Obama orders amnesty for illegals.

[Thersites]

I've proposed a comprehensive policy of dealing with the issue myself: the voluntary privilege exchange program. Liberals can volunteer to give away their citizenship and be deported to a developing or third world crap hole. In exchange, an illegal immigrant without any other crimes on their ledge is granted citizenship in the liberal's place. Problem solved. I prefer the involuntary privilege exchange program myself but it's politics so I think the above would be a good compromise to start with.

That might be worth thinking about for a split second if and only if legal residency were a rival good.

[Teallaura]

I might understand if the objection were to 'alien' which legitimately has other connotations. But replacing 'illegal' with 'undocumented' has no effect on how 'dehumanizing' the term is - one would be as 'dehumanized' as the other since both refer to legal status. No, that substitution is made for purely political reasons to add confusion to the issue of illegal immigration - if you don't have a real argument, change the terms. Hence the whole 'dehumanizing' thing is pure red herring.

The term is correctly 'illegal alien' referring solely to those who are in a country without permission or right to be there. A drunk frat boy sneaking into Mexico on a dare would be just as much an illegal alien there as any Mexican citizen sneaking into this country is here. Given that Mexico's southern border is patrolled with extreme prejudice I would personally find any 'humanitarian' appeal more credible if it were first directed to Mexico in defense of South and Central Americans just trying to reach the US via Mexico. Until Mexico allows them free passage (and since Satan hasn't learned to ice skate that seems unlikely) the whole 'better life' argument is a total sham.

As to 'fixing Mexico' we can help but only they can do it (well, barring invasion which we are not ever gonna consider). But the best way for us to help is a painful one - close the borders meaningfully and either force out (economic sanctions) and/or deport those here illegally. The US is Mexico's 'escape valve' - we let off the political steam by giving a cheap out. But the result is a long term, entrenched problem instead of a short term, really painful solution. Mexico won't deal fully with its internal issues unless forced into it by overwhelming political and social pressure and that can only come from a people who have no alternative but fix what they have. For the majority of nations, this is a non-issue - seriously disadvantaged nations rarely have borders with prosperous nations - and so they, often slowly and usually painfully, deal with themselves. We see success in India not because we sent aid but because we could never be big brother (non-Orwellian) and try to do it for them.

Closing the borders isn't the only step, but it is the crucial one if Mexico is ever to have a shot at prosperity.

[Darth Executor]

That might be worth thinking about for a split second if and only if legal residency were a rival good.

Let's ship the entire third world to the US then. If it's not a rival good then nothing will go wrong.

[Ansgar Seraph]

I might understand if the objection were to 'alien' which legitimately has other connotations. But replacing 'illegal' with 'undocumented' has no effect on how 'dehumanizing' the term is - one would be as 'dehumanized' as the other since both refer to legal status. No, that substitution is made for purely political reasons to add confusion to the issue of illegal immigration - if you don't have a real argument, change the terms. Hence the whole 'dehumanizing' thing is pure red herring.

The term "illegal alien" wasn't described as dehumanizing. Reducing the term to "illegals" is what I considered dehumanizing.

As to 'fixing Mexico' we can help but only they can do it (well, barring invasion which we are not ever gonna consider). But the best way for us to help is a painful one - close the borders meaningfully and either force out (economic sanctions) and/or deport those here illegally. The US is Mexico's 'escape valve' - we let off the political steam by giving a cheap out. But the result is a long term, entrenched problem instead of a short term, really painful solution. Mexico won't deal fully with its internal issues unless forced into it by overwhelming political and social pressure and that can only come from a people who have no alternative but fix what they have. For the majority of nations, this is a non-issue - seriously disadvantaged nations rarely have borders with prosperous nations - and so they, often slowly and usually painfully, deal with themselves. We see success in India not because we sent aid but because we could never be big brother (non-Orwellian) and try to do it for them.

Closing the borders isn't the only step, but it is the crucial one if Mexico is ever to have a shot at prosperity.

I think that most people agree with this; the big debate is what policy we enact for the people already in America and, more specifically, the people who have known no other homeland than America.

—Sam

[Thersites]

Let's ship the entire third world to the US then. If it's not a rival good then nothing will go wrong.

There is no perfect example of a non-rival good; even breathable air is finite. That being said, we have not reached the point where allowing legal residency to one person diminishes the capacity of another person to live in the US. We're not overcrowded.

That aside, there is the statistic about everyone in the world being able to fit comfortably in Texas.

[Darth Executor]

There is no perfect example of a non-rival good; even breathable air is finite. That being said, we have not reached the point where allowing legal residency to one person diminishes the capacity of another person to live in the US. We're not overcrowded.

Space isn't really the issue. Employment is (especially now). So is culture.

[The Moonshield]

If Obama has the ability to make this sort of policy change via an executive order, bypassing those "obstructionist Republicans" in congress, then why didn't he do this years ago? If this is such a great thing that's going to benefit so many honest, hard working people, why did Obama wait so close to election time, when it would be most beneficial to himself, to do this, instead of years ago when it could have helped these poor people sooner?

[Ansgar Seraph]

If Obama has the ability to make this sort of policy change via an executive order, bypassing those "obstructionist Republicans" in congress, then why didn't he do this years ago? If this is such a great thing that's going to benefit so many honest, hard working people, why did Obama wait so close to election time, when it would be most beneficial to himself, to do this, instead of years ago when it could have helped these poor people sooner?

