Treating Other People With Respect

phiwum said:
Is it that, because the initial act of immigration was legal, they don't count as "illegal immigrants"? If so, I don't find that compelling.
Click to expand...
They are not necessarily "illegal", but may be in a limbo where legal status has not been established or is in flux. To label them as "illegal" is to deny due process.
 
Upchurch said:
They are not necessarily "illegal", but may be in a limbo where legal status has not been established or is in flux. To label them as "illegal" is to deny due process.
Click to expand...

If legal status hasn't been established, then isn't it the case that they are currently in a country that they aren't legally allowed to be in? This is an honest question, since I don't know much about immigration law.

I suppose I could buy that calling them illegal may be prejudicial. It's not, of course, a denial of due process, since we're talking about informal terminology, not the actions of governmental agents. If I call you a rapist, I've not denied you due process, though I might have libeled you.

Moreover, I think it's fair to say that when we speak of illegal immigration as a problem, it really is the case that there are large numbers of persons in this country who haven't the legal right to be here. Perhaps we shouldn't presume that this person or that has no such right, but it's not presumptuous to speak about the problems of immigrants entering and/or residing in this country when they haven't the right to do so.

I presume that you dislike the term "illegal immigration" as much as you dislike the term "illegal immigrant"?
 
anglolawyer said:
Well, I see your point, but it's not so easy to draw a line under the sins of our forebears. I have at least one German friend who has told me how ashamed she felt about WW2. She was born in the 60s.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I only object to a notion that some general "we" ought to feel shame and atone past wrongs done by our predecessors. With governments, it's a bit different. One could argue continuation of the governing body there. I can't help that some people do feel ashamed for things they had no hand in and couldn't possibly avoid. It's a bit sad really, I mean earnestly sad. They shouldn't burden themselves with this.

Over-correction is definitely understandable, but I think it is nevertheless unreasonable as it by definition implies excess.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
They are not necessarily "illegal", but may be in a limbo where legal status has not been established or is in flux. To label them as "illegal" is to deny due process.
Click to expand...


Anyone who fails to enter a country through the recognized border points and following the recognized border procedures has entered a country illegally.
 
Last edited:
TomB said:
From newyorkguy's quote of Charles Garcia:


By this same logic we should not refer to people who have broken laws as "criminals" or people who have committed felonies as "felons" or people who have committed sex crimes as "sex offenders."

People who have come into the country through extra-legal methods have, in fact, broken the law. I don't particularly blame them for doing so. I even admire them to some extent for the risks they took/take presumably in order to better provide for their family. I've known several. Good people.

But they HAVE broken the law which means they HAVE committed a crime and therefore could legitimately be described as criminals. "Illegal Alien" is arguably softer term than could be used: "Criminal immigrant" for example is technically correct. (I think illegal sounds nicer than criminal.)

What "Undocumented" implies is a paperwork error. When they came into the country they didn't sneak in, they just neglected to stop at the border station and fill out their paperwork.

An illegal immigrant is someone who immigrated to the country illegally. Were they to leave the country, they would cease to be illegal immigrants. Should they gain legal status (which I'm largely in favor of) they would also cease to be illegal immigrants.

I don't really have a problem using either term, but I don't think "Illegal immigrant/alien" is particularly insulting. I see it as descriptive.
Click to expand...

Criminal Immigrant is technically incorrect as it's not a criminal offense (first offense anyway). Misdemeanor Immigrant may by more accurate.
 
Upchurch said:
You misread the discussion.
Click to expand...


My response is to this statement of yours:

Upchurch said:
They are not necessarily "illegal", but may be in a limbo where legal status has not been established or is in flux. To label them as "illegal" is to deny due process.
Click to expand...


Feel free to explain how someone who does not enter the United States through the recognized border crossing points and not following the appropriate entry procedures isn't a case of someone entering the U.S. illegally.
 
Upchurch said:
Is it? Do you know the "They" are that I was referring to?

The "They" refers the same "they" in phiwum's post where:
Click to expand...


