, if you want to talk about the role of the corrupt capitalist system in being the economic cause of migration, we might be able to find out what's really going on...

I tried that phrase out on my Freeper friend, and it stopped him dead.
Why are we demonizing illegal workers and not the illegal employers who create the situation in the first place?

Great comeback. I'll need to steal it.

After all, these people are willingly aiding and abetting a KRIMNAL ENTERPRIZE! They's ILLEGALS!

ok, needs work...

Most of us here have been "demon-izing" employers in every post on this issue. And we've been doing so for years.

Next?

this place gets rough during morning hours! :spank:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

at least you guys can laugh ;)

intelligent reply.

good point.

Nothing like taking the noun out of the equation to dehumanize people. The same goes for using "homeless" as a noun as far as I'm concerned. Both terms really bug me.

Of course, I have difficulty reconciling this with the fact that we routinely refer to "conservatives" (and for that matter, "liberals" and "progressives").

Therefore, I move that we demonstrate our humanity for our opposition by avoiding the practice of addressing them solely as adjectives and by acknowledging them as the nouns they truly are.

From now on, I will use the more compassionate "wingnuts" instead.

:evilgrin:

I often used "Conservatives" (and, yeah, "Wingnut," "Knuckle-dragger," "Freepig" and "Guy Who Needs To Be Fucked With a Rusty Chainsaw", for that matter) as shorthand around here, but I really do watch my use of it amongst the general population. I don't like to back anyone into a corner; it invariably get to the "You people!" phase of the argument, where logic and reason are flung out the window.

Or hobos.

It's a lot more compassionate than a lot of terms that could be applied to people who are chronically underemployed and lack a stable place of residence.

Try saying these out loud:
I am a homeless person.
I am a homeless.

Now:
I am an illegal alien/immigrant.
I am an illegal.

Sorry. If they are here illegally, they ARE illegal.

That's my point.

I'm not on the warpath to end the use of the term "illegal immigrants." If it serves a greater progressive purpose for you to use this technically accurate terminology, vaya con dios, mi amigo.

They might do something that is illegal. An armed robber is not illegal, armed robbery is illegal. We do not refer to armed robbers as illegals, we might call them criminals, outlaws, or thugs. We appear to reserve the term 'illegals' for hispanic workers who have crossed the border without proper documentation. That particular meaning was once occupied by the term 'wetback' and it seems that wetback and illegal are synonymous. As our society suppresses overt racist language, the clearly racist wetback has been replaced with the more obscure illegal. The meaning remains the same.

Want to call people "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants," fine.

Want to just call them "Illegals", dumb. Freeperish. Riding with Bin Laden. The terrorists win.

Gee-oh-Pee go rah-rah when we do this.

Am I clear now?

I don't care what level of PC the left wants to assign the term "illegals" as it applies to illegal aliens.

Turnips and brocalli are "greens."
Illegal aliens are "illegals"

I mean, I couldn't have made my point better if I'd tried. Yep, turnips and broccoli are "greens," indeed.

Illegal aliens are illegal aliens. Calling them "Illegals" only helps the other side, as does erroneously referring to a bogus "War on Terror," or our "War in Iraq", or the "Social Security Crisis." And I cringe every time a Democrat screws up and does any of these things.

Honestly, I don't. My P(olitically) C(orrect) rules apply to... whom? Please to explain. Por favor.

But I don't think that's where you were going with the vegetables.

Conservative. Adjective.

Black. Adjective.

Republican. Adjective.

Do you like the green shirt or the red shirt? I like the green. "Green" is an adjective ... so why does the sentence, "I like the green," sound grammatical? Because it *is* grammatical, except when politics turns off a native English speaker's ability to actually be competent in his/her language. In this case, it's elliptic for "green one". But with a little use, applied to a specific kind of referent, adjectives become nouns. In English, dictionaries don't define a word's grammatical category, and there are few enough grammatical markers; that leaves it up to syntactic usage.

But, I guess the point is that just stripping out the adjective and making it a noun (the evidence is that it's plural) does, indeed, harshly dehumanize people.

Mexican ... adjective. "Mexicans" is, therefore, insulting.

American. Adjective. "Americans" ... hate speech.

