OT: Politically Correctness has sucken to an all time low....

User Forum Topic
Submitted by Coronita on July 5, 2012 - 9:40am

Yup... It is now considered "racial slur" to say someone is an illegal immigrant.......My goodness, when will the insanity stop... The PC Police is out in full force....

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/opinion/ga...


(CNN) -- Last month's Supreme Court decision in the landmark Arizona immigration case was groundbreaking for what it omitted: the words "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens," except when quoting other sources. The court's nonjudgmental language established a humanistic approach to our current restructuring of immigration policy.

When you label someone an "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" or just plain "illegal," you are effectively saying the individual, as opposed to the actions the person has taken, is unlawful. The terms imply the very existence of an unauthorized migrant in America is criminal.

Submitted by briansd1 on July 5, 2012 - 10:31am.

As I said before, undocumented presence in USA is not illegal, nor criminal. If anyone thinks otherwise, please point to the Constitution or any statute that makes it illegal.

Here are important parts of the article:

Migrant workers residing unlawfully in the U.S. are not -- and never have been -- criminals. They are subject to deportation, through a civil administrative procedure that differs from criminal prosecution, and where judges have wide discretion to allow certain foreign nationals to remain here.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and three other justices, stated: "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." The court also ruled that it was not a crime to seek or engage in unauthorized employment.

As Kennedy explained, removal of an unauthorized migrant is a civil matter where even if the person is out of status, federal officials have wide discretion to determine whether deportation makes sense. For example, if an unauthorized person is trying to support his family by working or has "children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service," officials may let him stay. Also, if individuals or their families might be politically persecuted or harmed upon return to their country of origin, they may also remain in the United States.

Submitted by ocrenter on July 5, 2012 - 10:45am.

briansd1 wrote:
As I said before, undocumented presence in USA is not illegal, nor criminal. If anyone thinks otherwise, please point to the Constitution or any statute that makes it illegal.

Here are important parts of the article:

Migrant workers residing unlawfully in the U.S. are not -- and never have been -- criminals. They are subject to deportation, through a civil administrative procedure that differs from criminal prosecution, and where judges have wide discretion to allow certain foreign nationals to remain here.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and three other justices, stated: "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." The court also ruled that it was not a crime to seek or engage in unauthorized employment.

As Kennedy explained, removal of an unauthorized migrant is a civil matter where even if the person is out of status, federal officials have wide discretion to determine whether deportation makes sense. For example, if an unauthorized person is trying to support his family by working or has "children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service," officials may let him stay. Also, if individuals or their families might be politically persecuted or harmed upon return to their country of origin, they may also remain in the United States.

brain, this is way too much.

the person illegally entered the country, or illegally overstayed their visa. that is illegal.

to say they are undocumented means they were frolicking on one side of the Rio Grande, and the current took them to the other side. Hence they are undocumnted, but they didn't mean to cros the border illegally.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 5, 2012 - 12:13pm.

ocrenter wrote:

brain, this is way too much.

the person illegally entered the country, or illegally overstayed their visa. that is illegal.

to say they are undocumented means they were frolicking on one side of the Rio Grande, and the current took them to the other side. Hence they are undocumnted, but they didn't mean to cros the border illegally.

OCR: Thank you for stating what should be painfully obvious (but apparently isn't.)

Plus, you get extra points for using the word "frolicking." We all should do a little more frolicking, doncha think?

Submitted by deadzone on July 5, 2012 - 12:14pm.

briansd1 wrote:
As I said before, undocumented presence in USA is not illegal, nor criminal. If anyone thinks otherwise, please point to the Constitution or any statute that makes it illegal.

>

Come on Brian, you are trying to use semantics to justify presense of illegal aliens..

Illegally entering the U.S. is a federal crime. Obviously if a foreign national is physically in the U.S. with no documentation that means they had to enter illegally. The other situation is for those who overstayed their Visa. I'm sure there is a law that covers that too but that is not the current topic because they actually do have documentation, just expired.

