"Illegals" "Illegal Aliens" "Illegal Immigrants" "Undocumented Immigrants"

I’m hereby banning the use of the word “illegals” to refer to human beings on “Alas,” with exceptions for sarcasm (i.e., someone using the term to mock anti-immigrant attitudes). A database search shows that many posters here have used the term — not all the time, but on occasion. I’m confident it’s a habit we can break.

I’m not banning “illegal immigrant” or even the vile “illegal alien,” although I hope most “Alas” comment-writers will choose not to use these terms, out of respect for my sensibilities (you are a guest here, blah blah blah) if nothing else.

I myself will try to use “undocumented immigrants.” This seems to me to be less logical than my preferred term, “unauthorized migrants” (which is the most accurate term, with the least derogatory implications), but “undocumented immigrants” has come to be the consensus term among most people defending the interests of undocumented immigrants.

* * *

In our last discussion on this, Robert, Ron, and Sailorman offered a variety of arguments in defense of “illegal alien” and/or “illegal immigrant,” and against “undocumented immigrant.” None of the arguments were persuasive.

1. The appeal to accuracy.

First was the argument that “illegal alien” is the most accurate term. But in fact the term carries two inaccurate connotations in regular English usage. (It is accurate in legalese, but since “Alas” is not a legal journal legalese isn’t the relevant criteria.)

The term “illegal” implies that a felony has been committed; but being an undocumented immigrant is not a felony, it’s a misdemeanor. The term “alien” implies “strange,” “adverse,” and “hostile” — not to mention “non-human” — according to Webster’s. None of that is accurate.

Furthermore, we don’t use the word “illegal” to refer to people who commit misdemeanors, except in the case of undocumented immigrants. We don’t call teenagers out after a legal curfew “illegal teenagers”; we don’t call a speeding driver an “illegal driver.” For that matter, even in the case of felonies, we don’t call the person “illegal.” The action is illegal; the person is not. Referring to the person as illegal is inaccurate.

So neither the term “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” can be defended on the basis of superior accuracy.

2. The argument from necessity.

It was implied that not using the term “illegal immigrant” will somehow prevent us from discussing what immigration laws should be, and how our laws and practices should address undocumented immigrants. As Robert put it, “the existing [alternative terms] are pathetic jokes that attempt to win the argument by defining it out of existence.”

This argument is so stupid that I don’t know how to respond to it. Consider this sample dialog:

SUE: I think the police should round up undocumented immigrants and feed them cupcakes.
NANCY: They can’t do that without a warrant.

See? Perfectly easy to argue policy one way or the other. This is because “illegal immigrant” is not, in fact, the only term that can be used — hence the debate over which term to use. If I decide to use the term “big” instead of “large,” that doesn’t mean I’ve defined the concept of “large” out of existence.

3. The argument from indifference. (“So what if the term I used is insulting to the people I’m talking about? Why should I care?”)

In response, I’d argue that undocumented immigrants are people, and needlessly insulting or dehumanizing them is wrong simply because needlessly hurting people is wrong. There is no policy approach towards immigration (including undocumented immigration) which cannot be argued for while avoiding the term “illegal immigrants,” or the vile “illegal aliens.” There is therefore no need to use these terms when discussing policy.

If that doesn’t sway you, then consider the practical implications. Many politically engaged Latin@s are insulted by the terms “illegal” or “alien.” Needlessly alienating large numbers of Latinos and Latinas is poor strategy if you actually want to have your policy preferences on this issue enacted.

4. “This argument is just semantics.”

Well, it’s certainly true that this is a semantic argument, and that people choose words based not only on literal meaning, but also based on subtext. For instance, while not all who use the term “illegal aliens” hate immigrants, among immigrant-haters the use of the term (or its shorter form “illegals”) is commonplace. That’s not a coincidence; immigrant-haters recognize that these terms are dehumanizing, and that’s why they prefer to use them.

So yes, it’s a semantic argument. But “semantic” doesn’t mean “illegitimate.” It’s perfectly legitimate not to want people referred to with terms that both they, and those who hate them most, recognize as dehumanizing and insulting.

This entry posted in Immigration, Migrant Rights, etc. Bookmark the permalink. 

152 Responses to "Illegals" "Illegal Aliens" "Illegal Immigrants" "Undocumented Immigrants"

  1. 101
    Eliza says:

    Police routinely do stop people to check driver’s licenses, because lack of a valid driver’s license is what makes your driving illegal.

    The legality of this, and the extent to what is legal, varies by state. In Oregon, a police officer cannot legally stop anyone unless and until they have witnessed them breaking the law. There are some here who are trying to change the law to allow random DUI checkpoints, but at the moment, those are also illegal.

  2. 102
    brownfemipower says:

    Police routinely do stop people to check driver’s licenses, because lack of a valid driver’s license is what makes your driving illegal. I don’t know what you mena with all the rest of that.

    I mean that even tho “illegal aliens” are not guilty of committing a continuous crime simply by being in the country, they are, never the less, rounded up at work, at homes, shackled, held at gunpoint, denied phone calls, imprisoned at detention centers that are some times states away from their families, and then deported or released, often after months of waiting and never seeing lawyers or being sentenced.

    If you think that those who are “illegal drivers” should be subject to that same experience–that they should–even when they aren’t driving, be hunted down, rounded up at work, etc etc etc–then there is a valid comparison between the use of “illegal alien” and “illegal driver”.