Liberal. Adjective. Are we liberals? ...

Progressive. Adjective. ... or are we progressives?

Crap. I just dehumanized us all by applying the horribly offensive words "liberal" and "progressive" to us. Surely no progressive Democrat or progressive American would *dare* to insult DUers by calling them "progressives" or "liberals"! That *is* a necessary inference from the kind of reasoning used in this thread, isn't it?

Yep.

Ain't proof by contradiction a bitch?

wolfie is just a contrarian.

You say the sky's blue and he'll have an argument for you based on the "fact" that the earth is generally "brown"...

It's not worth the time to feed him straight lines for his banal monologues.

They're "undocumented" obtainers.

Armed robbery is "an illegal act", not just "an illegal".

If it were called, "Illegal armed robbery" I could see a point, but since it's not...

One doesn't call a bank robber "illegal"... Robbing a bank doesn't make someone "illegal".

One says that the alleged robber has committed an illegal act... Such person may or may not be punished for her/his "illegal act"... Even in the case of being incarcerated, one is not rendered "illegal".

(A rational) One says that someone is "undocumented" or an "illegal alien" -- not that one is "illegal"...

To call a human being "illegal" is totally illogical.

The term used as a noun has NO meaning.

However, as you well know, in general usage, and as you try to apply it, "illegal" used as a noun has acquired a racist connotation and "frames the argument" as one against people of a generally brown hue from a southern clime.

Come full circle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQbOScHfxhQ

BUT THEY ARE ILLEGAL

Appears to some people to resolve all arguments about labor and immigration policy.

A citizen of another country lacks a legal standing vis-a-vis the citizens of this country while in this country. "Illegal" is a straightforward, unspun, accurate way to describe those who violate the immigration polices of this country.

I've known illegal Canadians, and that's not racist. They freely admitted to same, but were still here.

If they are Canadian they are probably 'legal Canadians' but if they are in the US illegally they are 'illegal aliens' from an US perspective.

I only apply the term 'immigrant' to people who come here legally and formally apply for immigrant status. Otherwise we don't know what their intent is. Are they coming temporarily? to visit? to permanently relocate? to visit temporarily? It's like calling someone who you find inside of your house unannounced a 'spouse' or a 'roommate.' Each of those designations are the result of an agreement.

Honestly, that's what this whole scramble is about!

otherwise we cannot make assumptions and assign them a classification retroactively. Many come to work (illegally) with the intent of permanent settlement. Others come to work temporarily. Others to be with friends/relatives. Some come for criminal activity.

When I visit other countries it is either as a tourist or a business traveller. Either way it is always clear as I present myself to a border offical.

Canadians?

Let's keep the frostbacks out of this topic, ok? :toast:

is reserved for hispanics.

Other than among the 6 idiots sitting watch on the northern border, we somehow are not talking about an undocumented Canadian problem, are we?

Does it matter where someone came from? There are clear-cut differences between legal and illegal workers in the law. I just happen to live in the North, where the Chinese, Asians, and Slavs prefer to migrate--legally or not, although there is a substantial Latin contingent, as well. and the occasional lily-white Canadian, although most of those are heading home for freedom, jobs, and health care.

Besides, the issue is becoming moot.

With the destruction of the US economic engine, nobody will be coming here, and US citizens will be looking for a chance to go somewhere with work, freedom, and fair elections. There's already been a dramatic reduction.

Or other non-hispanics. Do you ever listen to hate radio? The fact that many hispanic immigrants are undocumented is almost beside the point. The crucial thing appears to be that if we don't stop THEM we will all be speaking SPANISH and eating TORTILLAS RICE AND BEANS.

Free trade and free labor. Fair trade and fair labor. A global minimum wage. A global standard for benefits and compensation. A global standard for workplace safety. A global standard for a global economy. Tear down the fences and borders. They are there to pen us in, to create serfs, they protect the elites, not us.

My grandfather was NOT "illegal"!!!

He was an "illegal immigrant" from Canada but that didn't make him an "illegal" human being...

While the Freepers may distort the language and the meanings of words any way they want to, the use of the word "Illegal" as a descriptive noun predates this by decades. This is exactly what distracts from the Progressive message: getting so hung up on pedantic phraseology that the real-life issue disappears off the radar.

