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.
“Only semantics” always burns me. Semantics are important – the language we use affects how we think, which affects everything else we do.
And thank you for the cogent argument on the term illegal. It’s always bothered me, but I couldn’t define why enough to argue against its usage by various relatives. Now I think I may have to start referring to some family members as illegal drivers or illegal pedestrians and see if the point gets across.
Well said… the term “alien” always bugged me, because we don’t use it in any other context. We don’t authorized immigrants “legal aliens”. We call them immigrants. So why does their legality transmogrify them from “immigrants” into “aliens”?
@Tapetum
It’s often said in project planning that “just” is a four letter word. Whenever somebody says “we just do XXXX” take out the “just” and you realize that XXXX is not trivial. “Only” is a similar four-letter-word.
We don’t [call] authorized immigrants “legal aliens”.
Actually, we do.
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.
I would dispute this on two counts:
1) The concept that the term “illegal” implies a felony is novel, as far as I can tell. The term “illegal” means something that is forbidden by law or statute. I can find no reference or usage that expressly or by implication restricts that to felonies. Your assertion that it does is something I have never heard before. Heck, if you smoke marijuana you are an illegal drug user, and smoking marijuana in and of itself is a misdemeanor in most juristictions. It is illegal to park in front of a fire hydrant, but it’s certainly not a felony.
2) Lots of words have different senses in different contexts, and it’s inappropriate to cherry-pick an out-of-context sense. In the case of people who are non-citizens the sense of strange or stranger certainly is not inappropriate. It’s also important to note that you did not address the point that “alien” is and has always been the legal term to denote non-citizens present in the United States, regardless of their immigration status. Since non-citizens encompasses everyone we are talking about and excludes everyone we are not talking about, and since “immigrants” fails in that regard (there are plenty of immigrants who are citizens or legally reside in the U.S. and numerous people here illegally who do not wish to stay here), the word “alien” is appropriate.
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.”
Actually, as Robert points out, “legal alien” is in fact accepted usage.
For that matter, even in the case of felonies, we don’t call the person “illegal.” The action is illegal; the person is not.
Let’s talk about drivers again. Someone who is driving is a driver. There are licensed drivers. There are unlicensed drivers. It is perfectly legal to be a licensed driver. It is illegal to be an unlicensed driver. The words “licensed” or “unlicensed” refer to the person’s status as a driver. Similarly, “legal alien” or “illegal alien” refers to the status of the person as an alien, not to their status as a person.
I do agree that the term “illegals” is inappropriate, and I’ve never used it. Again, in the term “illegal alien”, the word “illegal” modifies “alien” to show that their status as an alien is illegal, since they are non-citizens who are present in the U.S. illegally. There are other terms that combine the word “alien” with a modifying term, such as “legal alien” and “resident alien”, which denote a non-citizen who is legally living in the U.S. In all cases the term “alien” is used with modifying terms, but only in one phrase does it refer to someone who’s presence here is illegal.
As far as being worried about not offending people, the immigrants I work with (both of whom were naturalized this year after a 5 year wait and complying with all laws) are insulted and angered by the use of the word “immigrant” in this debate. What about them? Why should they be lumped in with lawbreakers? Why should I be less worried about offending them than about offending people here illegally? I’ll bet that there are at least as many legal immigrants in the U.S. as there are illegal aliens; in fact, I’ll bet there’s more.
among immigrant-haters the use of the term (or its shorter form “illegals”) is commonplace
That may or may not be true. But given that there are so very, very few people who are actually immigrant haters involved in these discussions (certainly no one I’ve listened to or read), the terminology they use is not of much importance as they have no impact in the debate.
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.
No, but when you use the word “blue” when you mean “shoe”, you have. Your example uses two words that are synonyms, “large” and “big” are synonyms. But the terms that are being proposed to be substituted for “alien” (e.g., “immigrant”, “worker”) are not synonyms for it. Neither are the terms “undocumented” and “illegal” synonyms.
An online search of the U.S. Code returns 1350 different portions of U.S. law where the term “alien” appears, with multiple occurrences in many portions. The term “illegal alien” is included among them (e.g., in Title 2, Chapter 17A, subchapter II, Part B, section 658). It is entirely appropriate in a debate on the law to use the legal terms that define who and what we are talking about.
Nice post, Mr. Language Police. I will now vehemently scream “Freedom! Freedom!” in your face, attempting to channel Mel “Braveheart” Gibson.
I kid. Good post. :-)
I think “undocumented” is at least more accurate than “illegal” because it gives a better idea about the law being broken, their residence status, and even the national security threat folks like Lou Dobbs bray about.
I prefer “border-crossing migrant workers” because these folks are no different than the Okies escaping the 1930’s dust bowl into California, looking for work and finding cops and vigilantes greeting them with guns and night sticks. Our friends south of the border can’t find jobs in their home countries, but get lured to the U.S. by agricultural, construction and hospitality companies fishing for cheaper labor. Anyone interested in keeping those folks where they are should pressure our government to help rebuild the economies of Central America. Imagine what $3 trillion could have done.
I prefer “border-crossing migrant workers” because these folks are no different than the Okies escaping the 1930’s dust bowl into California, looking for work and finding cops and vigilantes greeting them with guns and night sticks.
The distinction that in the one case the migrants were crossing borders legally and their opponents were breaking the law, whereas in the present case the migrants are breaking the law and their opponents are not is meaningless to you?
BTW; when you refer to vigilantes, what laws were these people taking it into their hands to enforce? Because if they weren’t trying to enforce a law then they were brutes and bullies and criminals, but they weren’t vigilantes.
but get lured to the U.S. by agricultural, construction and hospitality companies fishing for cheaper labor.
I don’t deny the complicity of U.S. corporations who have turned an blind eye to the law in order to make profits. They too should face punishment under the law. In fact, it is essential to securing our borders that enforcement of the appropriate laws against CEOs and other people in authority in corporations is stepped up.
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
Can we call them “illegal aliens” if they immigrated without paperwork from Alpha Centari? Though I suppose undocumented aliens would be more accurate. (Sorry. But someone had to make that joke and better me than waiting for Robert to do it.)
RonF is correct. Also the use of “undocumented immigrants” is a little misleading since many of them do indeed have documents, albeit “illegal” documents. That identity theft and document fraud hurts a lot of Americans.
I’d also like to remind readers that “illegal immigrant” != latin@ / hispanic /chican@ etc. Illegal immigrants come from many countries, not just Mexico or Latin America. Conversely, not all Latin@s are illegal immigrants (or even immigrants at all).
illiegal immigration is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. it is not a crime at all. that is not to say that it isn’t, you know, illegal, but it’s not a violation of any criminal laws.
undocumented is, IMHO, actually less accurate than illegal because plenty of them do have immigration documents, just ones that have expired (also, as someone else already mentioned, the issue of forged documents)
Pardon me for straying from the point a bit, but…If it seems I’m not taking the immigration issue very seriously the reason is this: I don’t think that there’s a real problem. At least, not from the American side. The exploitation of people who come to the US without going through the proper forms is a problem. The “brown hoards at our doorstep” issue is not.
If I may engage in a little freudian* analysis of a country, I think that the immigrant “problem” is mostly one of projection. The US doesn’t have a particularly large immigrant population compared to its size. Nor is the immigrant population particularly resistant to integration–on the contrary. What it does have is a history problem. In the 19th century, a bunch of Anglos from the US moved to northern Mexico (aka Texas) and got permission to stay by promising to obey Mexican laws, integrate into the culture, and generally become Mexican citizens. For a while all was well and lots of Anglos moved in, becoming the majority in some areas. Then Mexico banned slavery. Suddenly the now dominant Anglo population decided that they were being oppressed and rebelled, aided and abetted by the government of the country they supposedly rejected earlier. The result was, eventually, the loss of not just Texas but also a large part of what is now the southwest US. So, having gained a large bit of real estate by lies, deceit and violence, naturally US-Americans are scared that immigrants moving in might do the same thing. After all, they did.
*I believe it was Anna, not Sigmund who described mental defense mechanisms, including projection, but it’s still Freudian either way.
I would also like to say that I think “undocumented immigrants” is an incorrect term to use, because one of the first things that happens to you if you are here illegally and get caught is that a whole lot of documenting goes on – and if the immigrant manages to avoid deportation (like by not showing up to a hearing) then they are here illegally while at the same time as being “documented” in the sense that there are documents confirming their status.
I prefer the terms “legal immigrant” and “illegal immigrant” – both are descriptive and there is no stigma to the word immigrant – and illegal is appropriate because it is, in fact, illegal to be here without proper permission from the government.
I do dislike the term “illegals” because that just sort of says a person is illegal, rather than their status (as an immigrant) and it has derogatory undertones.
I should also say that my wife is a legal immigrant – which was a pain in the ass for both of us for seven years until she finally got her citizenship. We had to jump through a lot of hoops and live with a lot of uncertainty at various times because of it. I must admit it has lessened my sympathy for those who skip all of that and just come in without it – we had to jump through all those hoops – why should someone else just be able to ignore them and get to the same place we are? But that is personal to me.
“The term “illegal” implies that a felony has been committed; but being an undocumented immigrant is not a felony, it’s a misdemeanor”
Actually, _being_ an undocumented immigrant isn’t even a misdemeanor. It’s entering the U.S. without proper documentation that’s a misdemeanor. If someone enters with a visa and then overstays, they are subject to deportation, but they haven’t committed a crime.
The shorthand term “illegals” is odious. However:
“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.”
Stick with your preferred term. In time it may become the consensus term if enough people switch to using it, and you can have a hand in that. People incorrectly assume everyone coming to the US is intending to settle here, and is thus an immigrant, just because that was the pattern in the past. Well so what. It is not necessarily the pattern now, so we need to drop the outdated assumption and the outdated term.
“Undocumented” would be alright if it didn’t amount to the same thing as “illegal” and thus be nothing more than a dodge. Still, I prefer it too because even though it can be ambiguous, as in suggesting that these people are undocumented in the sense that the government hasn’t documented their presence, it still also points to an important fact – people, especially Mexicans especially, often do not have and cannot get documents from their own government. What do you want with a passport anyway, you stinking “indio”? You can’t put a visa into a passport that doesn’t exist. Thank Vicente Fox for changing attitudes and policies in Mexico about emigrants; now his successor just needs to improve some procedures and open some damned passport offices in municipios where they are needed. Well, there’s more to it than that of course; we could stand to develop a real an immigration policy instead of a tangle of emotional reactions and venal manipulations.
“The term “illegal” implies that a felony has been committed; but being an undocumented immigrant is not a felony, it’s a misdemeanor.”
Strange logic – a misdemeanor is by definition an illegal act. In the case of people illegally in a country, how that illegal act is characterized may vary. In Mexico for instance, it is a felony to be in the country without the permission of the government. Here it’s only a misdemeanor. People do go to jail for misdemeanors, such as certain kinds of assaults, or public drunkenness.
“Furthermore, we don’t use the word “illegal” to refer to people who commit misdemeanors, except in the case of undocumented immigrants.”
That’s a good point, except that it’s not true. We would in fact say that someone was “illegally parked.” Why would we not say the same of someone not a citizen but present in the country (the legal definition of “alien”).
“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.)”
Strange logic – does the technical meaning of a word suddenly become null and void outside its technical community? Does a foreign word loose its original meaning when it’s used in an English language blog? I can see how it might gain some new, wider or more English meaning, and how this might interfere with the bas meaning, but why would the word loose its base meaning?
“The term “alien” implies “strange,” “adverse,” and “hostile” — not to mention “non-human” — according to Webster’s. None of that is accurate.”
Nor is any of it relevant. “Alien” is the internationally accepted term in English for a non-citizen present in a country. It may have other connotations in vulgar usage, and that is valid too obviously, but why should that usage crowd out all other meanings of the word?
“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.”