  3. Pingback: La Chola » Blog Archive » Baby locked up at Honolulu airport dies

  4. Pingback: La Chola » Blog Archive » Baby locked up at Honolulu airport dies

  5. 103
    brownfemipower says:

    As I said to BFP, the morality of bureaucracy has a lot to do with whether the bureaucracy stands between you and a right, or you and a privilege. So sheesh–if anyone here takes the “shouldn’t exist” view and you’re arguing from the premise that free immigration of anyone to anywhere is a right, you’d save us all a lot of time if you’d make that clear. It’s a whole different (and interesting) discussion.

    although I am for no borders at all, realistically, I know that’s not going to happen any time soon. So I think it makes more sense to make the process of immigrating less burdensome, more negotiable for both the nation/state as well as the citizen/non-citizen population it is working with.

    For example, it’s fairly well documented that mexicans (and I am speaking ONLY of Mexicans here, every other nationality has their own reasons for coming) are coming for jobs. That if they had the ability to travel back and forth over the border with relative (and I say *relative*) ease, they would *prefer* to stay in Mexico–maybe traveling up here for picking season and then going back home. Most mexicans don’t do that because they can’t take the risk of crossing back and forth once they are over here. So if you (as in general you) are interested in not allowing your neighborhood be ‘infiltrated’ by mexicans, it would make sense to have the bureaucracy of paper work restructured such that there is a six month application process that makes it so that the immigrant can travel back and forth legally for one year–and reapplying each year costs less than the initial application, etc.

    The fact is, crime is not going to stop in the U.S. because we have hyper militarized borders. It’s not going to keep crime out, it’s not going to stop the criminality of people already here–border patrol does not equal crime prevention, just as prisons or even extra police presence does not equal crime prevention.

    So I think that if you create a process that documents all those who are coming in, when crime DOES happen (IF it does), there is a safe, legal way to track the person who commits the crime in a way that does not infringe upon the rights of citizens or other immigrants. I mean, I’m not the biggest fan of driver’s licenses in general, but it doesn’t make sense to me that if people are concerned about crime, they’d rather have the crime committed by a person that legally for all intents and purposes, exists as a ghost or a non-person in the u.s. (no identification, no ss number, no driver’s license etc) rather than by a person who is in a system that can track their general movement at least through the application/renewal process.

  6. 104
    Ampersand says:

    amp–to play devils advocate (which I really am playing it here, because I’m not sure what I personally think in regards to my question)–people say that we need to keep rapists, killers, terrorists out and use border patrol as a way to do so–but really, are there no rapists, killers, terrorists within our borders? And i think that when people say that there’s also the false assumption that a “clean” visa (as in, background check passes muster etc), implies that the person necessarily ISN”T a rapist, killer, terrorist etc.

    Well, I think your argument — which I understand is devil’s advocacy — is making the perfect into the enemy of the marginal improvement.

    It’s absolutely true that neither border restrictions, nor any other law, will absolutely prevent rapists, killers, and terrorists from being in the US. But having fewer rapists, killers and terrorists in the US, than the number that would otherwise be here, is desirable. I think that’s a reasonable thing for people living within the US borders to want the government to attempt to do.

    Of course, as you and several others have said, this is all very theoretical; it’s obvious that in the current political climate, neither “no border restrictions” or “no border restrictions except for keeping out violent felons” is going to fly. So pushing to make the laws more reasonable and humane is probably the best we can do, for now.

    I do think that the European approach — which involves trying to ease immigration pressures by trying to improve the economic outlook in places people are leaving, not because they want to leave, but because they need jobs — makes sense. It’s cruel when people are forced to leave their homes because of economics. If the current drive for lowering immigration could be channeled into political support for policies directed at reducing that need, that would be good.

    Last time I brought that up, you objected to that, but I think you were objecting more to my framing (and my framing was sucky) than to the basic idea. Am I right about that?

  7. 105
    ed says:

    BFP,

    Murder isnt a continuous crime either… What does that exactly have to do with the fact that those individuals are here illegally? Now, working in the country and not paying taxes is a crime as well, a continuous one. Using someone elses SSN is fraud, also a crime. Now, if individuals are doing neither of those things..where is the money to live on coming from?

    As for being stopped randomly, there are places that protect against that. Of course you have to have a big plate on your car that says you HAVE registered it. And if you are stopped for any other crime you can be searched and or background checked. Are you saying we get big old “CITIZENSHIP” tattoos to prove we can be here? Just saying. Aren’t you the one who critizized having invalid comparisons?

  8. 106
    Ampersand says:

    So I think that if you create a process that documents all those who are coming in, when crime DOES happen (IF it does), there is a safe, legal way to track the person who commits the crime in a way that does not infringe upon the rights of citizens or other immigrants. I mean, I’m not the biggest fan of driver’s licenses in general, but it doesn’t make sense to me that if people are concerned about crime, they’d rather have the crime committed by a person that legally for all intents and purposes, exists as a ghost or a non-person in the u.s. (no identification, no ss number, no driver’s license etc) rather than by a person who is in a system that can track their general movement at least through the application/renewal process.

    This is an argument I will definitely be swiping from you.