If one is speaking or writing in a scientific or business setting, one way of speaking is acceptable. If one is speaking colloquially, standards are somewhat looser. Since DU is anything but scientific or business, colloquial speech is acceptable, and efforts to "purify" it are not in the spirit or the intent of the website.

You seem to be more or less alone in your appraisal so far, but who knows, maybe I'm just a pedantic jackass.

But FWIW, I think the Newter was on to something, back in the 90s when he codified the use of language against an opponent. here's one snippet:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm

And I've allowed as how it is debateable whether it's prudent to criticize the other side for their use of a dehumanizing slur. Nor would I go so far as to publicly rebuke fellow Democrats who use the term.

I just think it's time to recognize that the term itself is being used against us, and I strongly believe that we'd be better served by dropping its use ourselves.

The fact that the term may be relatively old but has been recently resurrected by right-wing zealots is besides the point.

Also, in your very own post you hint at just how potent words can be. Do you think a tax on wealthy estates would garner nearly as much support if it weren't called the "death tax" instead of the estate tax or, as someone has pointedly suggested, the "dead billionaire's tax"? I doubt it.

Words matter.

Frankly, even the fact that we frequently refer to right-wing whackos as "conservatives" is an affront to the English language, not to mention an insult to actual conservatives.

The effect of terms like "illegals" and "homeless" is to desensitize us to the people we abuse and conquer.

On a related note, one of the most subversive things that Michael Moore did in Fahrenheit 9/11 was to subtitle the words of a wailing Iraqi civilian, bemoaning the needless death of a loved one. Why? Because it provided us with a rare opportunity to understand the actual words the woman was saying. And guess what? Her anguished words weren't all that different from those of a grieving American.

As long as we continue to treat people as the Other, to view them as abstractions and refuse to listen to what they say, we will continue to be able to abuse, demonize, dominate, and neglect them.

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717

It IS VITALLY important that racist, right-wing bullshit language be vigorously countered at every opportunity.

They are here illegally. Just as if someone sneeks into a theater because they enjoy the show is no reason to condone, or approve, the practice.

Changing the words do not change the act. Robbing a bank is not an undocumented withdrawl.

I will repeat--I am not arguing against the term "illegal immigration" or "illegal employment" or any other factual use of the term "illegal." And I am not in denial about the illegality being discussed here. It is illegal.

In the same vein, journalists are being urged to refer to the Roberts, Kennedy, Alito etc as "Supremes", to avoid using the extended title of the Marines, and to use the term "The Vice" for Dick Cheney.

For what it's worth, I don't think that use of the term "illegals" for immigrants is inany way, shape or form racist - there's a clearly defined group it's expressing hostility to, and that group is defined by an action, not by race. I don't think that "whenever anyone expresses hostility to immigrants, they're using it as a code for Latinos/Mexicans/Non-whites" is fair. For one thing, like other posters here I'm not American; I don't know where the most illegal immigrants to the UK come from, but I very much doubt it's a Latin American country (Eastern Europe? Turkey? Africa, concievably, but I doubt it?).

I do agree that it's clearly hostile to illegal immigrants to deny them a noun, though.

It's more accurate and doesn't automatically trigger the racist frame that "illegals" has been programmed to trigger among the sheeple.

Of course, if the good folks in the MSM started to use the more accurate and less loaded "undocumented", their masters would fire their asses... :shrug:

It wasn't always, but more and more the use of "illegals" to describe an entire group of people (and yes, it is almost always used to describe Mexicans, and not illegal aliens from other countries), is dehumanizing. It diminishes all their other human characteristics and qualities and emphasizes their fault.

The key word here is ILLEGAL - they're BREAKING THE LAW.

They should be deported - ALL of 'em...

The question is not one of illegality. I don't think anyone is disputing that they're breaking the law (as are their employers, of course, but that stark fact gets lost in the shuffle.) It's an issue of how removing a noun succeeds in conveniently dehumanizing a whole group of people. That was the point of the OP.

But since you brought it up, why are all these illegal people here? They wouldn't be here if there weren't people hiring them. But we can't demonize the employers, can we? Oh no. They wear suits, drive nice cars, and look like you and me. Besides, unlike the workers, they have PR firms to help mask their crimes and polish their image. It's much easier to go after the employees.