Strange logic – to the extent this is still any kind of a democracy, why should the feelings of this or that pressure group be dispositive? It is not as if they own the issue; it involves and impacts everyone. While we are on the issue of insulting terms though, there are plenty of Mexicans here and at home who find the term “latino/a” colonialist and insulting, and the odious term “Hispanic” strange and meaningless.
Kevin,
“I prefer “border-crossing migrant workers” because these folks are no different than the Okies escaping the 1930’s dust bowl into California, looking for work and finding cops and vigilantes greeting them with guns and night sticks.”
And the Mexicans are marginally more welcome. I grew up in California when the term “Okie” was synonymous with “white trash”. And when immigration from the east was enough of a political issue for Governor Reagan to ask people what they expected him to do, “put machine gun nests in the passes?”
RonF,
“I don’t deny the complicity of U.S. corporations who have turned an blind eye to the law in order to make profits. They too should face punishment under the law. “
That will happen when someone starts doing name-and-shame on their whores in Congress who obstruct these investigations and enforcement actions.
Jd,
“illiegal immigration is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. “
It’s a federal misdemeanor.
I’ve written literally thousands of posts about the wider issue, and I always try to use the correct, legal term: “illegal aliens”. I don’t use “illegals”, but I also avoid “illegal immigrants” because IAs aren’t immigrants, which implies legality. And, I’ve noted that those who use “undocumented” or similar are almost always trying to deceive. Likewise with those who simply refer to “immigrants”, even when it’s clear they’re talking about IAs.
As for jd’s comment, coming here illegally can be a felony in some cases.
I find that, in actual practice, that is when referring to real people, I call them Mexican (Salvadoran, Guatemalan etc.) workers. I live in a semi rural area of California. It is pretty common here to talk about “Workers” meaning farmworkers. On reflection, I don’t know how I feel about that. It doesn’t seem to offend “workers”. “Legal” residents are usually called Mexicans, or Guatemalans etc. without appending “worker”. That’s because people with legal status don’t do farm work.
Seasonal farmworkers are an important part of the local economy and the great concern here is that there won’t be enough of them. Even our rabidly right wing local media is not participating in the hysteria over ‘illegals’.
I was involved in a local faith based immigrant rights group. It sort of petered out because, rather than drawing in immigrants, it became a forum for local businessmen to bother politicians about their fear of a labor shortage. At the same time, there was a May Day march of 10,000 people, organized almost completely off the English speaking radar.
There was a lot of participation by unions, notably the farm workers, teamsters and SEIU. Many of the marchers carried home made signs saying that they were marching for their rights as workers.
I guess, given all of that context, that “workers” will have to do for now. Not to say that I don’t support banning the word “illegal”, just that I am a trade unionist myself and see no indignity in being called a worker.
Amp–thank you so much. Thank you. This means the *world* to me, and I appreciate that you are taking this step. Thank you.
Robert and Ron: Amp specifically pointed out that “alien” is an appropriate legal term, but it is not in common use. (See the third sentence in the first paragraph under #1.) Your responses were “Yes, it is” and “Actually, it’s the legal term.”
To me, this looks like you didn’t bother to carefully read Amp’s argument. If you actually meant to argue that “alien” is the term that’s commonly used in everyday polite conversation, you did a poor job of it.
I know some half-dozen documented non-citizens. I have never used the term “alien” to refer to them, either in the first or third person. I think it would be somewhat rude.
Finally, when I start hearing the term “illegal driver” being used to refer to people driving without a license, “illegal eater” to refer to people eating on the subway, and “illegal walker” to refer to people who jaywalk, then I’ll accept the term “illegal immigrant”. Until that happens, I’m going to assume that anyone who uses “illegal immigrant” has an ulterior motive for singling them out for “illegal” status.
Also, I currently know about 15 people who live in the impossible to find parking city of Ann Arbor Michigan who are driving on suspended licenses because of their huge amount of unpaid parking fines. Shall I start calling them criminal drivers? Or how about all those people who are driving without licenses at all? Or those people who haven’t filed their taxes in years? Should we call all these people who didn’t file the proper paper work in a correct manner criminal citizens?
Or what about those thousands of men walking around who have raped women and never got charged? Should we start calling all men who can’t prove that they are not rapists illegal males?
I mean, we have to really challenge why we insist that those who are in the country without proper documentation (changed to recognize that not all immigrants are people of color) marked for their criminality when others who are just as guilty of committing violent and non-violent crimes are not.
Pingback: Over there! | Prose Before Hos
Yeah, we say that they “illegally parked”, not that they’re an “illegal parker”. If you want to say that someone “illegally crossed the border”, then have at it.
Jon: Thanks for the historical note. Coming from White Trash, I feel a certain class bond with the workers from south of the border.
RonF: Speaking of history, I think PBS ought to be authoritative enough.
Ok, this is pretty off/odd to me. Let’s stop calling people arrested for DUI “Drunk Drivers” because people have different tolerances and it is offensive to say that because they were over the legal limit they were “drunk”. That term has a very negative connotation. From now on I propose we use the politicly corrected term…”people who had a BAC over the legal limit but may or may not have been in fact drunk”.
Pornography has a negative connotation. From now on we should use the term “undressed or semi undressed pictures in sexual or semisexual positions”. Maybe that will help reduce the stigma.
When did being offensive in US start to outweigh the first ammendment? No offense Amp, it is your blog so it is sort of like not wanting something in your “house”… I just think that after a while if you limit the words people can use you will start to limit the ideas…after that you may as well talk into a mirror, you will get just as many suprises and insights.
And BFP…if we were writing articles or comments about people driving around illegally, without licenses or on suspended licenses, as a group..then yes I would fully expect you to use the term “illegal drivers”. Can you think of a better all inclusive term?
“Shall I start calling them criminal drivers? Or how about all those people who are driving without licenses at all?”
Please do, and agitate for getting them off the road. But before that, get the uninsured drivers off the road. That would realy be a public service.
“Yeah, we say that they “illegally parked”, not that they’re an “illegal parker”. If you want to say that someone “illegally crossed the border”, then have at it.”
That’s not just a closer analogy, it also says more. How about “illegally present”?
The term in use for peole legally preent is “Lawfull Permanent Resident” acronymed as LPR (“lapper”). We might call those unlawfuly here Unlawful Permanent Resident” (UPR?) if they really are residing as opposed to just seasonally here for work.
I’d really prefer LPR for all of them. How hard would it be to get passport offices and then consular ofices out in the towns where people can get to so that can come here with nothing hanging over their heads, not prey to coyotes to get them in, not prey to employers paying them half of what their work is worth. Cui bono.
Kevin,
I thnk you meant me. I never heard the term white trash in that context, just used it by way of translation because it carried the same intent. I only heard the term as a reference to time spent living in the South, and then it was an in dosapproval of the Southern class system. I think the venom I heard was a response to current immigration at the time – mid-60’s, which was paving California over – more than any real animus towards those earlier immigrants.
Well, that’s a stupid idea.
That’s kinda stupid as well.
I get that you’re trying to draw a comparison between these situations and undocumented immigrants. Problem is, you’re just mentioning ridiculous actions; you’re forgetting to draw an actual comparison between them.
It doesn’t. The First limits the power of Congress to criminalize speech. Nobody is trying to criminalize anything here. We are pointing out that some speech is boorish. If you engage in it, then you are not being criminal, you are being boorish. The First is, in this case, irrelevant.
Funny how I don’t hear that too often. I wonder why that is.
well, i think the real question is then, if you (as in Jim and Ed) are willing to call those driving illegally “illegal drivers” or “criminal drivers” are you also willing to submit to random checks by the government (including house searches, car searches etc) so that they can see that you have receipts and official registration for your car? Are you willing to submit to mass random roundups at work by gunweilding federal agents? We all know the cities where those who drive illegally congregate at–Are you willing to send federal officials into those cities to round up, shackle and imprison all those who drive illegally?
This is more than just “find an all encompassing name to label them under”–there are very real repercussions in calling a human being “illegal” or a criminal. And this is a concern to ALL–citizens or not, because these repercussions involve intrusion of the nation/state into the lives of citizens and non-citizens alike that is unnecessary and unlawful in and of itself.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that crossing the border illegally constitutes ONE act of illegality–it is NOT a crime, much less a “continuous” crime, to be in the country without papers.
http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/ctapp/2007/20070817/96613.htm
6. 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (2000) declares an alien’s unsanctioned entry into the United States to be a crime. While Congress has criminalized illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime unless the illegal alien has previously been deported and has again entered this country illegally. 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (2000) makes it a felony for an alien who has been deported to thereafter reenter the United States or at anytime thereafter be found in the United States.
7. Those persons who enter this country illegally are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (2000). Deportation may be based upon any number of factors, including the alien’s initial entry into this country contrary to law or acts while in this country, such as the commission of certain crimes. However, while an illegal alien is subject to deportation, that person’s ongoing presence in the United States in and of itself is not a crime unless that person had been previously deported and regained illegal entry into this country.
This holds true of ALL crimes in the U.S. (you are not legally in a continuous state of committing a crime because you have committed a crime at one point in your life). It seems to be to be shaky legal precedent to set to make ANY crime a continuous crime or to make any person who is guilty of committing a crime continuously guilty of committing it simply because they haven’t been caught.
Whoops, sorry, Jim. I scrolled too quickly through the comments.
While “white trash” is often used pejoratively, I tend to embrace it as part of my own Southern heritage. Not for stupid “white pride” reasons, but to acknowledge the class system that oppressed my family a few generations back (and still plays a legacy role in their psychology and lives.)
But I got your meaning, and FTR, took no offense.
ed: And also, FTR, my preferred term, and Amp’s preferred term is not driven by a concern to be “politically correct” (a loathsome fascist concept), but by a desire to respect people who work hard and travel hundreds and thousands of miles to support themselves and their families in a global economy that has wrecked their communities. Why scapegoat them? Why make them the focus of The Problem when the real crimes are committed by multinational corporations and their representatives in the U.S. government? I don’t cotton to piling on the oppression of the already oppressed. These people are looking for work. So what if they have to cross a border to find it? Keep in mind, it’s my country, too, yet I don’t feel “violated” or “invaded.” I feel a compassionate urge to help these people, as much as I do the workers here who get displaced by cheaper labor these folks provide at the encouragement of those who exploit them.
In sum, blame the exploiters, not the exploited.
There, Robert, is that Godless Commie for you enough? ;-)
I’m an immigrant.
I’m a documented immigrant.
I’m an Englishman in New York . . .
When did being offensive in US start to outweigh the first ammendment?
When did being asked, politely, on a private weblog to not use a particular term become a first amendment violation? Put up your own web site and call people anything you want on it. No one’s stopping you. Then you can ban the use of the term “undocumented immigrants” there and everyone will be happy.
Kevin:
Speaking of history, I think PBS ought to be authoritative enough.
I can’t think why. Just because the PBS has incompetent editors doesn’t mean that the meaning of the word is now changed.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t think that you do a very good job summarizing my points. Why don’t you cut and paste? It’s one thing to argue against what I or others have said; it’s bordering on ridiculous to argue against your restated interpretation of what I said when the original is sitting right there for you to use.
It also avoids the “amorphous opponent” issue, which I feel is also somewhat dishonest. I’m not Robert or RonF–while we have similar views on immigration they are NOT THE SAME. If you attribute points of view to me which aren’t mine, or lump me together with people I don’t agree with, that’s simply wrong. And it’s yet another reason to post the originals, with attribution, if you want to reply to posts.
I don’t argue that it’s “MOST accurate,” rather than it IS accurate, and appropriate. That’s an important distinction, lest you argue against a straw man.
The status of an immigrant is a legal matter. If you’re talking about a legal matter is is very strange to ignore legalese, dontcha think?
Also, I believe it is by far the most common manner in which Americans refer to those who come over the borders without permission, or who overstay their time without permissions. So if you want to go by common usage (and I’m fairly sure that you usually do), “illegal immigrant” should be A-OK.