  9. 107
    Dianne says:

    But having fewer rapists, killers and terrorists in the US, than the number that would otherwise be here, is desirable. I think that’s a reasonable thing for people living within the US borders to want the government to attempt to do.

    More generally, if the US allows rapist, killers, and terrorists into the country, then said rapists, etc are not in prison. Which is where they should be, IMHO, until we have better ways of preventing people from raping, killing, and terrorizing. Conversely, there is the risk that if the US has a law that no one who is accused of or convicted of serious crimes is allowed into the US then oppressive countries will simply charge all of their political dissidents with murder even if their actual crime is, say, drawing cartoons that make fun of the dictator. I’m not sure how to balance the conflicting demands. But to me the issue is not so much whether the violent criminals in question are in the US or elsewhere as much as that they could be using the open borders policy to escape responsibility for their crime.

  10. 108
    RonF says:

    Amp and Dianne, that link in #93 is an example of a gross abuse of power by a member of law enforcement. However, remember that the same thing happens to women that are caught speeding or shoplifting. It’s definitely something that needs to be stopped, but I don’t see it as an argument to change the principles of the enforcement of our present immigration laws.

    … it doesn’t make sense to me that if people are concerned about crime, they’d rather have the crime committed by a person that legally for all intents and purposes, exists as a ghost or a non-person in the u.s. (no identification, no ss number, no driver’s license etc) rather than by a person who is in a system that can track their general movement at least through the application/renewal process.

    They wouldn’t. They’d rather not have the ghosts in the U.S. at all, and at least substantially reducing such ghosts through means of actually enforcing of our present laws is an attainable goal.

  11. 109
    RonF says:

    However, if you simply let your visa expire (which, I want to be clear, THIS is the most common form of “illegal alien” in the u.s. NOT border crossers),

    bfp (if you will forgive the acronym), have you a citation for this?

  12. 110
    lori says:

    One of the ways our immigrant problem is classist in practice, and racist in effect, is that there is, essentially no way for the vast majority of migrant laborers TO be here legally on terms that make sense for the kind of work they wish/need to do. That is, through a temporary work visa. A large percentage of Mexican and Central American are seasonal or “casual” laborers here, many of whom cross back as often as they can to see their families, and/or have plans to return to their families in Mexico as soon as it’s feasible.

    But, as the US Embassy in London explains:

    “Unlike some countries, the United States government does not issue work visas for casual employment. In general, work visas are based on a specific offer of employment.

    The most common categories of nonimmigrant work visas are listed below:

    Temporary Work Visa (H)

    Required by an alien who is to perform a prearranged professional or highly skilled job for a temporary period, or to fill a temporary position for which there is a shortage of U.S. workers, or receive training from an employer. The employment or training must be approved in advance by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the United States on the basis of an application filed by the prospective employer. Read more…

    Intra-company Transferee Visa (L-1)

    Required by an alien who is being transferred by his current employer to a specific executive or technical job with the same firm, or subsidiary thereof, in the United States. The employment must be approved in advance by the USCIS in the United States on the basis of an application filed by the prospective employer.

    Treaty Trader/Investor Visas (E -1 and E-2)

    Required by a national of a country with which the United States maintains a treaty of commerce and navigation who wishes to go to the United States: to carry on substantial trade, including trade in services or technology, principally between the United States and the treaty country; or to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which the national has invested; or is in the process of investing a substantial amount of capital, may qualify for a nonimmigrant Treaty Trader or Treaty Investor visa. Read more…

    Treaty Aliens in Speciality Occupations (E -3)

    The E-3 visa allows for the temporary entry into the United States of individuals who are to perform services in a specialty occupation for a U.S. employer. It currently applies only to nationals of Australia, their spouses and children under the age of 21. The E-3 visa cateogry is numerically limited, with a maximum of 10,500 visas available annually. The U.S. employer is required to file a Labor Condition Application (LCA) with the Department of Labor. The applicant will be required to furnish the original approved LCA at the time of applying for the visa. Read more….”

    A huge number of the workers in this country without proper papers should be able to apply for and receive a temporary work visa, for casual labor that has not necessarily been worked out in advance. That we don’t have these forms available tells me that powerful interests are profiting mightily from the labor of unauthorized migrants. And I also suspect that these same powerful interests find that the more terrorized these workers are, the more exploitable they are. It’s win-win, really, to be both rabidly anti-immigrant and to profit from them at the same time.

  13. 111
    sylphhead says:

    Sailorman, Robert, et al. I haven’t yet seen an argument against the fact that “illegal immigrant” does in fact to describe those who simply overstay their visas, which AFAIK isn’t illegal in any sense of the word. If your argument is that some, perhaps even most, illegal immigrants did in fact commit a crime, that still doesn’t excuse using an accusatory term to encompass people for whom the label isn’t true even in the most generous sense.

    I think we should extend border security as it exists today, but I’m not comfortable with the police conducting searches within the country itself. The police should only be free to accost citizens if they have a reasonable basis for believing that a crime was committed, where “reasonable basis” is defined as something that would hold up in court. We could make documentation checks an administrative part of the process of hiring for a job without violating any civil liberties IMO. But I wonder how feasible this method really is, given that we already have so much trouble enforcing the workplace laws that are already in place, and which should be much higher priority.