And have you ever wondered why there's been a sudden increase in the incidence of illegal immigration? There has, you know.

This is the too-often unstated immorality, the dirty little secret if you will, of the demonization of illegal immigrants.

Not only are our robber-barons forcing the issue, but we as a nation are being COMPLETELY hypocritical by allowing capital to flow freely, but not labor.

While there are only about 12 million people from other countries without the proper paperwork to be here, nearly half the population has shown complete DISDAIN FOR THE LAW by smoking or possessing marijuana at one time or another. Throw 'em all in jail I say. They're ILLEGAL because they're BREAKING THE LAW.

If only the rest of my brothers and sisters in the Capslock Movement would recognize this, then maybe this country could go back to being a NATION OF LAWS. I find the lack of outrage about this lawlessness to be very disturbing.

Imagine if everyone who exceeded the speed limit was referred to as an illegal driver.

Certainly , illegal drivers are responsible for the largest death toll and rising insurance rates , and clogging our emergency rooms, and damage throughout this country. And there's no end in sight.

Illegal drivers should be jailed on the spot when they are caught.

How about we call drivers who never bothered to apply for a license or take a drivers test "undocmented drivers"? They just want to drive. And they are willing to drive cars Americans won't.

by speeding, they are the ones we should hunt down and get off the roads!
Or are you pro-death?

A legal driver is of age and has a license.

One WOULD be an "illegal" driver by speeding.

You're postulation that a person is an "illegal" by being in this country out of compliance with the immigration laws.

By (your logical) extension, breaking any law, knowingly or unknowingly, renders one "illegal"

Wrong again, wolfie...

Seriously. I routinely see those orange traffic signs (indicating men working/traffic situations, etc) spray painted a black "X" and "Ills OUT!".

Add to it all the demagogic hyperbole of "invasion"... We seem to be on the fast track toward (de)humanity...

ie illegal, so to call them illegal immigrants is actually quite accurate. they are in our country from another ie immigrants. but are here illegally. thus illegal immigrants.

spic or wetback are derogatory comments to an entire nationality. illegal immigrants refers to anyone here illegally no matter what country they came from.

at the same time we should call the people who employ them illegal employers, since they are breaking the law as well. in fact if we go after the people hiring illegal immigrants with fines so high that they will stop doing so, the flow of illegal immigrants will stop.

but they are NOT "illegals"...any more than those employers who lured them here with a steady job and reaped the benefits of their hard work.

it is exactly the same as the older term 'wetbacks'. Its use is intended to be derogatory and demeaning.

Take the word "criminal". You could refer to someone convicted of a crime as "a person found to have engaged in criminal behavior" or you could call them "a criminal".

My understanding is that you don't like to see "illegal immigrants" (a terminology with which you have no problem) referred to as "illegals" because the latter term is racist. And its racist because a lot of the folks that use the term "illegal" to refer to an illegal immigrant are thinking about a select subgroup of illegal immigrants when they use the term. Of course, if those same people suddenly started using the term "illegal immigrants" instead of "illegals", they'd still be thinking about the same subgroup, so I'm not sure exactly what the point of the exercise would be.

"Illegal immigrants" is an accurate legal term and can be defended as such.

calling a human being "illegal" has no meaning in law, practice or reality.

It only serves those who would divide those of us who should be banding together as fellow sufferers.

This kind of perversion of language serves the same purpose as Jim Crow did in the South -- divide and exploit...

So true. So true. I don't introduce my SO as "I'd like you guys to meet my 'illegal'" since there's so much more to her than simply being an undocumented worker. As a matter of fact, I never introduce her to my friends and family as , "Meet my new undocumented worker" because her name is so pretty, and from where I stand, introducing her as my "undocumented worker" seems just as dehumanizing.

I wonder if people refer to their SO's who have jay-walked as "meet my illegal walker"... seems bizarre to me.

My SO is here from Oz -if she overstays her visa, that's how I'll introduce her:

Hey guys, meet my illegal!

On the other hand, if she were working- she would in fact be an "undocumented worker" though I think you're right, as a person it's absurd to refer to individuals that way.