?? This is simply incorrect. It’s illegal to steal a candy bar; it’s illegal to drive when you’re 12; neither are felonies. Where are you getting this from?
You are demonstrating my point through your own examples. The status as “teenager” or “driver” or “is not the issue at hand. Someone who is speeding is driving illegally, but their LEGAL STATUS AS A DRIVER is not brought into question. Neither is LEGAL STATUS AS A TEENAGER brought into question.
When status is part of the description, “illegal” gets used fairly often. We call someone who is trespassing an “illegal entrant.” We refer to someone as “illegally possessing a firearm.” We refer to people as “illegal participants,” in other scenarios. We refer to people as “illegal occupant” if they don’t have a right to be somewhere. Because immigration IS THE ISSUE OF STATUS, it gets referred to as “illegal.”
Also, immigration tends to be somewhat black and white. If you’re driving illegally, you could be breaking one of about a thousand laws. Even if you’re an “illegal driver,” you could be breaking many different laws, so it’s not very descriptive or helpful. People tend to use terms that have use, and “illegal teenager” doesn’t have much descriptive use.
OTOH, “Illegal immigrant” is a fairly obvious term, with high descriptive value. It also matches up quite nicely with other uses of “illegal.” And finally, since it talks about legal status, it (appropriately) connects well to the “legalese” you talk about.
I’m not so sure about that–but is this a question, in any case, where it “must be superior to win the fight?” If you’re going to ban usage of a common term, I’d imagine you would have a better criteria than “not perfect.” Sort of a straw man, ya know.
It won’t prevent it. It’s just ridiculous not to be able to use it in such a conversation. It is especially ridiculous not to be able to use “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” when we are talking about legislation, since those are common terms used by government officials and “illegal alien” is a legal status.
You appear to be well aware of the semantic implications of switching away from “illegal” towards “undocumented.” The very thing that people find insulting (the implication that they’re breaking the law; that they are doing something wrong, etc) is, well, the point for some of us. I don’t want to grant them the power to make themselves discussed in only certain, polite, terms.
Semantics are powerful. Just ask a propaganda specialist. (are we “pacifying,”
“responding,” “targeting,” or “slaughtering” people in wartime? Do you think those will get the same response? Do you seriously claim that people’s response to “undocumented migrants” is the same as to “illegal immigrants?”)
You are requiring that we use that side’s propaganda. Your blog, but it seems like a backhanded way to win an argument.
If I thought it was needless or irrelevant, I’d agree with you. But if I thought it was needless or irrelevant, I’d not be having this argument. Sometimes insulting people is OK (you insult people all the time through your statements, and so does everyone else here.)
Since I would prefer that illegal immigrants not immigrate illegally, I am disinclined to concede to their request to refer to such practice in more polite terms. Why would I want to make it more pleasant for others to do something I don’t want them to do?I won’t go so far as to use nasty rhetoric, but outside your private space I’ll sure as heck continue to use “illegal immigrant.”
Look, I understand your side (though I don’t agree with it.) But judging from your post here, in this particular instance you seem to be exhibiting an unusual-for-you lack of getting your opponents’, or at least my, position correct.
…. which applies fine to “illegals,” or to other more offensive terms like “wetbacks,” etc. But which reduces itself to the same semantics argument as soon as you’re on the more neutral terms of “illegal immigrant” or “illegal alien.”
Quick Illustrative Quiz:
Are the Palestinians: 1) civilians, 2) terrorists, or 3) freedom fighters?
Are the Israelis 1) defending themselves; 2) at war and fighting an enemy nation; 3) occupying a civilian area and stomping on its government?
Are our efforts in Iraq 1) fighting terrorism; 2) killing civilians in droves; 3) needed; 4) horrible?
Are people who come into the United States without permission: 1) Illegal immigrants; 2) illegal aliens; 3) undocumented migrants; 4) undocumented immigrants; 5) immigrants?
If Joe avoids blacks on the subway, is Joe 1) Cautious, 2) a victim of his upbringing; 3) discriminatory; 4) racist?
And so on.
Semantics MATTER A LOT. You want your side to win? Fine. It’s your blog. But come on, Amp… the claim that this is just factual is a bit ridiculous for you. You’re more self-aware than that, and I don’t get why you are claiming this isn’t a propaganda move.
Quick Illustrative Quiz:
Are the Palestinians: 1) civilians, 2) terrorists, or 3) freedom fighters?
another quick illustrative quiz:
Do U.S. citizens willingly and openly support the violence Israel perpetrates against an entire group of people because U.S citizens believe that Palestinians are:
1. terrorists
2. freedom fighters
3. citizens
As a Latina, I don’t find the use of “illegal alien” offensive because it’s offensive. I find it offensive because it allows violence to be visited on entire communities at the hands of the nation/state with the open and willing support of entire communities of people. It allows MY civil rights as a U.S. citizen to be infringed upon because I have a name that sounds “illegal” and I live in a community of people that *look* “illegal” and I have family members that speak an “illegal” language. A man in RI just recently not only refused service to two U.S. citizens unless they showed him their SS cards, but also threatened to call ICE on them. This is happening throughout the entire country and it’s being written into laws that it is *legal* to do such a thing. The laws are not being written because people are concerned that the crime of non-u.s. citizens not filling out the proper immigration paper work. Otherwise, they would make it a law that ALL people are required to show their SS cards to make a purchase. These laws are being written because U.S. citizens don’t want to listen to Spanish in their stores are look at brown people congregating in their parks.
Another example–the queer community has often been under attack by unfair laws–but even queers are not convicted of the crime of being queer. If they get into legal trouble it is for committing the “crime” of having anal sex etc. If two gay women are living together and they never sleep together once, they can NOT be prosecuted.
But, to go at it another way–by calling all gay men pedophiles and thus attaching criminality to the identity of male queerness, the entire gay community becomes guilty of the crime of existence, and they come under hyper surveillance such that gay men who are NOT criminals are targeted and attacked for engaging in sexual activities with consenting adults.
If it is this terribly important to you that the crime of not filling out the proper immigration paper work is punished, fine. I disagree that not filing out the proper paperwork is a crime worthy of hunting down, rounding up, shackling and imprisoning people for indefinite amounts of time–but I’ll give you that not filing out the proper paper work is, at this point and time, a misdemeanor and there should be consequences for it.
but I do NOT agree that labeling an entire community of people as “illegal” simply for *existing* (because *that’s* what’s at stake here, NOT the crime of not filling out paper work) is wrong because it makes incidences like this possible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf0cTadzjDA&eurl
ALL Spanish speaking people are “illegals,” ALL spanish speaking people are out to get him, ALL brown people not born in the U.S. are “invading the country” and blah blah blah.
Crimes are being committed in the name of defending the U.S. from people who don’t fill out the proper immigration paper work–and I’ll take people seriously who say they are only concerned about “the crime” and not “being overrun” or some other such rhetoric when there is equal diligence in prosecuting and rounding up those who commit the crime of bodily intimidation, violence, destruction of property etc. as there is in prosecuting and rounding up those who do not fill out the proper immigration paper work.
This seems to me more of an argument for using “undocumented” than “illegal,” regardless of the word that you use afterwards.
As for “identity theft” — it should be known that the vast majority of harmful identity theft cases (where it ruins the real person’s credit, etc.) are committed by born and bred Americans. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants who do steal SSNs and such (and those are actually rare) actually just end up adding to that person’s SS payments, giving the “legal person” a bigger reward down the line. I’m not recommending or even condoning this, and I would never knowingly allow someone to use my SSN — but if someone were going to steal it, I’d much prefer it to be an undocumented worker who uses it to get a job and pay into SS that will benefit me down the line than the typical American ID thief who intends and succeeds at ruining my credit.
Jim – My fault, I was unclear. Illegal immigration isn’t simply a criminal problem, because being illegally present in the country is not a crime. Since no one would care if the illegal border-crossers were coming over to buy a magazine and some smokes and then going home, what we’re really talking about is illegal presence, which does not necessarily denote any illegal activity. (even a lot of illegal immigrants from central america have expired documents, rather than none)
Yes, crossing the national border illegally is a crime, but we need to think more broadly than that, because that isn’t the only way people are in the country illegally.
BFP, no immigration restriction advocate gives two shits about the paperwork not being done. Have you seen a single person writing or advocating about legal immigrants who didn’t finish filling out their forms properly? No.
What I care about is that my country can control its borders, and that we have the ability to enforce the will of the citizens of the country in terms of who will be invited to join that group. That will is immensely majoritarian and clarion clear: the American people want immigration, we want a lot of it, and we want it to be controlled and scrutinized by our law enforcement and border security governmental agencies.
The Mexican national who goes through the procedures and has his or her criminal history vetted at the consulate and waits in line, is welcome. The Mexican national who just hauls across the desert, is not welcome. You can replace “Mexican” with any other nationality; Canadian river-swimmers can fuck right off too.
As a nation, we have decided that we want a lot of immigration, but we want the existing citizenry to be the ones choosing who gets to come here. Far more people want to come than we want to, or can, assimilate; therefore, some people are not going to be able to come. Right now, Mexican and Canadian immigrants are able to take advantage of their geographical proximity to evade the wishes of the citizenry much more effectively than equally impoverished and equally worthy would-be immigrants in the other 5.5 billion people of the world.
It’s ugly and shameful that people do bad things to illegal immigrants, and I’m sorry that it happens. There’s a nativist strain to some immigration restrictionism that I don’t find particularly appealing. But the fact that US citizens are treating illegal immigrants, or those perceived as illegal immigrants, in an unacceptable fashion has no bearing on the justice or lack thereof of the immigration law. We must arrest and prosecute those responsible for illegal acts – and then we must return our attention to securing our border and enforcing our will about how new people are added to the American experiment.
I agree in that Amp’s decision isn’t censorship, but I’ve heard and read this argument being used before.
Well, that’s my point Robert–even in your post you say that you don’t give to shits about “paper work”–but then you go on and on about “following the rules”. What are “the rules” except filling out the proper paper work and “waiting in the line” that filling out proper paper work creates?
And why must I be subjected to civil rights infringements and outright police profiling/brutality because rather than finding a comprehensive way to address the crime of not following the proper procedure for entering into a country, people would rather “make things unpleasant” for an entire group of people irregardless of their citizenship status? Does MY voice as a citizen of this county not count? Or am I a citizen that exists as acceptable collateral damage in this fight against people who didn’t fill out the proper paper work?
Good, so you see the issue too.
I am confused. I do not condone what happened to you. And I would agree that it obviously happened because the country has significant racism, and because many people dislike illegal immigration.
But I don’t get what exactly that has to do with the terminology.
Um. Amp, remember the confusion with “undocumented?” Here it is.
Some people who are in this country without permission, are here because they didn’t fill out the proper paperwork: they got in legally, and forgot to renew, etc. But many (probably most) people are here because they never tried, because we didn’t want them to come in. “Crossing the border while never having had paperwork,” is not the same as “forgetting to turn in paperwork.” Just sayin’.
I agree that some of the opposition is because people don’t want the U.S. to go through significant changes in composition, language, etc. Part of that is surely driven by racism. Some of it is probably driven by economic beliefs. Some of it is driven by annoyance that a law, even a comparatively minor one, gets broken.
And some of it is simply a desire to keep things as they are. i confess that I’d not be too happy if my town changed far away from what it is, since I moved here because I like the way it is. If you filled my town with lily-white blond Scandinavian eye surgeons or simply transported half of Manhattan here, I would be pissed. Many people don’t like change.
? Illegal immigrants are not convicted for the crime of existing, any more than a different class of people who have broken a particular law. They’re convicted for the crime of having crossed a border without permission.
The difference is that we have as a country agreed, generally, that “having sex” is something people should be allowed to do without a lot of government interference or oversight; so that criminalizing sex is usually bad. But we DON’T agree that “crossing borders” is something people should get to do without interference or oversight (and this applies pretty much worldwide, not just in the U.S.) so criminalizing illegal border crossing is considered OK.