    I think that there are legitimate reasons for some border controls

    So do I, and I have never advocated open borders*. But I think some here are too blase about the current immigration bureaucracy. It’s true that abuses and horror stories are endemic to all bureaucracies, but all bureaucracies are not created equal and some are more susceptible than others. The ones most susceptible are those whose modus operandi skirts around the ethical treatment of its subjects, and I have yet to see a compelling argument that racial profiling – which is what “getting tough” on immigration among people already in the US would degenerate into – is ethical.

    *I’d be in favour of opening borders if it came hand in hand with political integration, but that’s an issue for another day.

  14. 112
    Robert says:

    I haven’t yet seen an argument against the fact that “illegal immigrant” does in fact to describe those who simply overstay their visas, which AFAIK isn’t illegal in any sense of the word.

    You are correct that a visa overstay is not technically a violation of the law. (My understanding is that Congress never criminalized visa overstays precisely because we didn’t want to make it a crime for someone to misread a calendar or miss their flight.)

    However, most visa overstayers – the vast majority of whom are not saying “oops, I forgot it was May 17!” – then proceed to break the law, by working without papers or by fraudulently creating an identity who can “legally” work. I suppose there are overstayers who don’t break that particular law because they don’t work. I’d be surprised if they weren’t breaking some other law, however, most likely in acquiring a bogus SSN for identity purposes.

    Visa overstayers are in the position of someone who gains entry to an office building at noon and hides into the restroom until the building locks up at the end of the day. Sure, they didn’t break in. But they aren’t supposed to be there; their presence is illegal. Bathroom hiders are breaking a law because “trespassing” is a crime; we don’t have a “trespassing” law for the United States, but perhaps we should, if only to shut down this disingenuous argument.

    I have yet to see a compelling argument that racial profiling – which is what “getting tough” on immigration among people already in the US would degenerate into – is ethical.

    Meh. When a large fraction of a group has committed the offense, my sympathy for the impact of enforcement efforts on the innocent members of that group exists but is somewhat limited. If we can’t enforce a law because it would be “racial profiling”, because so many people in a particular group break the law…well, so sad for that group. Maybe they should police their own.

    How large a fraction? Well, for our Hispanic brothers and sisters, there are about 44 million Hispanics in the US, of which 17 million are foreign-born. There are ~12 million illegal immigrants in the US, of which 78% are from Mexico or Latin America. That boils out to about half of all foreign-born Hispanics being illegal immigrants, and about one in five Hispanics overall being illegal immigrants.

    (Source: Pew Hispanic Center)

  15. 113
    FurryCatHerder says:

    First, I think “undocumented immigrant” is about as inaccurate in the most troublesome cases as can be. I live a few hours from Mexico and where I live we have a fairly large population of illegal aliens. The problems are pretty well understood here — it’s a liberal town, not like other cities here — and we don’t have as many “Thrown all the brown people out!” as other places.

    Secondly, I agree 100% with BFP about the fanaticism over illegal aliens creating problems for US Citizens, Resident Aliens and various forms of legal visa holders.

    The biggest problems we have here are illegal aliens with no driver’s license, no car insurance, no medical insurance, too many living in too small a house or apartment, and gaming the entire deportation system. Some of the construction trades here no longer pay a living wage because so many of those construction workers are undocumented and driving down the wages. So far as I can tell, my house was built by one or more people who forged their papers — the foreman told me they had a slab pour interrupted the day before when INS raided the job site and took all but two workers away. Which gets me to my point.

    We have the problem because of the Wal-Mart-ization of many jobs. My house likely cost less to build because some of the people who built it likely were willing to be paid less so the employer would look the other way. They didn’t give me the choice “legal workers only” or “some illegal workers” — they told me the price, it was competitive, I bought from them instead of someone else. And many of the other little things we want cost less for the same reason. So, we SAY we want our immigration laws enforced, but we WANT the cheap goods and services that come from illegal immigration. That hardware store bigot wants illegal aliens gone, but I bet he doesn’t want to see his business decline because people can’t afford the services provided by those illegal aliens who are in that store buying whatever it is the customer needs.

    Because we have no mandatory universal health program — not the “if you don’t pay, we might fine you, or maybe not”, one where employers must pay, regardless — there is value in hiring people willing to work without insurance. And because businesses aren’t properly punished when they are caught with undocumented workers, they can get away with being a bit sloppy.

    On the other hand, we like cheap stuff from Wal-Mart, even if there’s a bit of anti-freeze in our toothpaste sometimes, lead paint on our toys, or a giant brown cloud of pollution growing over China.

  16. 114
    Radfem says:

    amp–to play devils advocate (which I really am playing it here, because I’m not sure what I personally think in regards to my question)–people say that we need to keep rapists, killers, terrorists out and use border patrol as a way to do so–but really, are there no rapists, killers, terrorists within our borders?

    Not to mention the rapists who flee the United States and cross the borders into Mexico to try to escape capture. Not to mention the U.S.’s support of business practices which have contributed to the rapes and murders of many women in the border towns of Mexico including Juarez.

  17. 115
    Rachel S. says:

    Sorry Amp I haven’t read the comments, but I just wanted to say the term “unauthorized migrants” has problems. First, in demography migration means movement of people. Specifically, here we are talking about international migration. Many people who are here without a status or documentation (I prefer “without status.”) migrated with authorization and subsequently overstayed their visa and/or failed to get a status adjustment. Often, because there was no feasile way to do so.