Here's a good run-down of the timeline:

"The story behind Obama's immigration order." Bennet, Parsons. L.A. Times. 2012.06.15. Accessed 2012.06.16

Gathered around a conference table one day in late April, Democratic senators had a specific request for White House aides: take a closer look at using executive power to shield young illegal immigrants from deportation.
One week earlier, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) had told reporters about his plans to propose a scaled-back version of the Dream Act -– legislation designed to provide help to young immigrants. Democrats were skeptical that Rubio could gain his own party’s support for that idea. But seated in the big conference room next to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office, the senators pressed aides to the president to do more.

The White House officials responded that the Department of Homeland Security already had been discussing how to refine its deportation practices so officials could focus on the most serious cases.

The idea, they believed, had merit.

Over the next several weeks, administration officials reexamined the issue, diving into the legal precedents governing the president’s authority over immigration enforcement.

© source where applicable

Obviously, Obama couldn't do this prior to clear gridlock on the issue. That means the latter part of 2011 until now. And, given that span of time, it's pretty clear politicking. Better now than never, though.

—Sam

[Nathan Poe]

How do you dehumanize others by labeling them "illegals"? Only humans can commit crimes...

So address them as humans -- by calling them "illegals" you're saying that they are the crime.

At least spare a couple of syllables to call them "illegal immigrants." Even the old "Illegal aliens" is an improvement, although it's more applicable to E.T. than a Mexican family.

[Cerebrum123]

So address them as humans -- by calling them "illegals" you're saying that they are the crime.

At least spare a couple of syllables to call them "illegal immigrants." Even the old "Illegal aliens" is an improvement, although it's more applicable to E.T. than a Mexican family.

So, in your view it would be wrong to call someone a murderer? What about rapist? Don't you see that it's basically the same thing(to call them something based on the crime they have committed)?

[Thersites]

So, in your view it would be wrong to call someone a murderer? What about rapist? Don't you see that it's basically the same thing(to call them something based on the crime they have committed)?

"Murderer" is a noun that describes the perpetrator of a very specific act. "Rapist" is a noun that describes the perpetrator of a very specific act. "Illegal" does not specify either a particular act or even a perpetrator: it is an adjective that describes a wide array of activities. Using it as a noun is simply irresponsible.

[Nathan Poe]

So, in your view it would be wrong to call someone a murderer? What about rapist? Don't you see that it's basically the same thing(to call them something based on the crime they have committed)?

Actually, it would be basically the same thing (or at least closer to it) to call them a "murder," or a "rape." You'll notice that the criminal's personhood is still acknowledged in the "-er" and "-ist" suffixes.

in the case of "illegals," you're not calling them something based on the crime, you're calling them the crime itself. It makes no grammatical sense -- which is the general idea.

As George Carlin said, "We think in language -- the quality of our thoughts and ideas can only be as good as the language we use to express them. Government wants to control your words and control your language because that's the way you control thought, which is the business they're in."

And it's nothing new, as this article from last year shows.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-illegals.html

“Illegal” is the latest in a long line of euphemisms that politicians use to signal their antipathy to a reviled racial or ethnic group, in this case, Latinos. No, no, you say, this has nothing to do with animosity toward Hispanics; it’s about protecting the border and obeying the law. Really? Then why don’t we call the CEOs of the companies that hire illegal immigrants “illegals”? Our last three presidents all violated America’s drug laws. The current Treasury secretary violated America’s tax laws. Former House majority leader Tom DeLay recently was convicted of money laundering. I look forward to hearing Mitt Romney and Fox News refer to them as “illegals” too.

[Nathan Poe]

Space isn't really the issue. Employment is (especially now). So is culture.

Employment? Interesting fact here:

http://blog.al.com/wire/2011/10/crac...immigrant.html

Looks to me like the employment is there -- people just don't want it.

As for culture? Another interesting fact. Not too long ago in our history, strict anti-immigration policies were proposed (and usually passed) against groups such as the Irish, Poles, and Italians on the grounds that they would not assimilate into US culture.

So, who's with me for a pint of Guinness and some pierogis? We'll put some Sinatra on the radio, too...

[Darth Executor]

So address them as humans

I already am. You know what to do with your manufactured butthurt.

[Darth Executor]

Employment? Interesting fact here:

http://blog.al.com/wire/2011/10/crac...immigrant.html

Looks to me like the employment is there -- people just don't want it.

Boo hoo, a bunch of slave owners got their slaves taken away. Cry me a river.

If farming isn't profitable for them (and it shouldn't be with cheap foreign labor and transportation widely available) they should find something else to do.

Not sure what this has to do with the OP anyway, unless you think all illegal immigrants are only there to pick tomatoes from now until kingdom come even if they or their children are capable of getting a full education.

As for culture? Another interesting fact.

Here's another interesting fact: you're an imbecile. You have no clue what I meant when I said culture but for some reason insist on posting as if you do to make your incompetence manifest before all. I was not talking about assimilation, nor do I really care about assimilation. Foreign cultures are fine as long as they're useful. Some aren't. In many cases the adult immigrants are fine, but their kids get absorbed into poisonous local cultures since they have no respect for the diseased liberal culture that infests the first world. I'm putting you on ignore after this post, you're simply not worth even scrolling past anymore.