You'll be fine with those, right? After all, the only crime these folks have committed is breaking federal law.

What's your point?

The whole falsified Social Security thing is a scam, and everyone involved is complicit.
Why then aren't the managers who do the actual hiring called "illegals"?

Whether posters admit it or not- there's a substantial element of prejudice and nationalism behind many of these posts.

I really have to wonder about some of the defenders of the status quo language. I really do. And that's all I have to say about that.

... people who are hardworking and looking for a better life. But are also breaking the law doing it.

except for maybe the "working" part.

Maybe they are the ones we should be calling "illegals".

We're supposed to pretend that they didn't violate the law when they crossed our border?

Like students or seniors or tourists.

There seem to be a minority of people on DU who are trying to play the race card on this issue. Maybe if these people had to struggle due to hypercompetition caused by massive influx of foreign laborers, then they'd understand it a bit better.

It's easy to sit in your Ivory Tower and start throwing terms around like "racist."

Most of DU members have already shown their distaste for this situation in a few polls.

Saying "illegal" is more efficient use of words than "illegal alien" or "person who entered the country illegally".

That's not only less inflammatory- but also more accurate.

If you want to use it; I won't pretend not to understand what you mean; but we are talking about people who broke the laws of this country in bypassing the established procedures for entering it in a lawful manner.

People here without visas or with expired visas are undocumented....

Of course, that term isn't coarse and self-righteous enough for the immigrant bashers- which, if we want to call a spade a spade, is what this is really all about.

Like a birth or baptism certificate, or a driver's license. Most Mexican citizens here have at least a Matricula Consular card. Many have passports.

Of course, that term isn't coarse and self-righteous enough for the immigrant bashers- which, if we want to call a spade a spade, is what this is really all about.

Non-visa'd person would make more sense, but it still overlooks the fact that the people we are discussing are here illegally.

It's not about bashing human beings, it's about pointing out an unacceptable aspect of their behavior. I do respect the courage and persistence of someone who has bypassed the ridiculously complex and lengthy process of coming here legally to work. Most of them were in very bad situations in their home countries.

Our process is what's really messed up. We need a workable guest worker program that doesn't cost honest guest workers anything. They deserve the protection of the law, and we citizens deserve a system that screens out the few people who we really don't want here.

Part of the trouble stems from tightening the border- which seems ironic, but in fact before operation gatekeeper in the 90's, there was more of a free flow of migrant labor. Once border crossing became more difficult- people ended up staying north rather than risk being caught repeatedly.

Then they did the predictable thing and sent for their families and extended families....

I also agree that we need to weed out criminal elements- though hopefully, we wouldn't be a draconian as Canada. They'll boot you out for a reckless driving ticket!

1) This is exactly what the corporations want -- a cowed, powerless, lower paid work force that they can exploit as they now do the undocumented they are now exploiting.

2) (for slackmaster) "Spade" was a racist, derogatory term when I lived in the Deep South back in the 50's...

See, one has to be careful with language. Words matter.

are also just returning to what was THEIR country before it was stolen in an illegal, preemptive war by the Colossus of the North...

Really? :eyes:

we all understand that when someone says "illegals" they are really saying Mexicans, not a generic reference to anyone who is in the country without the government's blessing.

I propose we call them UAWs -- Undocumented Alien Workers. Then it will sound like we're talking about a union and confuse the hell outta the freeps.

If he or she is from Mexico.

I'm talking about context and how the word is used within the framework of the immigration debate.

For example I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said "Illegals Are Closing Our Hospitals". Translated, that means all them lazy Messicans are comin' here to overwhelm our health care system.

That bumper sticker was paired with one that said "Tancredo for President".

Illegals closed the hospital down the street from me in Florida for awhile, because Haitians walking onto the beach from boats brought TB into the place and it wasn't safe.

Unfortunately, illegals close hospitals for financial reasons too ~ pointing that out, and how it costs Americans, is simply telling the truth and has nothing to do with racism.

The last person I knew with TB wasn't an immigrant. It was a US soldier I worked side by side with for a year, knowing she had TB.

Nice job proving the OP's point. Lou Dobbs would be proud.

A typical knee-jerk liberal reaction to those who want to solve the problem of immigration.