    The idea of undocumented migrants only being folks who “sneak across the border” dramatically oversimplifies the complexities of immigration laws.

  18. 116
    Ampersand says:

    Rachel, point well taken regarding “unauthorized migrants.” Thanks for the correction.

    If you haven’t read the comments, then I’m a bit puzzled by your “sneak across the border” comment; I don’t think that anything I wrote can reasonably be taken as talking about undocumented immigrants only as folks who “sneak across the border.” I agree that the folks who are focusing on that aspect are oversimplifying the issue, in a way that isn’t helpful.

  19. 117
    Phil says:

    I’m wondering if there are situations where we could refer to a person’s status with an adjective that is not appropriate when applied to a person, yet don’t. We could, for example, refer to “illegal downloaders” or to illegal speeders, but that’s not really common usage. It reminds me of the phrase “illegitimate children,” which has never appealed to me.

    We do refer to “underage drinkers,” though.

  20. 118
    Richard Aubrey says:

    The continuo in this discussion is the consequence of real diversity.
    Real fans of diversity would have their money in a Nigerian bank, insist their local PD hire only grads of the Mexico City Police Academy, and jet off to Addis Abbaba for particularly involved surgeries.
    Most diversity extends to ethnic restaurants and no further, except when others, usually the lower classes, are required to absorb the unfortunate consequences.
    Now we see what happens when the chattering classes are encountering real diversity.
    Interesting.

  21. 119
    Ampersand says:

    Richard, the vague tone of sneering contempt in your comments — not to mention, in your most recent comment, your decision to treat other posters as illustrations of a trend rather than respond to their comments in a respectful manner — is irritating to me. As such, it’s likely to get you banned if you don’t reform. Just a warning.

  22. 120
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Amp.
    Sneering contempt? Maybe. Point is, some folks are finding out what others have been saying has, how shall we put it, some validity.
    People who don’t put their money in a Nigerian bank, to take one example, have made a judgment in their own interest and in contradiction to their professed concern for diversity which…they condemn others for making. Circumstance judging is okay for me, rotten for thee.
    You may recall the brouhaha over low-income housing in Yonkers a decade or so back. Those who lived there opposed it and those who enforced it–and called those who resisted racists–lived elsewhere in lily-white gated communities. Some things never change.
    Until, to continue the theme, the lily-white gated communities find themselves with a low-income housing facility going up next to the pool.
    Then things change.
    The first people to be affected by illegal immigration were the low-income folks whose income dropped even further due to competition from lower-income semi-slave labor. But their complaints were incoherent, they not having organized spokesmen. And, of course, racist, chauvinist, nativist.
    Nice to see more oxen gored.
    Might cause a more rational discussion of the issue, which, as it happens, is beginning to surface in these comments.
    But, of course, some resist losing their semi-automatic memes of condemning those with non-progressive questions.

  23. 121
    Rachel S. says:

    Amp, I know you weren’t saying that, I’m referencing the Lou Dobbs of the world. :)

  24. Pingback: La Chola » Blog Archive » "the illegals" did 9-11

  25. 122
    RonF says:

    lori said:

    One of the ways our immigrant problem is classist in practice, and racist in effect, is that there is, essentially no way for the vast majority of migrant laborers TO be here legally on terms that make sense for the kind of work they wish/need to do. That is, through a temporary work visa.

    Apparently you have not researched this adequately. Such work visas are available. As you noted later, these are the “H” series visas. While most people focus on the H-1B’s, which are for skilled professionals, there are also H-2A and H-2B visas that are designed specifically for precisely the kinds of workers you describe thus:

    A large percentage of Mexican and Central American are seasonal or “casual” laborers here, many of whom cross back as often as they can to see their families, and/or have plans to return to their families in Mexico as soon as it’s feasible.

    It’s worth noting in passing that people who are accurately described in such a fashion are not immigrants, even though they are quite inaccurately called “illegal immigrants”. But the main point is that there are visas available for such workers. The problem is that the employers who wish them to be issued must go through the process of applying for them and be willling to guarantee certain benefits (housing, transportation, etc.). It’s my guess that they would rather exploit people who illegally cross our borders than spend the money to do so. Dragging employers of illegal aliens into court and tossing them into jail should change that.

    A huge number of the workers in this country without proper papers should be able to apply for and receive a temporary work visa, for casual labor that has not necessarily been worked out in advance.

    Why? On what basis is it in the interests of the United States to admit people into the country who do not have an offer of employment in hand? Why should we issue visas to people who want to get into the U.S. to find work but do not have a job already waiting for them when they enter?

  26. 123
    Robert says:

    Why should we issue visas to people who want to get into the U.S. to find work but do not have a job already waiting for them when they enter?

    T0 create liquidity (flexibility) in labor markets, of course. Pools of unemployed people (who want and are able to work) create opportunities and lubricate new enterprises.

    The question is not, does it make sense to have pools of employable people without jobs in the country. It does. The question is, do we already have such pools here, and do we need to augment their numbers to strengthen the economy? The answers there are yes, and no, respectively.

    The population group most harmed by illegal immigration are the low-but-not-un-skilled workers we already have. Those folks have little political representation, however; the groups that are HELPED by illegal immigration (some businesses, the welfare apparatus, and the general consuming public who enjoy $0.29/lb lettuce) have lots. It’s unsurprising that the political system has not delivered a solution to the problem. It can’t; it’s conflicted.