8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

Submitted by ocrenter on July 5, 2012 - 12:35pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
ocrenter wrote:

brain, this is way too much.

the person illegally entered the country, or illegally overstayed their visa. that is illegal.

to say they are undocumented means they were frolicking on one side of the Rio Grande, and the current took them to the other side. Hence they are undocumnted, but they didn't mean to cros the border illegally.

OCR: Thank you for stating what should be painfully obvious (but apparently isn't.)

Plus, you get extra points for using the word "frolicking." We all should do a little more frolicking, doncha think?

haha, thank you thank you, (patting self on back)

btw, brian, you know you are in the wrong when me and Allan are on the same side...

Submitted by briansd1 on July 5, 2012 - 12:42pm.

The Supreme Court has spoken on the subject of SB1070.

All the AZ state police can do is investigate the immigration status of people apprehended, if there is reasonable suspicion. And even that provision is on hold pending further litigation. It's doubtful that AZ can setup a fair mechanism to comply with that provision of the law.

Sorry guys, the court has ruled and my side has been vindicated.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 5, 2012 - 1:17pm.

briansd1 wrote:
The Supreme Court has spoken on the subject of SB1070.

All the AZ state police can do is investigate the immigration status of people apprehended, if there is reasonable suspicion. And even that provision is on hold pending further litigation. It's doubtful that AZ can setup a fair mechanism to comply with that provision of the law.

Sorry guys, the court has ruled and my side has been vindicated.

Brian: "Your side?" Which "side" are you on? The side that likes cheap labor because their Big Business buddies like cheap labor (GOP), or the side that likes buying votes by ignoring US immigration laws/policies (Dems)?

Whether or not you agree with Arizona's attempt to get the feds to do their friggin' job and enforce the laws on the books regarding illegal immigration (and, yeah, it IS illegal, regardless of your semantic contortions), the point remains valid: This is a serious problem and neither the GOP nor the Dems want to have anything to do with honestly trying to find a workable solution.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 5, 2012 - 1:18pm.

ocrenter wrote:

btw, brian, you know you are in the wrong when me and Allan are on the same side...

OCR: Geez, don't hold back, tell me what you really think! =)

Submitted by briansd1 on July 5, 2012 - 3:57pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
the point remains valid: This is a serious problem and neither the GOP nor the Dems want to have anything to do with honestly trying to find a workable solution.

Not true, Allan.

Democrats want a path to citizenship for the immigrants already here.

Republican such as McCain and Romney also wanted a path to citizenship but they have reversed themselves, under pressure.

We should start with passing the Dream Act. One step at a time. Which side is opposing that, Allan?

Unauthorized immigration is at a low. Give amnesty to people already here and develop a guest worker program to meet the future needs of the economy.

Submitted by deadzone on July 5, 2012 - 4:07pm.

briansd1 wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
the point remains valid: This is a serious problem and neither the GOP nor the Dems want to have anything to do with honestly trying to find a workable solution.

Not true, Allan.

Democrats want a path to citizenship for the immigrants already here.

Republican such as McCain and Romney also wanted a path to citizenship but they have reversed themselves, under pressure.

We should start with passing the Dream Act. One step at a time. Which side is opposing that, Allan?

Unauthorized immigration is at a low. Give amnesty to people already here and develop a guest worker program to meet the future needs of the economy.

Unauthorized immigration is at a low compared to what? The problem with blanket amnesty is it will just encourage more people to cross, it gives them hope/expectations that they too will be given amnesty. Frankly Reagains' amnesty in the 80s is what really let the horse out of the barn. Furthermore, if the current millions of illegals suddenly became citizens, do you really belive they will continue working the same crappy jobs they do now? Many will choose instead to suck the government's tit rather than clean bathrooms for minimum wage.

Also, if you believe things have improved in Mexico you are mis-informed. Economic conditions there are as bad or worse as ever. Do you really want to encourage a never ending supply of immigrants?