That’s another excellent example, though I don’t think it supports your point too well: Gays are obviously NOT pedophiles. And generally, the gay community has done a lot to help that stigma go away, by openly rejecting those who ARE pedophiles. Conversely, the Man Boy Love Club (may have the name wrong) isn’t doing the gay community any favors in eliminating the “gays are pedophiles” stigma.
So generally speaking, if citizens and legal aliens want to avoid being taken for and/or treated like illegal immigrants, from a functional standpoint it would make the most sense to disassociate from, and/or condemn, those who you don’t want to be mistaken for.
If you want to stand shoulder to shoulder with someone and claim they’re similar to you, and/or try to change semantics in a manner that makes that someone sound more similar to you, won’t you get confused with them MORE often? Seems sort of predictable to me.
To use driver’s licenses as an example: I personally think that an innocent paperwork fuckup (and these certainly happen) is comparatively minor. It’s a bit like forgetting to renew your license when you are eligible to do so. I think that a government paperwork blunder (and these happen, too) is even more minor and should pretty much never be an issue. If you sent in your renewal and the DMV list it, it’s not your fault.
But a paperwork blunder when you didn’t have the right to be here isn’t in that category: if we don’t want Mr. X in the country, then it’s not an issue of paperwork. And I think that a border-sneak is even more major. And a huge, huge, number of people who are here illegally are NOT here because they misfiled papers, and ARE here because they knowingly snuck in.
NOT the crime of not filling out paper work)
No, no–they can exist. they just can’t BE HERE. A trespasser can exist, just not on my property. Same thing.
Well, that’s just idiocy. But I don’t think that the term “illegal immigrant” is to blame for his idiocy.
First: that paperwork thing again. Can we agree that paperwork messups are different from border sneaks? OK, then.
Next, will you take ME seriously? In my area, there’s pretty much no ICE enforcement at all, there is a large illegal immigrant population, and they use police services, get protected from illegal acts, etc. Which I support’ I recently had to threaten to withdraw from one of my clients who was trying to use the “report to ICE” card, because I don’t play that game. I have also represented illegal immigrants in non-immigration matters. Illegal immigrants in my town often go to court before a judge (for driving offenses, misdemeanors, etc.) they get a translator provided to them. And they don’t get reported to ICE.
Illegal immigration is not given much attention individually. Which is fine with me: on a PER INCIDENT level, I can really give a shit about illegal immigration. If the numbers were lower I probably wouldn’t care at all.
But there is a point at which I start to care because the numbers are so big, even if the effect is small.
Sailorman–in your example with the queer community distancing themselves from gay men who like young boys–the thing is, the “illegal” community are my family and friends. This is much more intimate than a few fringe radicals that you fairly easily kick out of your community. This is like Obama having his black minister and white grandmother–how does a U.S. citizen negotiate the space between her legal u.s. born white mother and her “illegal” grandmother?
the borders within the community are not so clearly defined to make something like distancing oneself from “illegals’ justifiable or moral for those that are in the community.
Also–this is a paperwork issue not in that there was an innocent fuck up and somebody forgot to fill out their paper work for license renewal. This is a paperwork fuck up in that the *criminality* aspect of this is TOTALLY based on immigrants “not following the rules” of immigration. Well, what are the rules of immigration? You will fill out the proper paper work and submit it. You will wait for us to get back to you. You will pay the paper work fee. Etc etc. the crimnality here is based on the bureaucracy of paperwork that in any other situation, u.s. citizens would rebel at.
Oh, and:
Your voice counts, of course, as it should.
But so do the voices of the other citizens, who are generally opposed to illegal immigration, and unsupportive of illegal immigrants, from what I recall of the polls.
Are THEY acceptable collateral damage? Am I? If you were a majority, would you account for their views? Would you account for mine?
I think the answer lies in the aspect of civil rights infringements. Are your civil rights being infringed upon by people crossing the border or over staying visas? Are MY civil rights being infringed upon by laws that are enacted by white majority legislatures that require citizenship be checked “in suspicious cases”? Are your’s?
I think you will be hard pressed to find any person who is supportive of immigration who will say that everything is just fine as it is and we should continue to let things go on the way they are. Even little ms. radical me thinks that there needs to be some major readjustments/changes to how the system is working at the moment.
but I prefer to err on the side of safety, bodily and familial integrity, and the respect of the civil rights, human rights, and international rights of ALL humans, citizens and non-citizens alike.
And when you attach the criminality aspect to an entire group of people based on features that are decidedly NOT linked to citizenship (i.e. brown skin, chosen language, fertility status, etc) That is wrong. I prefer to find a new way to address this–I prefer to put the impetus for change on the one who is creating the harmful laws and “criminal” status to begin with.
Well, that’s my point Robert–even in your post you say that you don’t give to shits about “paper work”–but then you go on and on about “following the rules”. What are “the rules” except filling out the proper paper work and “waiting in the line” that filling out proper paper work creates?
Going through a consulate, where our diplomatic personnel can find out who you are and whether you have a criminal record, for one thing.
Waiting in line for your fair turn at a limited resource, for another.
And why must I be subjected to civil rights infringements and outright police profiling/brutality because…people would rather “make things unpleasant” for an entire group of people irregardless of their citizenship status?
You mustn’t. How is this relevant to the issue under discussion? Yes, some people are being ugly to those they perceive as being illegal immigrants. Are those people Alas readers? Is Amp making a terminological request going to change their hearts? No, on both counts.
Does MY voice as a citizen of this county not count?
Of course it counts. It counts as one of the ~30% who think that illegal immigration is not a big deal and/or shouldn’t be a priority. Be an activist, vote, go out and persuade your fellow citizens of the righteousness of your point of view, and get what you want.
Or not – because your fellow citizens are overwhelmingly opposed to you on this one. And our voices count, too.
I really don’t know. I wish I did. There are some solutions which seem like they could work out in a perfect world, but I don’t know if they will.
Your feelings towards your family certainly make sense, and I’m sure that I would feel the exact same way if I were in your situation. I don’t think this is unique to immigration, though. It’s a bit like anything else. Would I condemn my best friend or my wife for cheating on her taxes? Would I expect someone to condemn their own spouse or best friend? no.
So although I have absolutely no interest in passing judgment on you or anyone else personally, I guess generally I think that at SOME point things start to change. I realize it is sort of a catch-22 and I don’t know where that border is.
I deleted the rest of my reponse and wrote this instead:
If I could wave a magic wand and impose my own personal immigration policy, it would mean that we as a country controlled immigration. Not “stopped,” but “controlled.” My own personal policy would NOT involve kicking everyone out of the U.S. who was here illegally. It probably would involve requiring some people to leave, but it would be much closer to universal amnesty than universal expulsion–ASSUMING that it was accompanied by control of the actual borders (where, in my perfect world, we would increase immigration, and completely stop illegal immigration.)
But what if I don’t get that choice? What if you argue for unity, and I”m forced to consider all immigrants as one body, whether they’re here, legal, illegal, elsewhere, etc? Then I basically have one of two options:
1) vote to enforce our immigration laws, as strictly as necessary
2) agree to abandon U.S. control over immigration
I choose Option 1. Which is NOT my preferred outcome, but IMO is better than option 2.
I actually think that I’m relatively mainstream on this. There are a lot of moderate people in this country who do not want to flagellate every immigrant and put them in jail. We just want to reaffirm the concept that Robert talked about: control, whatever that is, over our own country. If others make it so we can only make big changes, then we will, but we’d rather not.
If all the people who are pushing for amnesty are also tying it to other illegal entry, then I’m going to oppose it. But that’s your call.
And our voices count, too
not at the cost of my civil liberties. And when white citizens are demanding to see the ID of Spanish speaking american citizens, it is MY civil liberties that are under fire. When people with names like mine but are U.S. citizens are being imprisoned solely because virgina legistlature (or texas, arizona, nevada, california etc) has made it legal to check the citizenship status of “suspicious” people, MY civil liberties are under fire.
not at the cost of my civil liberties. And when white citizens are demanding to see the ID of Spanish speaking american citizens, it is MY civil liberties that are under fire. When people with names like mine but are U.S. citizens are being imprisoned solely because virgina legistlature (or texas, arizona, nevada, california etc) has made it legal to check the citizenship status of “suspicious” people, MY civil liberties are under fire.
Nah.
There is no civil liberty to not have to prove citizenship, or not to have to show papers for things. I had to demonstrate my eligibility to work legally in the US last time I got a job working for someone else; my liberties weren’t violated, and neither are yours being.
Laws that require or allow the checking of citizenship status in suspicious circumstances are not unreasonable, nor do they violate any right of yours or mine. But if those laws are causing the imprisonment of people found to be illegal immigrants, then I object to that. The penalty for being an illegal immigrant should simply be deportation.
Finally, you seem to think the “names like mine” thing is a trump card. It isn’t. I’ve got as many vowels in my family tree as you do, and if you want me to haul out grandma to tell the stories of how my immigrant family tree got just as much hassles and bullshit and viciousness from the Anglos as yours have, I’ll be glad to.
you seem to think the “names like mine” thing is a trump card
sigh. yes. I’m using it as a trump card.
actually, I’m saying “names like mine” because I don’t really feel like disclosing my real name on the internet, but at the same time, a latino name CAN get you imprisoned. There is a case of a Latina woman who is a u.s. citizen and was imprisoned illegally solely and exclusively because she had a Latino name. There is a case of another latina who was also imprisoned because she had the same name of an “illegal” and they didn’t even finger print her to verify that she was, indeed, this ‘illegal’.
And frankly, I would fight and will fight just as hard to make sure that you or your grandfather aren’t illegally targeted or discriminated against because of your name as I would somebody in my own community. I’ve posted about white folks and males being fucked with by the nation/state in illegal, violent and harmful ways based solely on their citizenship status. for me, this is not about me trumping you, this is about ensuring that humans have more rights than nation/states do. That a nation/state doesn’t get to remove the humanity of ANY human based on bureaucratic bullshit that prioritizes the needs of corporations rather than citizens.
because let’s be real–these laws are not set in place to make sure citizens remain in control of their nation, they are set in place to service the needs of corporations that need workers. Which is why corporations can fund/sponsor immigrants and more and more family members can not.
Robert, I think you’re being way too cavalier about the shitty treatment of U.S. citizens, just because they happen to speak a language other than English and/or have a skin color other than white. Also, being targeted because of skin color IS generally a violation of civil rights, if that targeting is happening by a government agency (ICE, etc.)
IOW, it’s OK for the government to check the immigration status of everyone (including me). But it is totally NOT OK to check only those who “look like they might be illegal,” i.e. POC and spanish speakers in particular. Is that possibly more efficient? Yes. But I don’t care, it’s still not OK.
And while it is true that there is no private cause of action against individuals who act like assholes (is there ever?), that doesn’t mean that they’re not being assholes. I have no problem condemning them for it. You should, too.
Also: “trump card?” Please. I am personally, quite impressed by BFP’s posts; I think she’s doing a damn good job of deliberately NOT “playing” whatever “cards” she might or might possess, and sticking to the issues, and she didn’t even (deservedly) ream you one for accusing her of playing a trump card. I think that your statement was totally uncalled for.
That’s pretty damn dismissive. You’re also assuming that the means of being asked or demanded to prove your citizen status is the same? Citizens and legal residents who are Latino have been deported or threatened with deportion when in jail.
Sailorman on your last post,
Is it more “efficient”? It wasn’t in the case of the man that was deported after being jailed by the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department without his family even knowing where he was. It’s not in the case of men or women arrested and jailed because of their surnames. Because this “efficient” method is error prone by the way it’s set up.
Is racial profiling either through traffic pretext stops or “stop and frisk” an effective way to catch people with contraband on them if the”hit” rate is less than 10%? Is that “efficient”?
But I agree with other points you raised in your last post.
I wish I had time to participate, but I don’t — as usual, I have cartooning I have to be doing, and I need to be putting my mental energy and time towards that.