  27. Pingback: La Chola » Blog Archive » intellectual integrity.

  28. 124
    Petar says:

    Here’s something for you. Today, after 16 years in the country, I finally received my green card. It cost me a total of $37,000 (I’m anal, and I keep records). Yes, the company is supposed to pay these expenses. No, I negotiated otherwise with the owner of the company that sponsored me (He died meanwhile…) I have not been out of status for even one day, and have gone throught student visa, practical training, business visa, worker visa, and all the possible extensions. I went through three different lawyers, and multiple companies, which is why the insane expense. But it was either that, or make a lot less than I could have. Many H1B workers are held hostage by their sponsors.

    Now, I have a undergraduate military degree from Bulgaria, an MEng from the best damn institute on Earth, and I had to jump through so many hoops… at the end I was seriously contemplating to say ‘The Hell with it’ and go out of status.
    It is way too damn hard to be a legal alien, and damn too expensive.

  29. 125
    Sailorman says:

    Congratulations!

  30. Pingback: Don’t hate; reappropriate. « Problem Chylde: Nerdy but Mighty (and Still Learning)

  31. 126
    sylphhead says:

    You are correct that a visa overstay is not technically a violation of the law. (My understanding is that Congress never criminalized visa overstays precisely because we didn’t want to make it a crime for someone to misread a calendar or miss their flight.)

    However, most visa overstayers – the vast majority of whom are not saying “oops, I forgot it was May 17!” – then proceed to break the law, by working without papers or by fraudulently creating an identity who can “legally” work. I suppose there are overstayers who don’t break that particular law because they don’t work. I’d be surprised if they weren’t breaking some other law, however, most likely in acquiring a bogus SSN for identity purposes.

    So then, their crime isn’t illegal immigration per se, but identity theft and creating fraudulent documents. Why not call them “identity thieves” or “frauds” (in the sense of lying on government documents)? If a group of shifty youths tend to loiter around buildings, which isn’t a crime per se (may depend on municipal bylaws), but a great number of them go on to deal drugs from that same location, we don’t condemn them as loiterers. We condemn them as drug dealers.

    But suppose there was a significantly powerful interest in America that had a prejudice against loiterers, and the drug dealing issue was just a cover. Perhaps a large number of these people in turn had a problem with the demographics from which loiterers stem. Even if the people arguing against loitering/drug dealing on this comment thread did not fall into this group, I’d still have a problem with them hijacking the former, less accurate term for the benefit of the latent triggers and history of bigotry behind it.

    Meh. When a large fraction of a group has committed the offense, my sympathy for the impact of enforcement efforts on the innocent members of that group exists but is somewhat limited. If we can’t enforce a law because it would be “racial profiling”, because so many people in a particular group break the law…well, so sad for that group. Maybe they should police their own.

    Hmm. It is for similar reasons that I vacillate on racial profiling. Sometimes I find it just heinous and intrinsically prone to abuse – even more so than other law enforcement measures, like I did back when I wrote that last comment. Other times I still find it these things, but perhaps concede that it may be practical. It is then that I apply this standard: it is well known that certain heinous criminals, such as office gunmen or serial killers, come almost entirely from a white male demographic.

    If the pro-racial profiler is as strongly for racial profiling here as (s)he is as (s)he is in other cases, (s)he has an opinion I can respect, though I may still disagree on particular cases.

    If (s)he on the other hand either is not, or is ostensibly for but is full of excuses and uncommon reservations, then you know what my response would be. What are these excuses? Targetting white men here doesn’t make much sense except from the political motivations of a PC feminist/academia/liberal overclass that’s just out to get to white men. Guess what, other demographics targetted by racial profiling have the same things to say, but with some words switched around. Targetting white men here is just part of a few-decades-long latent societal hostility to white men that’s poorly covered, and offensive and accusatory to ordinary law-abiding white men. Well, Black and Arab citizens would say similar. Either this kind of profiling should be used or it shouldn’t.

    Why should we issue visas to people who want to get into the U.S. to find work but do not have a job already waiting for them when they enter?

    T0 create liquidity (flexibility) in labor markets, of course. Pools of unemployed people (who want and are able to work) create opportunities and lubricate new enterprises.

    But how can we tell the difference between that and a mere contrivance to lower wages and reduce the bargaining power of (lower case ‘l’) labour?

    Also, what is your opinion of medical and bar associations that artificially control the supply of graduates? Given that you already accept that governments should enact laws to enforce positive action toward labour market flexibility.

  32. Pingback: Brownfemipower, Amanda, and Thieving WoC’s Efforts: Publicity or Plagarism??? | The SmackDog Chronicles (Ver. 2.5)

  33. 127
    RonF says:

    Petar, what would be the “best damn institute on Earth”?

    And let me echo my congratulations! Are you going to pursue citizenship?

  34. 128
    Sailorman says:

    That would be the CalMass Tech Inistitute, located in Camkley.

  35. 129
    Petar says:

    > Petar, what would be the “best damn institute on Earth”?

    My ring has the same five letters as yours does.

    > Are you going to pursue citizenship?