Submitted by Coronita on July 5, 2012 - 4:12pm.

deadzone wrote:

Also, if you believe things have improved in Mexico you are mis-informed. Economic conditions there are as bad or worse as ever. Do you really want to encourage a never ending supply of immigrants?

DZ,,, *hijack*. You know, I meant to retract my previous post on the HFT but couldn't. I apologize that I got you mixed up with some other poster on the HFT tread who was part of a VC....Excuse me for being a jerk...

Submitted by Coronita on July 5, 2012 - 4:13pm.

I don't understand why we're making excuses for illegal behavior... I guess I'm missing something.

Submitted by briansd1 on July 5, 2012 - 4:20pm.

deadzone wrote:
Do you really want to encourage a never ending supply of immigrants?

The stream of immigrants is what built America. People are what make a strong, vibrant economy. with a low birth rate and low immigration we would have stagnant economy.

We easily have enough room in America for a population of 1 billion.

Submitted by deadzone on July 5, 2012 - 4:40pm.

briansd1 wrote:
deadzone wrote:
Do you really want to encourage a never ending supply of immigrants?

The stream of immigrants is what built America. People are what make a strong, vibrant economy. with a low birth rate and low immigration we would have stagnant economy.

We easily have enough room in America for a population of 1 billion.

Why not 2 billion people? We can beat China and truly be #1 in the world in at least one category. An easy first step is just remove the border and officially merge with Mexico and we can instantly gain over 100 million.

But on a serious note, with a U6 unemployment rate of 15%, do we really need a lot of new immigrants (other than certain technical specialists in niche career fields)?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 5, 2012 - 4:45pm.

briansd1 wrote:
deadzone wrote:
Do you really want to encourage a never ending supply of immigrants?

The stream of immigrants is what built America. People are what make a strong, vibrant economy. with a low birth rate and low immigration we would have stagnant economy.

We easily have enough room in America for a population of 1 billion.

Brian: Where to begin? Okay, "the stream of immigrants" you reference was welcomed into the US, as we were undergoing a period of incredibly rapid expansion and needed said influx to maintain the pace of growth.

Concomitant with that, these immigrants were allowed into the country as part of a legal US government program. The immigrants you reference were, by and large, coming to this country LEGALLY. You're now attempting to conflate LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration, using the beneficial aspects to obscure the false equivalence you're attempting to draw between the two.

You do the same with your various semantic contortions, always seeking to avoid the correct term, "ILLEGAL ALIENS", meaning those persons who are in the United States illegally.

Submitted by ocrenter on July 5, 2012 - 6:29pm.

briansd1 wrote:
The Supreme Court has spoken on the subject of SB1070.

All the AZ state police can do is investigate the immigration status of people apprehended, if there is reasonable suspicion. And even that provision is on hold pending further litigation. It's doubtful that AZ can setup a fair mechanism to comply with that provision of the law.

Sorry guys, the court has ruled and my side has been vindicated.

Brian, dude, even the ILLEGALS themselves will freely admit they are illegal.

What you are arguing is totally counterproductive for what you are trying to achieve.

Here's the bottom line if you call the illegals "undocumented": since these foreign nationals are undocumented, let's get them back to their countries of origin to obtain the proper documentation. Otherwise, how do we know maybe Jose is really Jorge, or Zhang is really Zhou? They were born somewhere where proper certificate of birth was generated, that is their documentation, if they are undocumented, then it is very logical to say they need to go back an obtain those documents.

Now, if these are illegals, at least they have documentation to prove they are who they said they are. This is a whole lot better than someone that is completely without documentation, as the term "undocumented" implies. As their status are currently illegal, policies can be made based on the existence of criminal record or lack thereof, or if they made good and went to college or served the country, to correct the current illegal status into a legal one. And if we find one to be unfit for conversion to legal status, deportation.

The first step in treatment is always the proper diagnosis.