But one brief factual note:
Sailorman, somewhere between 40 and 50% of undocumented immigrants got here by legally crossing the borders (which means they went through whatever the typical checks are) and then staying once their visa expired. So whatever “crime” it is that you’re worried about, it’s certainly not just crossing borders without permission.
A friend of Bean (the former “Alas” blogger) was born in Iran, but she and her parents happened to be in the States when the Shah fell. She was less than a year old at the time. Her family decided that it would be unwise for them to return to Iran. So she’s what you’d call an illegal immigrant — but she certainly never crossed a border illegally.
Robert, I think you’re being way too cavalier about the shitty treatment of U.S. citizens, just because they happen to speak a language other than English and/or have a skin color other than white.
No one has presented the first shred of evidence that the putative bad treatment of US citizens is coming about because of their language or skin color.
Given the demographic realities of illegal immigration, a perfectly objective entity which swoops across America determining who is allowed to be here and who isn’t according to the law, and which hands down perfect judgment with perfect fairness, is going to end up sending a big ole cloud of brown people to the southern border (and other clouds to other places) – so the existence of brown people who are being treated harshly demonstrates nothing.
(Now, by treating harshly, I don’t mean to excuse mistreatment of prisoners. I simply mean being tried and deported.)
IOW, it’s OK for the government to check the immigration status of everyone (including me). But it is totally NOT OK to check only those who “look like they might be illegal,” i.e. POC and spanish speakers in particular.
I agree that it is not OK to check people’s immigration status on the sole basis of “I saw this Mexican looking guy walking down the street.” I disagree that it is not OK to check people who “look illegal”, depending on what “looking illegal” means. Groups of men standing outside Home Depot asking for work in Spanish “look illegal”, and it’s perfectly fine to check them out. If their employers are evading the law by not requiring them to do the show-your-ID-shuffle when they hire them, then it is appropriate for the state to step in and (a) bust on the employers and (b) check the credentials of the workers.
If you mean the cops should not be out sweeping the streets, bringing in everyone whose name ends in “a” or “z” or whose skin is darker than beige, and demanding they show their birth certificates or be summarily deported, I agree. Is that happening?
As far as people being deported for being Latino, I have seen no evidence of that. Yeah, the mentally handicapped guy who couldn’t express himself got deported. I am sure there are other stories like that; it’s a big country and there are a lot of stupid cops and bureaucrats. Such stories in my mind argue for MORE enforcement, not less; when the popular perception of millions of illegal immigrants is reduced, so is the mentality of “any of these people could be illegal”.
“There was this case” and “I know of another woman” are analytically unpersuasive. I know of a case where illegal immigrants raped and killed a kid and set fire to his house and were mean to his dog, too. 300 million people means that there is a true and compelling anecdote for every viewpoint.
Does anyone have any statistical information about the numbers of Latino US citizens who have been unjustly deported? Given that US citizenship is highly valued, and that once deported these citizens would be free of the control of the immigration apparatus, it would seem to be a population of people who would become fairly visible fairly quickly.
Most of the complaints I hear of similar or “DUI” checkpoints where Whites and even African-Americans are waved through but Latinos are stopped and most of them so far are conducted predominantly in neighborhoods predominantly Latino, are in several cities in Orange County including Santa Ana and Garden Grove and in nearby cities including my own.
It’s not stats granted but though I deal with stats sometimes, mostly I deal with people including those who address these issues on a daily basis.
Some cities in Orange County have passed or are trying to pass resolutions to involve themselves more in immigration enforcement, while others including the LAPD (which is under Amendment 40) view it as a federal matter. San Bernardino County cities are trying like. On top of that, the union of one of them hired the founder of S.O.S. to do “outreach”.
I’ve heard accounts more of threats to deport legal residents and citizens who are Latinos than actual deportations. You’d think with the law suit filed in the L.A. case that this nonsense would cease but I guess word travels slowly.
First off, brownfemipower—-you are fabulous. Thank you for your posts.
I’m not convinced by the “control over the borders” argument; I haven’t seen significant evidence of, nor do I feel a threat from undocumented immigrants—almost all of whom are coming here for economic reasons (contributed to by our own country’s support of policies designed to plunge people into poverty both here and abroad—but that’s a whole ‘nother post). Which isn’t to say that there isn’t a significant threat of terrorism here—there is. It’s just that the terrorism is being committed by homegrown white folks whose families have been here for generations. I’m not just thinking of Timothy McVeigh, either. The folks who dragged James Byrd, Jr. to death, who murdered Matthew Shepherd, who tortured Megan Williams, who burn crosses on lawns and spray swastikas on synagogues, who burn churches and mosques down to the ground—–that’s not the work of folks who are crossing the border illegally. Strong borders won’t do a thing to inhibit those acts of terrorism. (yes, terrorism. Those incidents are not random, individual acts of violence happening coincidentally en masse throughout the U.S.; those are acts of organized violence against specific targets—targets chosen for their racial, ethnic, religious, or sexuality.)
I’m pro-amnesty, and pro-simplifying and speeding-up the process whereby people can enter the U.S. legally. I like Amp’s new policy, mostly because the people being called “illegals” by and large lead straight-and-narrow lives in every way except their documentation status. And to be frank, I identify with undocumented people; if I were in their position, and I knew it would be close to a decade before I could enter the country legally—-yeah, I could easily see myself taking that risk and crossing the border.
I’ve got as many vowels in my family tree as you do, and if you want me to haul out grandma to tell the stories of how my immigrant family tree got just as much hassles and bullshit and viciousness from the Anglos as yours have, I’ll be glad to.
(patienza) Robert. From your phrasing, it sounds as if this is clearly in your family’s past. BFP doesn’t have to “haul out grandma”; every time she hauls herself out, just taking care of and minding her own business, she takes the risk of hassles and bullshit and viciousness—-some of which isn’t going to come from some yo-yo at a hardware store, but from law enforcement personnel! Frankly, as someone else with a “suspicious” name and “suspicious” appearance, I don’t have to drag out grandma—-it’s happened to me (especially after 9-11; I couldn’t drive through Macoupin County to save my life). It really sucks, but more importantly—-it’s really scary. And it’s really wrong.
It really sucks, but more importantly—-it’s really scary. And it’s really wrong.
OK. Let’s fix it, by changing the social environment so that it once again becomes crazy to see a person with non-white skin and think “I bet that person is here illegally”.
Because right now, it isn’t crazy to think that. And that’s the problem.
Amp: i post a long explanation, and what you choose to reply to is that? I already acknowledged that point, i think.
But BFP talks about a “paperwork error.” I don’t think this applies. Obviously (to me at least) there’s a difference between being in a situation where you would be allowed to stay if only you filed the paperwork, and screwing up the paperwork (the underlying thing bing that you should be allowed to stay) versus knowing you’re supposed to leave, and staying anyway.
to return to the license analogy: if you’re not eligible for a license, I’m a lot less sympathetic to the “I didn’t do the paperwork” defense. Aren’t you? When applied to immigration, it’s arguably just as bad as border jumping. Perhaps there’s less initiative. But when you stay illegally, one things for sure: you make it less likely that other people will get temporary legal visas, because we don’t want THEM to stay illegally either.
no, it’s not–racial profiling is generally inefficient as well as bad. I was merely trying to make the point that even if it was more efficient, it’s still bad. If you thought i was in favor of it then i was obviously not clear, as I am 100% opposed.
La Lubu, my own ‘control the borders’ argument isn’t terrorism based at all. It’s more that to me, controlling the borders is one of the things that nations simply do: we should get to CHOOSE who comes into our country and/or joins our citizenry, we don’t get it chosen for us by whoever happens to be within range of the border.
this is pretty universal among nations. Neither canada or mexico (to use our neighbors as examples) particularly wants me to come in; maybe they’d let me if I applied but they’d surely fight against me doing so illegally. I can’t think of any country off the top of my head that doesn’t seek to control immigration, though there could quite possibly be many of which I am unaware.
Perhaps you’re simply arguing against borders in general–which is fine, but then you and I are so far apart that it’s unlikely to be resolved on a blog.
And BTW: This is something like the third post in as many days where someone has lumped me in with Robert. And while I respect Robert, and hopefully he respects me, I think it is apparent that we have fairly different views and fairly different bases for those views.
Let’s fix it, by changing the social environment so that it once again becomes crazy to see a person with non-white skin and think “I bet that person is here illegally”.
But it is already crazy to think that (the majority of people with “non-white” skin being born here or here legally—“non-white” in quotes because some of the nonwhite appearing people are “white” by custom). In any case, I’m not really concerned about thoughts, as I am actions. Don’t you think incidents like this one are crazy? Similar arguments are made concerning police authority to search—the old “if you’re not breaking the law, you should be willing to allow the police to search your car, home or person upon request—and unwillingness to do so is only evidence that you have something to hide”. Where do you want to draw the line?
I honestly don’t believe it is so apparent. I do not mean that to come off as an insult to either you or Robert, I honestly don’t see much difference in your views, on any particular subject.
Sailorman, I wasn’t sure if that was where you were coming from in regards to borders, but that is the direction I generally hear that argument go during in-person conversations. As for my thoughts on borders in general—I’m not ready to regard them either as a universal good or a universal evil.
But it is already crazy to think that
What percentage of Latino-looking people have to be illegal immigrants for it not to be crazy, in your view?
The guy in the cited incident was over the line, but I understand his point of view. The comments on that post are classics of intercultural tolerance and understanding. This guy basically asked for some ID because he’s concerned that his community is swamped with illegal immigrants, and for this crime he’s an “entitled white asshole”, an “idiot”, a “rat bastard sonofabitch”, a “fool”, a “pathetic asshole”, a “fuckstain”, an “asshole”, and a “nativist inbred”. That’s from the first ten comments posted.
I am sure that the commenters hold the same opinion of people in southern Mexico who formally or informally enforce THAT country’s immigration regime. Right?
I do not mean that to come off as an insult to either you or Robert, I honestly don’t see much difference in your views, on any particular subject.
From what I can tell, on immigration, Sailorman accepts all of the same principles and assumptions that I do, but for whatever reason does not wish to follow the courses of action that those principles logically point out.
On other issues we don’t have much in common that I can see, except a shared commitment to rational analysis as the most useful tool for looking at problems.
Robert, a man with no authority to do so asked to see the Social Security cards of Spanish-speaking customers. I find it painfully hard to believe that he asks for the Social Security cards of white-appearing English-speaking customers. Do you think it is reasonable for business owners to request proof of citizenship or legal residency from customers before providing service? Do you think it is reasonable for business owners to deny service to any customer unwilling to provide proof of citizenship or legal residency? Do you think it is ok for business owners to limit their requests for proof of citizenship to those whose physical appearance raises their “suspicion”?
Yes, I called the guy an entitled white asshole, because he is making an unreasonable request based on bigoted assumptions. If someone cares to present some proof that he asks for ID from all of his white customers before providing them with service, I will reconsider my comments.
Let me put it to you this way: one stereotype of white upscale businessman types is “cocaine snorter”. Let’s say that it becomes public policy in the U.S. (whether due to laws demanded by a citizenry sick and tired of the societal problems that come with drug abuse, or a developing social bigotry against people who fit the profile of cocaine-snorters) to consider all white upscale businessman types as probable cocaine users. Let’s say that a certain amount of public discussion on the seriousness of drug abuse, in particular cocaine-snorting, is bandied about on the public airwaves and in the editorial pages of popular newspapers. And eventually, the idea is put forth that perhaps the police ought to pay a bit more attention to those Chamber of Commerce type white guys, since so many of them are enjoying a noseful of cocaine every now and then, and that kind of lax attitude towards the law is driving the country straight to hell.