    Frankly, I am not sure. I haven’t yet studied the laws of Bulgaria, the EU, and the US regarding dual citizenship. It may be that I am ineligible anyway, as Bulgaria recently reversed the law that discharged me, so I may be technically, an officer of the armed forces of a foreign country. I’ll settle this one this summer.

    But in general, yes, I will apply for citizenship, if it will not jeopardize my Bulgarian one. If only so I can vote in California’s elections, and complain about the lack of good Presidential candidates (not that I’ve been abstaining from the latter) Oh, and to jump through fewer hoops to keep my guns legal.

  36. 130
    Sailorman says:

    It is then that I apply this standard: it is well known that certain heinous criminals, such as office gunmen or serial killers, come almost entirely from a white male demographic
    Whenever I hear “going postal” or “office shooting” I think only of white, middle aged, males.

    I’m getting a similar image, though less strong, for serial killers.

    Interesting point.

  37. 131
    Petar says:

    Your instinct is wrong. Black males are overrepresented among serial killers,
    at about 2 to 1. It’s just that this is a lot less than their overrepresentation among murderers, which is 6:1.

    But most serial killers come from the US, and most Americans are white. This is why you are thinking ‘white’. As for males, that’s a different story. We do seem to be more prone to this particular form of irrationality (serial killing) Mass killers and plain murderers are not necessarily irrational.

    Or maybe we are just more physically suited for it. The few known female serial killers used mostly poison, and most serial killers pick on less intimidating individuals.

  38. 132
    RonF says:

    But most serial killers come from the US,

    This may be what’s reported, but what’s reported vs. actual facts is going to be a function of how reliable and specific crime statistics gathering and reporting is in other countries. You have to wonder.

    My ring has the same five letters as yours does.

    Not the same 5 letters; mine says “BS” on one side, not “MS”. What year and course, if that’s not too personal?

    It may be that I am ineligible anyway, as Bulgaria recently reversed the law that discharged me, so I may be technically, an officer of the armed forces of a foreign country.

    Do you have the option to resign? Or the desire? I wonder if that’s something that you can unilaterally renounce and satisfy the State Department (again, if that’s something you want to do)?

    According to this, Bulgaria recognizes dual citizenship. Apparently the U.S. has no problem with it after naturalization, either. Of course you’d want to check.

    If only so I can … complain about the lack of good Presidential candidates

    Hell, you’re half-American already on that basis.

  39. 133
    Petar says:

    > > My ring has the same five letters as yours does.
    >
    > Not the same 5 letters; mine says “BS” on one side, not “MS”.

    I took a job before I completed my Master thesis, and did not get the MEng until three years later. I only have the ring I got in my sophomore year. But I was referring to the other five letters. Or are you from one of the wussy classes that took them off? :-)

    > What year and course, if that’s not too personal?

    Course Six, but if I give you the year, I’d pretty much give people my name and address. There were not that many from Bulgaria at the time.

  40. 134
    Robert says:

    If the pro-racial profiler is as strongly for racial profiling here as (s)he is as (s)he is in other cases, (s)he has an opinion I can respect, though I may still disagree on particular cases.

    When FBI profilers do these kind of cases, I believe they do in fact look for white men for the very reason you cite, and I’m completely fine with that. With the same reservation I have for all profiling cases; sometimes the profile is wrong, and crime-fighters have to be aware of the possibility of the unusual. Cf. the Beltway sniper case, where they were looking for white guys for quite some time.

    But how can we tell the difference between [creating pools of labor to promote economic growth] that and a mere contrivance to lower wages and reduce the bargaining power of (lower case ‘l’) labour?

    Who cares? They’re the same thing. I’m an employer. I’m all for reducing the bargaining power of labor.

    Also, what is your opinion of medical and bar associations that artificially control the supply of graduates? Given that you already accept that governments should enact laws to enforce positive action toward labour market flexibility.

    All guilds suck.

  41. 135
    FurryCatHerder says:

    Re #140: All guilds suck.

    The guild system produced a steady stream of well-qualified workers. New workers were trained by skilled, existing workers, not in some generic liberal education (classic definition of “liberal”) system that is afraid to tell job skills.

  42. 136
    Robert says:

    Most things that suck have some redeeming qualities.

  43. 137
    RonF says:

    Mine has “BS” and my class year on one side and “MIT” and “mens et manus” on the other.

  44. 138
    Petar says:

    > Mine has “BS” and my class year on one side and “MIT” and “mens et manus”
    > on the other.

    No IHTFP!? I will have to revise my estimate of your age. Or maybe you should look for it. On some rings it’s very well concealed.

    No insult meant. I have met people who did not know about it.

  45. 139
    RonF says:

    The term was well known in my time, but I was unaware that it was on the ring. Is it concealed in the sticks of the beaver lodge? Or in the facade of Building 10?

    Part of the problem may be that my original Brass Rat was stolen back in the early ’80s (someone broke into my house), and what I have now is a replacement made not from the original moulds (they destroy them after 10 years) but is a more generic one that they put your degree and graduation year on. My wife bought it for me for Christmas when I became a Educational Counselor. So it also doesn’t have my graduation year (1974) in the sticks, either, whereas I specifically remember that my original did.

  46. 140
    Petar says:

    It is concealed in a different place on every ring I have seen… but you must
    understand that I have not seen many that were not made in the 80/90s.
    For example, in the columns under the great dome, or in the windows of the Green Building.