Pointing out the costs (money and human) that come with unrestrained immigration has nothing to do with blame ~ it has to do with common sense, with wisdom. The people in our town picked up the bill for those who had come illegally, and lost our own services at the same time. It happens in all the border states, continuously.

and I mean that pointedly.

Everyone deserves health care, regardless of their place of birth. eom.

For hospitals to stay in business when they are constantly treating illegals without insurance ~ many have gone out of business and others are under tremendous stress in border states. To point that out with a bumper sticker is in no way racist.

and willfully use dehumanizing language to communicate that, then you shouldn't be surprised if people say it's racist.

The problem with health care in this country isn't immigration. I'm surprised anyone thinks that it is.

And who's blaming the poor?

The person with the sticker simply pointed out a problem ~ and I added that I had experienced it. Of course it's the system ~ nobody said it wasn't. A couple of you just jumped to that wrong conclusion.

what dehumanizing language?
Who's blaming the poor?

"illegals close hospitals"

As I've posted, it's merely descriptive imo ~ like students, seniors or tourists.

And it seems to me the bumper sticker is about the system failing, not picking on the poor.

it's curious to me that you'd decide for them that it isn't a derogatory way to refer to them.

That attitude - that it's the privileged people's place to decide for an oppressed group what is or isn't derogatory when referring to them - is itself offensive.

Illegal means illegal. Frankly, its absurd that illegals would complain about something like that, since they are in fact illegally here. Too much!

"and I know it's not an offensive dehumanizing term"

"they disagree, but they aren't smart enough to recognize that it isn't dehumanizing"

I always wonder why, when it's pointed out that it IS dehumanizing, others are so determined to continue using it. Language has weight and meaning, and is political. It's not an accident that some people are determined to use language that offends.

Apparently only White Women vote.

If so, Dems are in big trouble!

I can put up a poll if you like.

Better yet, why don't YOU?

But I read quite a few that felt it was simply descriptive, as I do. Even being from a border state, I've rarely heard anyone speak of illegal immigrants in a hateful way ~ though people are tremendously concerned with the problems that our broken system causes communities.

I find it disturbing that those who are so hung up on this word seem not the least bit interested in the problems that come with illegal immigration.

I don't believe that those who are more hawkish on the issue of illegal immigration than I are necessarily acting out of unhealthy phobia.

I do continue to believe, however, that use of the term "Illegal" as a proper noun is foolish. I happen to believe there is a racist component to it, but I don't believe that all who use the term that way ARE racist, if that makes any sense.

Mostly, I think that those who use it that way -- as a noun -- are literally misguided. I believe we progressives would be in a stronger position politically to argue our case if we used less dehumanizing language. I am not asking for much, here.

Lastly, I am more than just the least bit interested in the problems that come with illegal immigration. I want to see root causes addressed; I want to hear some big ideas that will make lasting changes to decrease demand, rather than always, futilely, trying to squash the supply (see also the War on Drugs for a somewhat analogous situation).

Mostly, I want to see parity between the free flow of capital and labor (not just the former.) If you can't accept one you shouldn't accept the other. No free trade agreements should ever be made with other nations without having extremely stringent labor and environmental standards so that there are good, living wages and living standards available to (say) folks in Mexico.

Hope this helps a bit, and please accept my apologies for having an ill temper yesterday.

... they can leave.

The Texas Medical Center here in Houston has about a dozen hospitals.

None of them have gone out of business lately.

<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275>

Just one of many articles on the subject if you google: hospitals closing, immigrants

who worked for him, whether legal or illegal, I don't know.

It's just a fact that TB is a more common health problem in some countries than it is here. The yuppie lawyer with the drug-resistant TB had been to Asia a year or so ago.

People who have TB are not at fault because they were born in a country with fewer health resources than the U.S. has.

I doubt that Americans are as well-protected against imported diseases as we could be. What kind of routine health screenings of immigrants are made?

...they are given no health screenings ~ it's just too bad for everyone else. Allowing that kind of entry is flat-out wrong.