Now, folks are still aware that the majority of white guys in ties aren’t cocaine users. They’re soccer dads, they keep late nights in front of their computers crunching numbers or doing whatever it is white businessmen do—but. Those damn cocaine snorters—somebody’s gotta do something. So….maybe…..maybe the police should just occasionally stop these yuppie white guys and have ’em empty their pockets. Maybe shine a flashlight around their vehicle every now and then, have a look under the seat. Because you never know. And think of all the druggies that are going to get caught! Fewer people will use cocaine if they see a few high-profile arrests and convictions, right? So a bill is proposed, which becomes law, that white guys who fit a certain profile can be searched for cocaine without a warrant.
Now let’s say that you fit the profile, Robert. But you’re a good sport! You’re very anti-drug, and especially anti-cocaine. So, you think what-the-hell, “I got nothin’ to hide”, and figure that after a while, the police will see that you’re one of the “good” white guys, and it’s a worthy tradeoff. And the first time, you just get a patdown, but no real time is taken up, so it’s cool. And so on. Even the times you get pulled over and have to go through a little extra, it’s not that bad—you were late getting to your doctor’s appointment, or were late for your preferred tee-off time, and you’re starting to think maybe this is getting to be too much. You go to the supermarket and for some strange reason your debit card won’t register, and that sets off alarm bells in the mind of the checkout woman, and the next thing you know you’re sitting in the back of a police car because some Nutrasweet residue on your pants is mistaken for cocaine. It all comes out in the wash when the test turns up negative, and your wife picks you up at the station—-just a mistake, sorry sir, for the inconvenience—but now you’re starting to get truly pissed. It occurs to you that not only is this a real PITA for you, and you’re sick and tired of bigoted fellow citizens of your fine city thinking, “ahh, white yuppie. probably into the nose candy” when they see you—it’s also occurring to you that none of this PITA is actually going towards solving the problem of drug abuse. It just makes some of your fellow citizens feel good—either because they are under the illusion that something is being done, or because they really dig seeing a white yuppie dude get upbraided by the powers that be.
Ridiculous? Of course it is. And so is expecting people who appear non-Anglo to show ID every time they turn around.
Amp, so glad you wrote this post. The topic has been on my mind recently and you laid it out well.
guh, so much to address here.
-for the record; I moved to the USA recently but my work permit hasn’t come through yet, and I’ve been offered jobs by two different friends-of-friends who are both fully aware of this. I haven’t taken either of these beause I can survive without the risk (which is a privilege). It’s that simple for me – the only reason I am not currently working illegally in the USA is because I have some breathing space which many migrants – and god knows, many US citizens – lack. I can afford to choose to stay within the lines. I wonder how many people want to choose that but an’t?
So this comment lacks a) brevity b) a US work permit and c) a functional C key. I splashed coffee on it earlier, and it works most of the time I hit it, but if you notie a missing letter here, it’s probably a C.
SiF, #2 – the word ‘alien’ is used on immigration paperwork quite routinely. In legalese, all immigrants get called ‘aliens’ whether we’re documented or not. Funny how it’s only undocumented immigrants that gets referred to that way in the vernacular, eh?
RonF, #4:
Bull. I’ve never been addressed as, or had the sense that I’m seen as, strange or a stranger in the USA. Americans are often very friendly to me, and ask (or guess, with maybe 50% accuracy) where I’m from. In other words, I’m damn sure ‘alienness’ is about race, not the simple act of migration. Ron, if you met me in a bar, would you call me an alien? (You say you never use the term – so how would you feel if you heard someone else call me an alien?)
Um, what’s wrong with ‘non-citizens’? Or something like the term used in the UK, which is ‘foreign nationals’? Just because ‘immigrants’ isn’t quite the term you want doesn’t mean that ‘aliens’ is; quite the opposite, given the other meanings of ‘alien’.
One last question, Ron: you keep telling us that you don’t use the term ‘alien’ or ‘illegals’, that you don’t want to use these words, but you’re defending their use anyway. WHY? Because from here, you sound like one of those people Yonmei was talking about.
DisgustedBeyondBelief, #12:
One thing I’m finding odd about the language in general is that we’re all using nouns, not verbs. Am I an immigrant, or have I migrated to the USA? It’s funny because when talking about, say, birds we tend to talk about an annual migration rather than migrant birds. Perhaps as migration (of all kinds) becomes more normalised, it will stop being a noun. (As Jim, #14 says, who says we’re all staying?)
I’ve had the opposite feeling – it’s abundantly clear to me how I’ve jumped through those hoops. The process is clearly geared towards immigrants like me (white, metropolitan, English-speaking, with a little family money put aside); I see it as pure luck that I’m in a position to legally immigrate when other migrants aren’t. Last week one of my housemates (not one of we young liberal things, but a Christian in her late 50s) was looking at the (unnavigable) immigration website, seeing what I’d had to do and how much it had all cost, and then said ‘Well, now I know why there’s so many undocumented Mexicans in this country.’
Jim, #14
That’s a new one on me. I thought it was only used in US legalese.
brownfemipower, #39:
Word word word word, not least because part of the litmus test is the War on Drugs. We know how much racism – not just in the USA but worldwide – has defined the combat zone of TWOD, and yet TWOD is involved in at least three parts of the immigration process. Having a criminal record for a drugs offence is not neutral along race lines, and yet that (and testing for drugs, and ticking the box to say you’ve never used drugs – it’s next to the one you tick to say you’ve never been a member of the Nazi Party, I shit you not) is one of the greatest bugbears of anti-undocumented-migration people. See Robert, #42 – ‘We want immigrants, sure, but supposing these illegal aliens are really criminals and drug pushers?’
Well, that white immigrant over there has no criminal record, and he ticked that little box. Do you think that means he’s never used or sold drugs?
Oh, and I just realised we have a new vocab problem – what do we call people who speak and campaign against undoumented migration, espeially the ones who say they’re not anti-immigration in general (who could do to wise up, but that’s by the by)?
Sailorman, #47:
I once read that in Australia the most common nationality of undoumented migrants was…British. These were people who’d overstayed their visas, or come as backpackers but found jobs and stayed. It’s quite easy, if you’re still in full-time education, for a British person to get a J1 visa that allows you to work in the USA for a few months.
So, Robert, #54:
– so when you see white people walking down the street, or hear them talk in a non-US accent, do you ever wonder if they’re illegal immigrants? How many white people do you think have overstayed their visas, moved their jobs under the ounter, and settled down? And would you appreciate being continually accused of being one of them?
Sailorman, #55:
What if you can’t fill in the paperwork because you can’t afford the fee? Or beause you fear you’ll be rejected on racially motivated grounds? You seem to be assuming the immigration process is a neutral thing that was put in place by some abstract entity who only wanted the best for Americans of all races, inome levels and original nationalities. Well, it wasn’t. It was put into plae by the US government.
La Lubu, #62 – he did not only have no authorisation to ask to see social security numbers; he was also a moran. I can produe my SSN any time you like; it doesn’t make me a legal migrant, it makes me a person who has an SSN because I was a legal migrant at some point in the past. I’m currently not legal to work here and my SSN is still right there in my wallet. They never expire or anything. So the 50% of undocumented people who are overstaying their work visas have SSNs.
so when you see white people walking down the street, or hear them talk in a non-US accent
There are no non-US accents. People from just about every place on earth live here as citizens, so their accents are US.
do you ever wonder if they’re illegal immigrants?
Surely. But I’m a paranoid bastard; I wonder about everybody.
How many white people do you think have overstayed their visas, moved their jobs under the ounter, and settled down?
Probably plenty. Let’s root them out and send them home.
And would you appreciate being continually accused of being one of them?
No, I wouldn’t. Tell me who is accusing you falsely of being one of them, and I will tell them to knock it off.
Oh, sure. Now show us a picture of the back, so we can see your antennae.
One thing seems clear. The guy that runs this joint, Amp, has said he thinks “Undocumented Immigrant” is more polite than illegal immigrant. He’s also asked people who comment here to respect his opinions on this matter. He’s laid those opinions. So no one has to assume it’s an arbitrary request. I think the polite thing to do is honor his request. Especially in the thread where he makes the request.
It also seems clear to me that many of the same arguments behind the ‘be polite’ rule apply here. I’m not going to bother having a conversation in a place were my preference for smaller federal government means other commentors will swear at me and insult me. It’s not worth my time. I think BFP&LL probably have similar feelings about the phrase illegal immigrant/alien.
Also, there was a discussion last week about if Alas was more welcoming to progressive viewpoints or to people who disagree with them. This seems like a small step to making Alas the former rather than the later. It also seems like an easy way for people who aren’t progressive (Like me) to show some respect and consideration for the opinion and feelings of progressives when arguing (or talking with them) in their space.
just my 0.02$ and I apologize if I’ve put words into anyone’s mouth.
There are no non-US accents. People from just about every place on earth live here as citizens, so their accents are US.
Ri-ii-ight. Which is why that “nice white guy” in Rhode Island assumed Jose Genao was a United States citizen. Correct?
Ron, if you met me in a bar, would you call me an alien?
No. But if we were talking about your citizenship status I might. If I was talking about your citizenship status in a general discussion like this I certainly would.
Um, what’s wrong with ‘non-citizens’? Or something like the term used in the UK, which is ‘foreign nationals’?
A non-citizen of the U.S. or a foreign national could be located anywhere. An alien is specifically a non-citizen or foreign national who is present in the U.S., which is the issue at hand.
Just because ‘immigrants’ isn’t quite the term you want doesn’t mean that ‘aliens’ is; quite the opposite, given the other meanings of ‘alien’.
Many words have multiple senses based on the context. In this context, “alien” is legally descriptive. It would be inappropriate in other contexts, but not this one.
One last question, Ron: you keep telling us that you don’t use the term ‘alien’ that you don’t want to use these words, but you’re defending their use anyway. WHY?
I didn’t say that I don’t use the term “alien”. I did say that I don’t use the word “illegals”, and I haven’t. I do use the word “illegal” as a modifier in the phrase “illegal alien”, but that’s different.
– so when you see white people walking down the street, or hear them talk in a non-US accent, do you ever wonder if they’re illegal immigrants?
I have a newspaper on the front seat of my car right now that has a lengthy article complaining about how a certain group of people are being discriminated against because of the new emphasis on enforcing immigration laws and why the recently-defeated immigration “reform” bill should have been adopted. Also, where I work there is a stack of stickers that you pick up and put on anything too big to stuff in a trash receptacle to tell the maintenance staff that it’s trash and they should haul it off. It’s in two languages to accomodate the maintenance staff’s most common nationalities, and as I’m sure you’re aware it’s the kind of job that illegal aliens often work.
The paper is the Irish American News, published in Chicago. The two languages on the sticker are English and Polish, not English and Spanish. And my wife has lots of Polish relatives, so I’m aware of how Poles often get into the U.S. People in Chicago, at least, don’t presume that a non-Hispanic is necessarily here legally. There’s plenty of non-Hispanic illegal aliens in Chicago. Heck, someone’s building a house two doors down from mine. There’s been crews out there cutting down trees, digging and pouring a foundation, and putting up walls and roofs. I was over there at one point – they were trying to fell a tree and the three guys on the rope were not strong enough to keep it from falling over into the road instead of the lot, so I jumped in and helped pull. Between that and scavenging a bunch of firewood as my reward I was over there for a couple of hours and the only time I heard English was when someone was talking to me. Not a word of Spanish either; all Polish. Did it occur to me to wonder if there were some illegal aliens in the bunch? Sure.
Given that there’s plenty of legal Hispanic and Polish and Irish and eastern-European immigrants (both legal aliens and citizens) around as well, there’s a strong cohort of people here with a direct stake in American immigration law who don’t particularly favor any changes in anything but enforcement.
brownfemipower, I’m not surprised that the laws regarding immigration are enforced improperly on a number of occasions. So are other laws. People get picked up for the offense of “driving while black”, too. That doesn’t mean we change the traffic laws. It also doesn’t mean we change the way that we refer to people of African ancestry to make them feel better. That means we fix the enforcement. And to refer to crossing the U.S. border illegally as simply failing to fill out some paperwork is a gross distortion. There’s a big difference between screwing up some paperwork and acting to deliberately violate the law that the paperwork is all about in the first place.