    Actually, for 2001, it was in the beaver’s sticks. And for 2008. The more recent designs are on Wikipedia. If you look for it, you can see it in most of them. I assume the rest have it outside the bezel. Mine does. And now we have completely high-jacked the thread. These posts should be moved to an open thread.

  47. Pingback: My Weblog

  48. 141
    sylphhead says:

    Who cares? They’re the same thing. I’m an employer. I’m all for reducing the bargaining power of labor.

    A simple divergence of opinions, then. I for one do not think it is a good idea for labour’s bargaining power to reduce down to zero. I think there should be a balance, and that currently the balance is too much, at least in America, in favour of management.

    I also find the idea that government policy should be shaped to take positive action to reduce the bargaining power of labour, as you’re proposing. Government policy should be used effectively and sparingly, and given that the deck has a way of stacking against the working class naturally under a capitalist system, I believe that limited government intervention, where it exists, should be used for the working class. Otherwise, we might end up with a “subsidizes Israel, subsidizes Egypt” scenario. But I do agree that government should take positive action to shape the economic playing field – just not in that direction, usually.

    All guilds suck.

    A colourful quote, but I didn’t ask whether or not you believed guilds to suck. I asked whether or not you believe government should intervene, in this case specifically shaping its foreign policy, to act against them. (Perhaps in reaction to their sucking.) If it does, I’d only accept it if it applied the standard equally.

    What I propose is this (actually, it’s Dean Baker’s idea): the MCATS should be made internationally available at every school, or at least every school in every country friendly to the US. The best scores internationally will get to enroll in American medical schools to become doctors in America. Sure, the AMA may oppose this, or once it is adopted screen med school applicants to keep American schools for Americans. (Much in the vein of Ivy League schools adopting admittance criteria that looked at the whole applicant and not just test scores, laudable in its own right, but as a contrivance to keep all those Jews out.) But the whole point is to break their power here. Foreign doctors will flood the US, and their willingness to work for less will pull health care costs down. Boom. A significant part of our health care problem is solved.

    Bar associations are even worse – they are state-specific. I realize that laws are specific to states and that some degree of specialization within the state is necessary, but I think this is mostly a scheme to suppress the total supply of lawyers to keep salaries up. After all, if there’s one law school for patent lawyers and personal injury lawyers who advertise on TV, I think one generic law school, with one generic entrance exam again made available internationally, could suffice. After that, one can get to work with specific states. Again, the effects will be similar. Lawyers made affordable as their salaries go down. The consumer wins.

    And once we go along this path, this should be opened to all professions. Thomas Freidman thinks the age of the job security for workers is over, and that they should get used to international competition. I agree. I think we should start with the job of “bloviating blowhard columnist for the NYT”. Let an English grad student from India compete for his job, and remove any system of patronage there currently exists. Let anyone attend American journalism schools, as long as they have the grades. Maybe Friedman’s home grown perspective is something a high achieving foreigner could never match, no matter their relative intelligence. But on the other hand, the foreigner, who’s used to lower pay scales for one-day-a-week writers, will be willing to work for much less. Let the customer decide which is best.

    This can, of course, extend to business schools and professorships and the like. Again, there will be patronage and old boy networks, but these are just guilds by another name and should be dissolved.

    I don’t like the idea that liberals find themselves set against the notion of “globalization”, and I think free trade and lowered borders is consistent with liberal ideals. I only don’t like the idea when it’s selectively applied.

  49. Pingback: BROWNFEMIPOWER SPEAKS! « BEAUTIFUL, ALSO, ARE THE SOULS OF MY BLACK SISTERS

  50. 142
    LEIGHTON SMITH says:

    We are allowing the government to frame the immigration problem for us. We must consider that in some cases, such as here, the government is not acting in our own individual best interest.

    Thus, the term “illegal” associated with “alien” or “immigrant” is one of the government’s invention.

    What we as individuals must do is look at the problem from our own perspective. It is my understanding that this has not been done very often and has not been heralded very effectively.

    The reality is that foreign nationals are in every recognized nation worldwide, creating a nearly fully integrated polyglot. To somehow require all these people to get their “papers in order” with respect to the local laws of each country is crazy.

    There has to be a better, more accommodating, and global solution. Like a national identity card that is accepted worldwide. This different than a passport and should be a smart card with various data on it relevant to the bearer and the country he or she hails from.

    Take a look at the end-to-end treatment of the immigration problem that has been prepared by Trigon-International, Inc. This is actionable, affordable, and feasible and more aptly it addresses the problem in situ meaning that the fix goes in without having to reset the pieces on the game board.

  51. 143
    RonF says:

    To somehow require all these people to get their “papers in order” with respect to the local laws of each country is crazy.

    Why?

    There has to be a better, more accommodating, and global solution. Like a national identity card that is accepted worldwide.

    I believe in English it’s called a “passport”. You can fairly easily get one. And it’s very useful if your intent is to obey the laws of your own country and the country you seek to enter.

    Of course, here in the U.S. the whole concept of a “national identity card” is quite suspect. There’s a lot of resistance to establishing one and thereby handing over a certain amount of power over individuals to the Federal government.

  52. 144
    Mr. Anonymous says:

    White people found outside of Northern Europe and the British Isles are Illegal Aliens.