A morbidly obese person will not seek treatment if he thinks he is just a little chub, slightly heavy, big boned, or just overweight. But proper diagnosis of clinical morbid obesity will frequently prompt action. Same with alcoholics, they have to admit they truly are alcoholics before help can take place. Saying they just drink a bit too much or they just party at little harder does nothing for them.

Same with calling illegals undocumented, it doesn't help them at all, not one bit.

Submitted by CDMA ENG on July 5, 2012 - 6:54pm.

briansd1 wrote:
The Supreme Court has spoken on the subject of SB1070.

All the AZ state police can do is investigate the immigration status of people apprehended, if there is reasonable suspicion. And even that provision is on hold pending further litigation. It's doubtful that AZ can setup a fair mechanism to comply with that provision of the law.

Sorry guys, the court has ruled and my side has been vindicated.

Surely you jest... Striking down a state law does not render the federal one useless.

Its illegal here... Its illegal in leftist france... It just fucking illegal everywhere in the world and they treat you as such excempt for this country... Period! In fact is one of the few things that you are acting illegally every minute you are engaged in it.

CE

CE

Submitted by briansd1 on July 5, 2012 - 7:12pm.

What would the Founding Fathers think?

Back then, babies were born on farms and on the frontiers. Plenty of Anerican citizens were undocumented. There are still plenty today.

Submitted by ocrenter on July 5, 2012 - 7:23pm.

briansd1 wrote:
What would the Founding Fathers think?

Back then, babies were born on farms and on the frontiers. Plenty of Anerican citizens were undocumented. There are still plenty today.

The founding fathers also owned slaves and subscribed to the notion that blacks were 3/5 human.

There are plenty of americans born in america without any birth certificates? Citation please.

Submitted by blake on July 5, 2012 - 8:18pm.

If you think this is an all time low, you better hope the hispanic votes gap betweeen Obama & Romney is as big as possible.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 5, 2012 - 8:56pm.

briansd1 wrote:
What would the Founding Fathers think?

Back then, babies were born on farms and on the frontiers. Plenty of Anerican citizens were undocumented. There are still plenty today.

Brian: Seriously? Bubba, you really do NOT have a working grasp of American History, do you? Specifically, the writings of the Founding Fathers on citizenship, the right of franchise and maintaining the integrity of the Republic.

Also, the illogic of your assertion that plenty of "American citizens" (key words being American + Citizen) were born on farms and thus lacked documentation is laughable. This is now the logical litmus test for determining if someone is or is not an American citizen?

That reminds me of your counter-argument when I pointed out that nearly 3/4 of black babies are now born out of wedlock and you attempted to assert that, without welfare, it would be WORSE... At some point, logic has to intrude. Doesn't it?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 5, 2012 - 8:59pm.

CDMA ENG wrote:

Surely you jest... Striking down a state law does not render the federal one useless.

CE

CE: No, what renders the federal law(s) useless is the unwillingness of the feds to FULLY enforce them. Hence Arizona's attempt to take them to task.

Submitted by Aecetia on July 5, 2012 - 9:46pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
briansd1 wrote:
What would the Founding Fathers think?

Back then, babies were born on farms and on the frontiers. Plenty of Anerican citizens were undocumented. There are still plenty today.

Brian: Seriously? Bubba, you really do NOT have a working grasp of American History, do you? Specifically, the writings of the Founding Fathers on citizenship, the right of franchise and maintaining the integrity of the Republic.

Also, the illogic of your assertion that plenty of "American citizens" (key words being American + Citizen) were born on farms and thus lacked documentation is laughable. This is now the logical litmus test for determining if someone is or is not an American citizen?

That reminds me of your counter-argument when I pointed out that nearly 3/4 of black babies are now born out of wedlock and you attempted to assert that, without welfare, it would be WORSE... At some point, logic has to intrude. Doesn't it?

You should have your own talk radio show. This is very entertaining. Brian would be a caller, not the host.

Submitted by CDMA ENG on July 5, 2012 - 10:13pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
CDMA ENG wrote:

Surely you jest... Striking down a state law does not render the federal one useless.

