Obama orders amnesty for illegals.

[Hamster]

Why don't we just fix Mexico, there, problem solved

[Darth Executor]

Um, I'd say it makes it much, much easier to demagogue people as bigoted or racist, if that's your bag.

Not really. You'd effectively have to admit you're conflating opposition to crime and opposition to a particular race and come out looking like an idiot. It's why people like Spartacus have to use sleight of hand like "amnesty for immigrants" to slowly move themselves into a position where they can demagogue more effectively.

We don't reduce people who drive without insurance or litter or engage in other illegal activities down to such terms.

Actually we do when we are discussing them in a context where their primary or only role is that of a criminal.

It's purely pejorative, entirely unnecessary and serves the sole purpose of distancing this set of people from that which would produce sympathy or empathy. In short, dehumanizing.

—Sam

It's not unnecessary at all, it is in fact an absolute necessity to remind neutral parties at every step of the discussion that they are criminals otherwise people like Spartacus and many others before them try to insinuate the reason why people have a problem with them is because they're immigrants.

You know what infuriates me? If the left had genuine sympathy for these people it would have cooperated with sealing off the borders ages ago. Then maybe the huge drug wars that are killing Mexico wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Instead we have a culture where anything resembling opposition to massive criminal activity that is hurting both countries gets you demagogued to smithereens, where stupid people like Reagan and GWB think the left's solutions are genuinely helpful, and where you can't even label a criminal a criminal without fake outrage bursting out of someone like a clogged toilet. But hey, the left needs to import more victims that they created so they can hook them up to the Democrat victimhood machine and gather more votes. I hope they were worth the endless blood you spilled for them.

[Darth Executor]

Why don't we just fix Mexico, there, problem solved

The US is degenerating, it's in no position to fix anybody else.

[Darth Executor]

How about "resident aliens"

A resident alien is not necessarily illegal. Given that their status as illegal immigrants is rather paramount to the subject of, you know, illegal immigration, it would seem like a peculiar attribute to leave out. Plus, if we used "resident aliens" your faction would just accuse anyone who opposes it as being anti-immigrant.

[Thersites]

It boils down to a question of sound policy. We can either maintain unenforceable laws that a substantial minority will ignore and break- thereby undermining the rule of law as well as public safety- or we can set up mechanisms to integrate these people into our legal system.

As for terminology, might I suggest undocumented resident or undocumented worker?

[JimL]

Hmm? Let me see? There is more border security, more boots on the ground now than ever before. Fewer people illegally crossing the border than in decades. The prosecution of criminal aliens has risen by 80 per cent. under Obama. And he has now given temporary relief and hope to those who through no fault of their own grew up in this country. We have got to get rid of this guy and get back to the more thoughtful and humane policies advocated for by republicans.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Actually we do when we are discussing them in a context where their primary or only role is that of a criminal.

I cannot recall a time in my life where I have systematically heard "illegal" used as a personal noun outside the immigration debate.

It's not unnecessary at all, it is in fact an absolute necessity to remind neutral parties at every step of the discussion that they are criminals otherwise people like Spartacus and many others before them try to insinuate the reason why people have a problem with them is because they're immigrants.

We clearly disagree on whether the term "criminal" and its connotations should apply to this set of individuals. Even so, it is unnecessarily pejorative.

You know what infuriates me? If the left had genuine sympathy for these people it would have cooperated with sealing off the borders ages ago. Then maybe the huge drug wars that are killing Mexico wouldn't have happened in the first place.

I don't disagree with the concept or the necessity of border security (though it would not stop or even very much staunch the drug trade).

Instead we have a culture where anything resembling opposition to massive criminal activity that is hurting both countries gets you demagogued to smithereens, where stupid people like Reagan and GWB think the left's solutions are genuinely helpful, and where you can't even label a criminal a criminal without fake outrage bursting out of someone like a clogged toilet. But hey, the left needs to import more victims that they created so they can hook them up to the Democrat victimhood machine and gather more votes. I hope they were worth the endless blood you spilled for them.

Ah, demagoguery. There it is.

A resident alien is not necessarily illegal. Given that their status as illegal immigrants is rather paramount to the subject of, you know, illegal immigration, it would seem like a peculiar attribute to leave out. Plus, if we used "resident aliens" your faction would just accuse anyone who opposes it as being anti-immigrant.

True, the term would need context. Then again, the term "illegals" requires context, as well (especially if you are going to insist that it can be applied broadly to anyone engaging in criminal activity!) — for example, not all "illegals" are the subject of Obama's "amnesty." So both OtherCheek's term and my term would require appropriate context. And this is true in virtually every circumstance. The primary benefit of the term "illegals" is its pejorative and dehumanizing factors.

So we could say "non-naturalized resident aliens" or "non-naturalized aliens" or even "illegal aliens." The last term would at least be a step back to humanizing the subjects of discussion.