You know, one thing to consider is that if the immigration laws as they stood were properly enforced, the issue of presuming that particular people were illegal based on skin color or language or, indeed, any other basis would go away. If the laws were enforced, as Sen. Kennedy and others promised they would when they pressed for the last amnesty, then the presence of illegal aliens in the U.S. would be much, much rarer and no one would be able to justify any such presumption for any reason.
Then you can’t fill it in. The country is entitled to use a variety of means to select people for legal immigration, and money is one of them. I understand that this sucks, and I agree that it shouldn’t apply to refugees or to some hardship cases, but generally “I can’t afford it” is not an OK reason.
This is not an OK reason to avoid the paperwork. First of all, it’s a fear, not reality: you don’t get standing until/unless you actually get rejected. Second “racially motivated” rejections are pretty hard to judge. I’ve seen quite a few people here basically claim that opposing certain types of immigration is de facto racially motivated. I don’t see this as an excuse. I would continue to fight against racially motivated rejections to the degree they occur, however.
thanks for the history lesson, but I was actually aware of that ;)
It’s just that the terrorism is being committed by homegrown white folks whose families have been here for generations. I’m not just thinking of Timothy McVeigh, either. The folks who dragged James Byrd, Jr. to death, who murdered Matthew Shepherd, who tortured Megan Williams, who burn crosses on lawns and spray swastikas on synagogues, who burn churches and mosques down to the ground—–that’s not the work of folks who are crossing the border illegally.
Not to mention the guy who sent the anthrax letters, the Unabomber, the vast majority of people who bomb women’s health clinics and/or shoot doctors who work there, and so on. And then there’s the non-political ones who shoot up schools and shopping malls. White men, almost all of them. Maybe we should put some restrictions on white men i.e. limit their ability to buy guns, enforce drug laws more strictly when a white male born in the US is involved…Don’t panic anyone: the suggestion was sarcastic. But it’d work about as well as imposing draconian restrictions on immigration, which is to say, not at all.
I will give people who are arguing for the term “illegal alien” this: “undocumented immigrant” does make an unfounded assumption–that all people who come to the US, with or without permission, intend to stay in the US permanently. This is clearly not necessarily so. Quite a number of migrant workers seem to want to come to the US, earn a little money, have a few adventures, then go home, settle down and live life in the country of their birth. The US does not keep statistics on emigration, but a rough calculation I did once (using available data of population, births, deaths, and immigration), suggests that the emigration rate is usually about 1/3 of the immigration rate. Presumably some of that is the work of the INS, but I doubt all of it is.
One other question for the people who are arguing that it’s all semantics and not very important: If it’s so unimportant why are you still arguing? Why not just humor amp?
Robert, #65:
Um, did you misread me? My point is – especially given Ron’s #69 – the fact that I am a pale-skinned European is no reason to make different assumptions about my immigration status than about the immigration status of a not-so-pale person from Central America. And yet, people do. There is no reason why I should get less hassle re. immigration status than BFP, or any other Latin@ in America (quite the opposite, since so many of them are citizens and I am not). And yet.
You can talk the theory all you want, but the visceral reactions to immigration that fuel the debate are about race.
Sailorman, #70:
Strange how the evasion of taxes and fees by millionaires and billionaires is rarely worthy of political mention, but if some poor kid overstays because she can afford a short-term visa but not a long-term one, that’s completely unacceptable. Yeah. Go ask any accountant – I’m sure they’ll tell you that taxes suck, but you shouldn’t ever dodge out of them (even – especially – if you can afford to pay), because that makes you no longer entitled to be seen as human.
I’m not talking about our personal beliefs here so much as societal standards; we live in a country where there is a thriving industry devoted to helping stupidly rich people avoid giving their money to the state, so why do these poor people who do the same attract such condemnation for it? Especially when US employers clearly desire poor foreign people to work in its low-paying jobs?
RonF:
‘Nuff said.
Thene: what are you implying with the “entitled to be seen as human” line? We’re human irrespective of our immigration status.
Editing error. I’ve done an awful lot of typing on this topic; find another one.
Dianne:
But it’d work about as well as imposing draconian restrictions on immigration, which is to say, not at all.
I don’t see anyone proposing that we put draconian restrictions on immigration. I see people proposing that we enforce the restrictions we currently have on illegally crossing our borders. I think that we should make our existing immigration mechanism a lot more efficient, and favor doing research on just what our real immigration needs are and changing the various requirements as that research would show. But that’s a different issue than the proper way to deal with the fact that people right now are illegally crossing our borders.
Especially when US employers clearly desire poor foreign people to work in its low-paying jobs?
I had not previously noted on this blog that the desires of U.S. employers is a good reason to support particular social or political policies.
U.S. employers don’t directly desire poor foreign people to work in it’s low paying jobs. U.S. employers desire to pay people as little as possible. If they could get American citizens to work jobs for the same amount of money and with as little threat to demand their rights as illegal aliens do, they’d prefer American citizens. If their ability to hire illegal aliens without penalty was restricted (either by cutting off the supply, or imposing greater penalties, or both), you’d see them stop hiring illegal aliens and start hiring American citizens. If they have to raise wages I would think that this would be considered a feature not a bug.
No, let’s not find another one. I have no desire to see the thread degrade into delving into the archives to figure out who has used the term “illegals” on “Alas.”
Having recently done the database search, I can answer that: A whole lot of people have, at least once. A handful of people (not Ron) have used the term a whole bunch of times.
Since we’re all agreed that we’re not going to be using the term “illegals” any more, I don’t see any point in going into who has used it in the past.
Are you focusing on illegal border crossings as a way of saying that you don’t feel this way about the undocumented immigrants who haven’t illegally crossed the border? (That’s nearly half of undocumented immigrants.)
This may be a subject for another thread, but I think you’re not acknowledging how difficult and expensive “enforcing the restrictions we currently have” would be. I think the current laws are probably impossible to enforce effectively, unless we’re willing to devote far more money to this problem than we do for all the rest of law enforcement combined; and probably impossible to enforce humanely.
I see people proposing that we enforce the restrictions we currently have on illegally crossing our borders.
Which are pretty draconian. For example, it is virtually impossible to hire a foreign lab tech or post-doc right now because getting the necessary visa in a reasonable amount of time isn’t possible. And no one applies for jobs in the US any more because they’ve all heard horror stories about people being arrested, abused, and deported for visa violations 10 years ago that they never even knew that they made.
Just for clarity, can we agree that there are, in this discussion, three different types of general status? (there are many more factors, but for this discussion these seem to be the important ones.) In the hopes of getting consensus on these, I have deliberately tried to use acceptable terminology:
1) People who intentionally crossed the border without permission.
2) People who crossed with permission, but didn’t leave when they were supposed to because (for whatever reason) we wouldn’t have renewed their application to stay–people who intentionally stayed in the U.S. without permission. I.e. we let someone in on a student visa, but we wouldn’t have granted them a work visa, they’re in this category.
3) People who crossed with permission, but literally screwed up the paperwork–i.e. we would have let them stay, if they had done it right.
Now: as far as I can tell, everyone here who is arguing for stricter enforcement is pretty much ignoring #3 entirely. So let’s not talk about that group any more, OK?
Next: Can we stop confusing #2 and #3? They’re different issues. If you mix them up the conversation gets MORE confusing, not less confusing. yes, they both involve paperwork, but that’s about it.
And finally: Can we agree that enforcing the borders affects only group 1 from here on out, while enforcing immigration internally affects both 1 and 2?
I’m not trying to change anyone’s opinion, and I have tried to choose neutral language, but it seems that clarity would help.
And in the interests of Alas: Amp, would you mind explaining what terms you think apply to the categories above, so I can adopt them here?
Can we stop confusing #2 and #3?
Um, quite frankly, I don’t see how. How do you distinguish between a person who overstayed their visa because they were absent minded and didn’t check the expiration date (oops, thought it said April not March) versus someone who knows that they were supposed to leave but didn’t for whatever motives of their own? Or the person who thought that they had 90 days on a tourist visa before they had to apply for permission to stay when they were really supposed to have a visa to enter in the first place? Unless you know of some way of detecting motives that I don’t, I think that these groups are going to be impossibly mixed and therefore determining how one will be treated is determining how the others will be as well.
It may be that functionally, we have difficulty drafting laws or policies that differentiate between the groups. But when people are talking about what is ideal/right/wrong/fair/human/etc, those groups are quite different. There are a lot of moral and legal arguments going on here, and those two groups have different standing IMO.
Also, it’s a way of finding some common ground. I probably disagree with Amp and BFP regarding what should happen to group #2 (though I probably disagree less than some think), but I suspect that I could manage to agree with them regarding group #3. Etc.
OK, I’m not having much sympathy for this one. I mean, I’m not opposed to hiring foreign lab techs or scientists, or computer engineers, or doctors, or waiters, or line workers. And I’m not necessarily in favor of making it harder for foreign nationals to apply for or get hired for jobs here* — and I can even feel sympathy for the foreign national but I don’t feel bad for the companies. They can hire Americans, it’s not like we have a shortage of qualified, unemployed workers.
*Funnily enough, I was just chatting with Bean about this (sort of) – about how it might be harder for her partner to get a job here in the US because of this sort of thing, but she pointed out that he won’t have to worry about that. He’s Canadian, and as such, can rely on the treaty between the US and Canada that allows him to be automatically granted a work visa in the US if he is offered a job here. Yeah, no racism involved in immigration policies. Nope, none at all.
…and finally, it’s a way of making my point. My own experience is that group 3 gets constantly referenced as an escape clause: as soon as you start talking about immigration, people bring up the “paperwork issue.” Sure: we shouldn’t, generally speaking, jail people who fuck up their paperwork and who are otherwise OK.
So by defining it as a separate group, it allows me to ask a more directed question, like “what do you think should happen to group #2?” without the accusatory reply of “you just want to jail people for paperwork errors!” And it means that if I only talk about group #1 and 2, that people who bring up such accusations are obviously playing dirty pool.
Eliza: It could be racism. But it also may be that more U.S. citizens want to work in Canada than in Mexico. Or that the proportion of exchange is different than it would be for Mexico.
For more on Mexican immigration, see here:
http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/immigration.htm
They can hire Americans, it’s not like we have a shortage of qualified, unemployed workers.
Actually, we do. At least, in the biotech field we do. Can you say “intelligent design”? “Poor science teaching”? I knew you could! It’s very hard to find good lab techs and post docs in biology (not to mention fill residency and fellowship positions in medicine) and if the field is limited to US-Americans only, might as well give up. Yes, there are unemployed US-Americans and if a qualified one applied for the position in my lab that’s been sitting open for over 2 years, I’m sure we’d be delighted to hire them. But none have and we’ve gone through five attempts to hire qualified foreigners only to have them give up in frustration and take other jobs (mostly in Europe although a surprising number in China) when they find that they can’t get a visa within 6 months.
Nope. Keep in mind that it is very difficult to document exactly how many Americans are living overseas (not all of them register with the Embassy in the country they are living, not all of them are living abroad legally, and there are a host of other issues), so, while the State Dept. estimates that are probably at least 6.6 million Americans living abroad (not including military personnel or their families), if you were to count only the documented and verifiable cases, there are 4.1 million Americans living abroad (again, excluding military). Over 25% of those are living in Mexico. In fact, there are nearly 1/3 as many Americans living in Mexico than in Canada (1,036,300 in Mexico; 687,700 in Canada).
We don’t have the absolutely best science education, as compared worldwide. But we have some pretty good feeder programs in U.S. schools.
It is not especially simple to get into PhD programs, however, nor M.D. programs. This means that there are fewer U.S. phd and md students, which has sort of a ripple effect. Though it is one hell of complex issue, if we were to admit fewer foreign graduate students into the phd programs, we’d likely have more qualified workers in the end.