CE

CE: No, what renders the federal law(s) useless is the unwillingness of the feds to FULLY enforce them. Hence Arizona's attempt to take them to task.

Actually this was my exact point in a different thread.

CE

Submitted by briansd1 on July 5, 2012 - 10:52pm.

What kind of documentation other than your group as witnesses If you were born on a wagon trail to the wild frontier of Eastern Tennessee?

What about the kids who were held captive in their parents' basement?

Anyway, the supreme court ruled that AZ is wrong. Time to move on.

Submitted by briansd1 on July 5, 2012 - 11:04pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Brian: Where to begin? Okay, "the stream of immigrants" you reference was welcomed into the US, as we were undergoing a period of incredibly rapid expansion and needed said influx to maintain the pace of growth.

Concomitant with that, these immigrants were allowed into the country as part of a legal US government program. The immigrants you reference were, by and large, coming to this country LEGALLY. You're now attempting to conflate LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration, using the beneficial aspects to obscure the false equivalence

Not conflating anything.

Pass an amnesty program and welcome immigrants already here. Then pass a new law to welcome new workers as we need them. Problem solved.

More people create more growth and we can again have a period of rapid expansion.

The immigrants here have already been absorbed into our economy. Make them citizens and embrace them into our society.

Allan, I know American history and there has always been opponents to immigration. But we know from history that immigrants from everywhere made us a better, richer country.

Submitted by ocrenter on July 5, 2012 - 11:09pm.

briansd1 wrote:
What kind of documentation other than your group as witnesses If you were born on a wagon trail to the wild frontier of Eastern Tennessee?

What about the kids who were held captive in their parents' basement?

Anyway, the supreme court ruled that AZ is wrong. Time to move on.

I agree, let's make this official:

UNDOCUMENTED: kids held captive in parents' basement

ILLEGAL: immigrants that illegally entered the country or overstayed their visa

Time to move on, indeed!

Submitted by KSMountain on July 6, 2012 - 12:58am.

briansd1 wrote:

We easily have enough room in America for a population of 1 billion.

I think that would be appalling.

It is not like the growth would be evenly distributed across our landmass. Using current trends as a guide, these folks would flock to the cities, a large percentage to cities on the coasts.

Do you think San Diego (or New York) is ready to handle a doubling or tripling of their population? Are the services ready? The roads, schools, sewers? Water?

What would the quality of life be like? I know Brian you are an advocate for high density vertical noisy downtown living, but not everyone shares your enamoration with that lifestyle.

Would we notice if the population density in San Diego doubled or tripled? How you be likin' da 5-805 Merge now? It's not like that would be an easy thing to fix.

You are right we demographically will need workers. Is it too much to ask that they come in nicely and let us know who they are?

Brian you often cite the Euros as some exemplar of refinement superior to us. Well, when I was on a train from Switzerland to Paris, once we were in French territory we were literally approached by French immigration authorities on the train who literally said "Papers please". Is that ok for the French but not for us?

Submitted by KSMountain on July 6, 2012 - 1:31am.

briansd1 wrote:
What kind of documentation other than your group as witnesses If you were born on a wagon trail to the wild frontier of Eastern Tennessee?

What about the kids who were held captive in their parents' basement?

Anyway, the supreme court ruled that AZ is wrong. Time to move on.


I think you're really reaching, to the point of illogic here. You have gone back too far in time to a situation that is not comparable. You are also comparing folks born "on the range" in no country, with folks who likely have a birth certificate from a different country.

Even back in the Ellis Island days there was certainly documentation and an admission process.

It seems you (and others) are willing to sacrifice the rule of law in order to achieve your personal social/demographic objectives, and you're also willing to obfuscate a bit about it.

Submitted by Hobie on July 6, 2012 - 9:24am.

KSMountain wrote:

Even back in the Ellis Island days there was certainly documentation and an admission process.

and have a sponsor and pass a Tuberculosis test.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.