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

It boils down to a question of sound policy. We can either maintain unenforceable laws that a substantial minority will ignore and break- thereby undermining the rule of law as well as public safety- or we can set up mechanisms to integrate these people into our legal system.

It mostly boils down even further to workable policy — given a glut of deportation cases, which groups are prioritized and which groups are best put at the back of the pack? If the government prosecuted everyone who broke the speed limit, our courts would have no time for murder trials.

As for terminology, might I suggest undocumented resident or undocumented worker?

As good as most anything else, I suppose . . . though this set of people would no longer be undocumented!

—Sam

[Thersites]

It mostly boils down even further to workable policy — given a glut of deportation cases, which groups are prioritized and which groups are best put at the back of the pack? If the government prosecuted everyone who broke the speed limit, our courts would have no time for murder trials.

Fair point.

One could raise the point, however, that distributing and verifying proper documentation would present a logistical and bureaucratic challenge as well.

As good as most anything else, I suppose . . . though this set of people would no longer be undocumented!

—Sam

I think we could come up with more specific terms- for example, residents seeking permanent status, temporary workers, undocumented residents seeking legal status... but I think that somehow, being more specific will just make things unnecessarily confusing.

[Darth Executor]

I cannot recall a time in my life where I have systematically heard "illegal" used as a personal noun outside the immigration debate.

That might be because other crimes have specific names. There is no need to call a pimp an illegal for example because there is already a word for pimp: pimp. There is no unique word for "illegal immigrant", so illegal immigrant or the shortform illegal is what is commonly used.

We clearly disagree on whether the term "criminal" and its connotations should apply to this set of individuals. Even so, it is unnecessarily pejorative.

No, it's the one that fits best for the reason outlined above.

I don't disagree with the concept or the necessity of border security (though it would not stop or even very much staunch the drug trade).

It may or may not now but it wouldn't have developed in the first place, at least not to this extent, if Mexican drug lords didn't have access to a massive, wealthy, easy to access market north of the border.

Ah, demagoguery. There it is.

It's not demagoguery, it's reality, and one only needs to read your repulsive fawning over how Obama so skillfully played this for political gain to see it. Your adoration for these vile tactics is what set off my rant in the first place.

True, the term would need context. Then again, the term "illegals" requires context

It does, and the context can be gleamed from the surrounding discussion.

So we could say "non-naturalized resident aliens" or "non-naturalized aliens" or even "illegal aliens." The last term would at least be a step back to humanizing the subjects of discussion.

—Sam

Illegals is shortform for the last one. The first two have the same problem, since naturalized means they acquired citizenship. They're also redundant, we already know they're not naturalized from the word "alien".

I'll permit myself a slight chuckle at the irony of you calling to have them humanized by referring to them as aliens.

take_me_to_your_leader.jpg

[Darth Executor]

Hmm? Let me see? There is more border security, more boots on the ground now than ever before. Fewer people illegally crossing the border than in decades. The prosecution of criminal aliens has risen by 80 per cent. under Obama.

Note how they are all relative terms. 80% of next to nothing is still next to nothing.

We have got to get rid of this guy and get back to the more thoughtful and humane policies advocated for by republicans.

So pretty much the same policies then?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Fair point.

One could raise the point, however, that distributing and verifying proper documentation would present a logistical and bureaucratic challenge as well.

Yes, agreed.

I think we could come up with more specific terms- for example, residents seeking permanent status, temporary workers, undocumented residents seeking legal status... but I think that somehow, being more specific will just make things unnecessarily confusing.

Yes, the more specific, the more confusing. I don't think there's a particular problem identifying the groups of people in context of the conversation, which is why I would merely emphasize not using pejorative terms that work principally to create a tribal mentality.

—Sam

[Darth Executor]

It boils down to a question of sound policy. We can either maintain unenforceable laws that a substantial minority will ignore and break- thereby undermining the rule of law as well as public safety- or we can set up mechanisms to integrate these people into our legal system.

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.

[Darth Executor]

Yes, the more specific, the more confusing. I don't think there's a particular problem identifying the groups of people in context of the conversation, which is why I would merely emphasize not using pejorative terms that work principally to create a tribal mentality.

—Sam

We need to emphasize the use of accurate terms no matter how pejorative they may come off as to people with ulterior agendas.

[Thersites]

Yes, agreed.

Gotcha!

One could reasonably expect that people in need of documentation would report more readily for that than they would for deportation.

Yes, the more specific, the more confusing. I don't think there's a particular problem identifying the groups of people in context of the conversation, which is why I would merely emphasize not using pejorative terms that work principally to create a tribal mentality.

—Sam

Careful, or Darth will start quoting you on how you think being specific is bad and how that makes you intellectually irresponsible