Possible conclusions:

1. We should close down all overseas military bases and operations
2. We should stop US corporations from paying for overseas business trips
3. We should stop all foreign exchange programs
4. We should stop allowing foreign travel for recreational purposes
5. We should stop allowing business trips into our country
6. We should stop allowing leisure travel to our country
7. We should stop allowing legal immigration

So many possible conclusions, some obviously ridiculous. But people cling to the talking point that undocumented workers are going to do us in with their germy selves.

I've never once heard anyone talk of illegals as being germy ~ but they are "illegal" and that means they have not gone through the proper channels, such as medical screening. I think Americans should be able to expect that without being called racist. I also don't think it's the responsibility of border state Americans to pick up the bills for illegals. The feds should pay, since it's their system that has failed ~ that's why several border states have sued the feds for reimbursement.

I know that disease is a big problem. There's nothing racist in that clip ~ the numbers could be exaggerated, I don't know, but it's about people from areas with more disease pouring unchecked into the country illegally. It took decades to get certain diseases under control here, and we are risking all that. It's about public safety, and not meant to be picking on the poor.

He took the figures from the last 30 years, and repeatedly claimed they were from the last 3 years!

Immigrants had health exams. TB was one of the major reasons to be rejected.

But--the health exam was just about the only hurdle to legal residence. No expensive immigration lawyers were needed.

Set up immigration stations on the Border. Give the applicants health exams. If they pass--let them in. Legally.

Or test some "illegals" already here. Instead of asking them to pay thousands of dollars.

When my husband went through the steps towards legal immigration, which took four LONG frickin' years BTW, he had to go through an intensive physical examination: for all communicable diseases, to make sure he had all of his vaccinations up to date, testing for AIDS, etc.

Please check out the facts.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=9855

"illegals" don't close hospitals, rich white men do to maintain their profits...

"Spics" or "Wetbacks" since a lot of them are Irish. Or Nigerian.

There are probably illegal aliens from almost every country here. The majority are Mexicans or other Central Americans simply because they have much easier access than others. They just come across the Southern border of the U.S. while others have to come in through an airport or seaport and clear customs, which requires a passport and a visa, which they then overstay, after which they are illegal aliens. Those who enter illegally buy fake documents once they're in the U.S.

They are all breaking the law, wherever they came from. They either didn't go through legal immigration channels or they violated the terms of their visa to overstay their welcome.

I heard Jerry Brown (former governor of California) on CNN today saying that 1) California needs the illegal aliens to pick crops and 2) most of the people who come here illegally only pick crops for one or two years, then move into construction work, which pays better.

He didn't connect these two statements, of course, because that would have made it obvious that a continuous supply of illegal aliens will have to be allowed in "to pick California's crops."

How many people can we allow into this country without causing serious overcrowding?

They imagine we can take in huddled masses forever and ever ~ and yet many scientists believe much of the southwest will be out of water in thirty years. Doesn't matter if hospitals close, if schools can't keep up, if towns go broke, etc., etc., etc. ~ this is a land of immigrants!

in very bad ways.

Does everyone realize that the "Give us your poor," etc. is just a poem inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty?

It's not in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. The French gave us the statue. France is now having its own problems with excessive immigration, as is most if not all of Europe.

We should help the poor but we have always helped the poor in other countries, to the annoyance of the poor in our own country. We can still help the poor in other countries but we should take care of our own people first. Many American citizens have lost jobs because illegal aliens will work for less pay.

Funny, but many years ago I wrote to Al Gore about changing the message on the Statue of Liberty to reflect a willingness to send help (technology, money, expertise, etc.), rather than invite endless huddled masses to come here. Growing up in Florida, it was obvious that it had to stop eventually.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus came from a Sephardic Jewish family. The Ashkanazi immigrants were often poorer & less educated. But she tried to help them, rather than shut the door in their faces. Unlike those who complain of the crowds--one generation after the arrival of their own ancestors.

France's problem is not simply "excessive" immigration. It's immigration of the wrong sort of people-- mostly from France's former colonies. The "pure" French aren't breeding fast enough.

You oppose Choice. What are your feelings on Contraception?

about the inequality between peoples in different "nation states". Quit demonizing people.

I know it's going to be bad news for you but the Earth IS a zero sum game. There is only a finite supply of resources. Those in the rich nations will HAVE to take a hit, will have to simplify their lifestyle and share with the other peoples on Earth.