Sailorman, in regards to your little list…sorry, i’ll say it again clearly and plainly. When I say paperwork bureaucracy, I am not talking about somebody who filled out the paperwork and forgot to answer question three or somebody who turned the paperwork in a day late.
The entire process for which “illegality” is created has nothing to do with the process of moving into a country or living in a country. Illegality surrounding immigration is entirely based on how the bureaucracy of paper work is criminalized. That is, if a person chooses to fill out the paperwork, they are eventually rewarded with paperwork that they can then use to enter into the country. If a person chooses not to fill out the paper work, they can still enter the country, but they will have done it without acquiring the necessary paperwork. Not filling out the necessary paper work is the “illegal” part of illegal immigration NOT the actual activity of crossing the border.
Similarly, as shown with the Kansas ruling–living in the U.S. without having acquired the necessary paper work to cross the border is not a crime. In other words, you can cross into the U.S. without the proper paperwork to have done so, and begin the process of applying for visas/citizenship etc. in the u.s. LEGALLY. The problem with this, of course, is that if you did cross without first getting the proper paperwork filled out and turned in, once you apply for citizenship/visa’s that will be brought up against you.
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), pre-911, this would result in a fine and you could simply reapply. Now, it will get you landed in jail and deported.
The bureaucracy of paperwork is what creates “illegality”–and I think it really demonstrates the basic lack of understanding that most u.s. citizens have about the process of immigration in the u.s. to see that people are genuinely attempting to have a conversation about “illegality” without simultaneously talking about the bureaucracy of paperwork. You can not talk about immigration without talking about the paperwork aspect. Centering “borders” and “protection” does nothing to further the conversation in a way such that realistic changes to the system can be discussed.
For those who are curious, I strongly recommend looking into how the European Union is negotiating their bureaucracy of paperwork when it comes to travel/work/living between borders of citizens. Of course, they have their own problems with non-European citizens crossing into European borders–but they are headed in a fruitful place by recognizing the process of paperwork takes too long and is too tremendous for most people/governments to negotiate. If I remember correctly, they have cut the paperwork process for work visa’s down to a six month process or something like that.
Criminality resides in the process of paperwork–if you want to “enforce” the borders then you need to begin to examine how to make the process of paperwork more efficient, less burdensome, etc.
I mean, I get it, it is much sexier and enraging and passion invoking to scream at people about racism and invading and protecting borders and all that–but it’s basically a worthless conversation.
Immigration in the u.s. is paperwork. It is almost nothing BUT paperwork. It is discussing page 66 of document 30X paragraph 2. It is talking about check boxes and lawyers fees and missed appointments.
When people are hunted down and rounded up and deported–it is because they didn’t fill out the application. When you apply for citizenship after you have already been living in the u.s., they don’t deport you because you crossed over and having been living in the u.s., they deport you because you didn’t fill out the application and go through the process of paperwork before you crossed over. Figuring out if you have applied before and when and if you were approved or not is a part of the process of applying for papers.
Another example, mass raids at work or homes–the thing that the federal agents scream when they break in is “show us your papers”–They don’t barge in and say “we have evidence of you crossing over the border without a green card.” And logically, this would be almost impossible to do–they would have to have video evidence or picture evidence–and even that wouldn’t work, because they couldn’t prove that the person didn’t have the documents in their pockets or something.
It is not especially simple to get into PhD programs, however, nor M.D. programs. This means that there are fewer U.S. phd and md students, which has sort of a ripple effect. Though it is one hell of complex issue, if we were to admit fewer foreign graduate students into the phd programs, we’d likely have more qualified workers in the end.
I’m not sure about PhD programs. I don’t know enough about them to say. But the problem in medicine is a different one. There are, quite deliberately, fewer people graduating from US medical schools each year than there are residency slots that need to be filled. This is done intentionally so that all US medical graduates have a good chance of getting a good residency position. It is expected that foreign medical graduates will fill the remainer. Few, if any, medical school spots in the US go to foreigners (I think that the closest thing in my med school class was a couple of Puerto Ricans…though we had quite a large group of Mexican immigrants and first generation Americans), but because of the intentional undersupply, foreign graduates are quite common in residency programs.
The problem for ancillary positions in medicine is even worse. Most ancillary positions are underpaid, overworked, and underappreciated. Not very appealing for a US-American but something that an ambitious and educated person from India or Pakistan or China might be happy to put up with for a while in return for the experience and adventure of living in the US for a while. So quite a few nurses, technicians, etc are from places with relatively good education but high levels of poverty and overpopulation.
In summary: Happy that you didn’t have to wait 3 months to get an appointment with your doctor? Or that your lab work was handled competently and promptly? Thank an immigrant. We really can’t get along without them.
Another example, mass raids at work or homes–the thing that the federal agents scream when they break in is “show us your papers”–
Actually, if the feds burst into my workplace now and demanded my papers, I’d be SOL*. I don’t have anything on me that proves that I’m a US citizen or foreigner with permission to work. I don’t bother carrying my passport or social security card or that sort of thing around regularly. I kind of thought that the US didn’t require you to carry a national ID around at all times. Apparently, that was just another bit of white privilege that I never knew I had.
*Actually, if the feds burst in and threatened to deport me if I didn’t show ID, I’d probably say, “Cool. Where to?” because I think they’d have serious problems identifying any country to deport me to and it might be amusing to watch…but not taking this seriously is, in fact, another form of white privilege. My grandmother, who was Latina and whose ancestors had lived in Texas and New Mexico since the 17th century (the latecomers), always carried ID, because she was never sure whether she was safe from deportation. Despite being from a family which had lived in the area for far longer than any person who might demand her papers.
Moderately related link presented without further commentary.
BFP, you’re confusing the issue of paperwork with the issue of whether the paperwork would be approved.
I know about the paperwork; I’m a lawyer. Paperwork exists. But it’s a lot like a contract: if you want the U.S. do do something (be happy with you living, entering, working, etc here) then you have to fulfill your side. I have very little problem with people who try to fulfill their end of the bargain and simply make an error, as I’ve said. But other papers? The kind that people don’t have because we don’t give it out, i.e. because we don’t want them to have it? Different thing.
So, an average day laborer probably doesn’t have paperwork. But that’s probably because there are more people who WANT to come in and work than there are people who we want to come in. IOW, we don’t give papers to everyone who wants them, by any means.
So paperwork is merely one means of sorting groups. Using paperwork makes NO sense when you’ve got something that everyone qualifies for. But not everyone is going to get admitted.
And if we don’t want people to come in (more on that later) then paperwork is not an issue. Europe’s treatment of its citizens is similar: if France think it’ll benefit as a country from free citizen movement with germany, then it’ll make it easier to achieve. Apparently we don’t think that we should encourage movement in and out of the U.S. in most instances, with the possible exception of Canada.
Since many European contries lack the nation disparity of the U.S. they tend to have different approaches to immigration. But all of them look poorly on unauthorized entry into their countries.
But I’d like to ask you a question: Do you see any sense in the concept that the U.S. should control immigration–i.e., that there will be people who want to get in and are denied? Because if not, i’m not sure we can really talk about much and have it make sense.
Do you see any sense in the concept that the U.S. should control immigration–i.e., that there will be people who want to get in and are denied?
Why? Why shouldn’t everyone live in the country they want to live in? Why should the US or any country try to keep out people who want to go there? I intend these questions as basic questioning of the ground rules surrounding the debate, not rhetorical questions, BTW. I can imagine scenarios in which the US or a hypothetical country which may or may not have the same pressures and history as the US might want to restrict immigration. But I’m curious as to whether anyone else has an answer to these questions.
“well, i think the real question is then, if you (as in Jim and Ed) are willing to call those driving illegally “illegal drivers” or “criminal drivers” are you also willing to submit to random checks by the government (including house searches, car searches etc) so that they can see that you have receipts and official registration for your car? Are you willing to submit to mass random roundups at work by gunweilding federal agents? We all know the cities where those who drive illegally congregate at–Are you willing to send federal officials into those cities to round up, shackle and imprison all those who drive illegally?”
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.
But you a raise an important point about ransdom checks, because that is exactly how that travesty happened in Chandler, AZ.
“Sailorman–in your example with the queer community distancing themselves from gay men who like young boys–the thing is, the “illegal” community are my family and friends. This is much more intimate than a few fringe radicals that you fairly easily kick out of your community. This is like Obama having his black minister and white grandmother–how does a U.S. citizen negotiate the space between her legal u.s. born white mother and her “illegal” grandmother?”
Try geographical distance. For instance, your “legal u.s. born mother” probably has no legal right to reside in let’s say Mexico, and wouldn’t be surprised at Mexican government enforcement efforts. It would be a felony conviction there, by the way.
Thene,
“Um, what’s wrong with ‘non-citizens’? Or something like the term used in the UK, which is ‘foreign nationals’? Just because ‘immigrants’ isn’t quite the term you want doesn’t mean that ‘aliens’ is; quite the opposite, given the other meanings of ‘alien’.”
Because the term “national” connotes someone born in a specific country, while “alien” refers to citizenship in (some other) specific country, and the two things are not the same.
” This is a paperwork fuck up in that the *criminality* aspect of this is TOTALLY based on immigrants “not following the rules” of immigration. Well, what are the rules of immigration? ”
You have hit the core of the problem. The system is totally broken.
Kevin #27.
Agree with you compeletly. The ONLY reason ever to go after people who patronize human smugglers is to deproive the smugglers ofcustomers. The customers are feeding a hideous trade, along with being oppressed. that’s why I seiad I like to see some way of getting people the documents they need and the transportation they nedd, so they don’t end up in the clutches of these smugglers. Watch the papers, summer is coming – there will be at least one and probably more cases of a truckload of workers dying in the heat trapped in the cargo area. It happens regularly.
Dainne,
” And no one applies for jobs in the US any more”
This is simply not the case. Next
“Similarly, as shown with the Kansas ruling–living in the U.S. without having acquired the necessary paper work to cross the border is not a crime.”
That is true. And deportation is not a punishment. However negative it is, sending someone back to their home country is not a punishment.
“For those who are curious, I strongly recommend looking into how the European Union is negotiating their bureaucracy of paperwork when it comes to travel/work/living between borders of citizens. ”
They may someday get the point we reached two centuries ago, where people can move freely between member states. They are still having toruble deciding if they are going to let Slavs settle freely in the western areas. The term Untermenschen may be out of style but the concept clearly isn’t.
“Criminality resides in the process of paperwork–if you want to “enforce” the borders then you need to begin to examine how to make the process of paperwork more efficient, less burdensome, etc.”
Absolutely agree.
I asked because I don’t see how any two people could possibly find much point of agreement regarding immigration law enforcement, if one thinks that the law shouldn’t exist at all. Because it seems reasonable to conclude that if the law shouldn’t exist, then it also shouldn’t be enforced if it does exist.
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.
I asked because I don’t see how any two people could possibly find much point of agreement regarding immigration law enforcement, if one thinks that the law shouldn’t exist at all.
A person could think that immigration restrictions are unfair or immoral in principle but still recognize that the country simply isn’t going to go for completely open borders and so be interested in reforming immigration law as a form of harm reduction. Sort of like one can approve of needle exchange programs without believing that drug addiction is a good thing.
Dianne, that link (#93) was horrifying but not at all surprising.
I think that there are legitimate reasons for some border controls; it makes sense not to let known terrorists and convicted rapists and murders enter the country, for instance. The problem, of course, is that any rule can be misused in application; for instance, how meaningful a “conviction” is depends partly on the fairness and legitimacy of the particular country’s judicial system.
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.
I mean, I know at least two men who have had at the very least “gray sex” with women–they’ve never had charges pressed against them or anything–does that mean that they’re not rapists?
Also, I was forwarded this link about a baby who is dead now because of paper work issues with his visa. turns out, surprise, nothing was wrong with the paper work–but three people were locked up and a baby is dead because of the criminalization of non-citizen’s lives through paperwork. which is horrifying and miserably sad.