"I had a vision of a way we could have no enemies ever again, if you're interested in this. Anybody interested in hearing this? It's kind of an interesting theory, and all we have to do is make one decisive act and we can rid the world of all our enemies at once.

"Here's what we do.

"You know all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense every year? Trillions of dollars. INSTEAD, if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world, which it would pay for MANY TIMES OVER, not ONE human being excluded...not ONE...we could as one race explore outer space together in PEACE, for EVER."

http://www.billhicks.com/

It's really that FUCKING SIMPLE!!!

Now quit calling people "illegal" and call your favorite pro-military-industrial-complex candidate and order them to quit talking racist bullshit and start doing something about the REAL problem!

actually I'm not illegal, but using the terms in a sentence as an example.

You can be illegal, but are not an illegal. And yes, some words are used as nouns and adjectives, but this is one that has pejorative connotations if used as a noun so why use it that way unless you want to be pejorative?

I'll say it again. Enter the country LEGALLY or not at all.

If you're here ILLEGALLY...go home!

at least we whom are the desendents of the white europeans that came here and stole this land from the native peoples. yes, those native peoples who are now known by their white man's name "mexicans" - this is AZTLAN, and WE are the illeglas here!!! just like the white men from america that ILLEGALLY STOLE IRAG!!! your so-called ILLEGALS have more right to be the AMERICANS than we do!!!!

but it's really not the point. I'm not about applying value judgments on groups of people here. I just want people to understand what they're really saying when they adopt the usage of others who are trying to achieve something utterly different than those of us in the progressive community (or at least as what I see as the progressive community, I recognize that's a moving target.)

We DO refer to driving over the speed limit as "illegal". And we do refer to being in this country without going through any admission process as "illegal". And we do refer to employers hiring illegal immigrants as "illegal."

And, yes, calling them "illegal" immigrants, or "illegal" workers, DOES "float my boat."

"Illegals" as a noun is just the natural evolution of the "illegal immigrant" phrase. It has nothing to do with race, religion or culture as an "illegal" can be white, black, yellow, Mexican, Middle-Eastern, European, etc. It is an accurate description of any individual who is in any country illegally. An American living in Canada without the proper paperwork and permission is as much an "illegal" as anyone doing the same in the US.

I believe the saying is "If the shoe fits . . . " And the shoe fits just fine.

Us? not so much.

if you are here in Germany without the proper paperwork, etc., you have entered the country ILLEGALLY, and are therefore an illegal immigrant. People need to play by the rules, wherever they land.

I try my best not to use that term, only because it's not PC... but to imply that non-whites are the only ones who can be illegal is racist.

prefers the term undocumented immigrants or workers because the term is more accurate. They concur that the term illegal has racial undertones and can lead to persecution of these immigrants.

Undocumented = Illegal.

they work without documentation, hence undocumented. I would rather use the term coined by a think tank that studies these matters than some label tossed out by xenophobic talk radio hosts.

And someone who drives without a license is an illegal driver.

I have known Europeans who where in this country illegal. Race has nothing to do with it.

"Illegal" is an ADVERB. It HAS TO refer to a verb (that's an "action word" for those of you who were sleeping in 3rd grade).

So one can commit an illegal act, one can be an "illegal alien" because "alien" contains within it the act of coming here, but ONE CANNOT BE "ILLEGAL"!!!

Anyone who calls anyone an "illegal" in the current political context is using a loaded, racist term whether you want to accept it or not.

Now QUIT THINKING! You're WRONG!!! GET OVER IT!!!

"illegal" is an adjective, which means that it modifies a noun (person, place, or thing word).

"Illegally" would be the adverbial form of "illegal." It would modify a verb (an "action word").

This is all very silly anyway, since adjectives are routinely made into nouns, as when people refer to themselves as "Greens."

It is an adjective.

NOW, quit thinking. It still needs a qualifying noun... :)

You win the pedant wars... :)

bah hahahahha. lol lol. nah, not the way it works.

it isnt racist. it is to identify those that come into this country legally and illegally. as simple as that.

but to actually have in black print, quit thinking, i am right, you are wrong.... wow.

Methinks you've mistaken us for Bushies! ;-)

of all time?

http://www.billhicks.com/

Were you quoting him?