Do you not accept the point of my statement? That there are those who enter the U.S. illegally?
 
As Charles Garcia mentions -- naturally I didn't quote his entire piece -- there are immigrants who are here in violation of immigration procedures or laws who are granted the right to stay either by INS or a judge following an administrative hearing.

Therefore the analogy with rapists and murderers doesn't work too well. Or bank robbers (to choose something less incendiary). No judge, upon hearing an appeal from a bank robber -- as to why he robbed a bank in the first place -- is going to grant him the right to go on robbing banks without facing legal consequences. People here in violation of immigration law are sometimes granted extensions that allow them to stay in the United States while their case is being heard. Sometimes they even eventually get permanent resident status.

I will add this, I have read in blogs written for people who are facing political persecution in their home country and fear being arrested, tortured or murdered, international advocates recommend going to Canada to seek asylum. They warn people that at present immigration into the United States has become a highly politicized and emotional issue. That because of that, American immigration officials may not be too sympathetic even to people who can document a well-founded fear of state-sponsored violence in their country of origin. That's really sad. :(
 
Perhaps we could provide an inexpensive bus service from the Mexican border to the Canadian border. I bet that's cheaper than a wall. Wait, maybe this belongs in the other thread.
 
newyorkguy said:
As Charles Garcia mentions -- naturally I didn't quote his entire piece -- there are immigrants who are here in violation of immigration procedures or laws who are granted the right to stay either by INS or a judge following an administrative hearing.
Click to expand...

Surely, there is no sense in which such persons are illegal immigrants, so the term is not intended to apply to them. I think we can accept that the class of undocumented immigrants is larger than the class of illegal immigrants.

Therefore the analogy with rapists and murderers doesn't work too well. Or bank robbers (to choose something less incendiary). No judge, upon hearing an appeal from a bank robber -- as to why he robbed a bank in the first place -- is going to grant him the right to go on robbing banks without facing legal consequences. People here in violation of immigration law are sometimes granted extensions that allow them to stay in the United States while their case is being heard. Sometimes they even eventually get permanent resident status.

I will add this, I have read in blogs written for people who are facing political persecution in their home country and fear being arrested, tortured or murdered, international advocates recommend going to Canada to seek asylum. They warn people that at present immigration into the United States has become a highly politicized and emotional issue. That because of that, American immigration officials may not be too sympathetic even to people who can document a well-founded fear of state-sponsored violence in their country of origin. That's really sad. :(
Click to expand...

Yes, that is sad, but I am not sure that it's all that relevant to the appropriateness of this term or that. I don't think that I'm particularly anti-immigrant, and I don't see the term "illegal immigrant" as necessarily inflammatory or inappropriate to describe certain persons who have intentionally entered or remained in-country despite lack of a right to do so.
 
newyorkguy said:
I will add this, I have read in blogs written for people who are facing political persecution in their home country and fear being arrested, tortured or murdered, international advocates recommend going to Canada to seek asylum. They warn people that at present immigration into the United States has become a highly politicized and emotional issue. That because of that, American immigration officials may not be too sympathetic even to people who can document a well-founded fear of state-sponsored violence in their country of origin. That's really sad. :(
Click to expand...

And people playing word police by insisting 'illegal' should be switched to 'unlawful' (exactly the same meaning) or 'undocumented' (vague and possibly denoting a whole another group of people) will do next to nothing to change that. It's that insulting kind of slacktivism.

They warn people that at present immigration into the United States has become a highly politicized and emotional issue.
Click to expand...

Has it ever not been a highly politicized and emotional issue?
 
The Lady who guards New York Harbor:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Click to expand...

Once Americans took great pride in those words. Now they seem false, hypocritical. Many argue we should have strict racial quotas lest our vaunted 'racial purity' becomes too diluted. We don't want poor people -- they'll probably require social services -- or huddled masses: we want professionals with college degrees and skill sets that are marketable, in demand by American businesses. (And if they'll work for less money than native-born Americans they get bonus points!)

Wretched refuse? The homeless?

Seriously?
 
Corsair 115 said:
Notice the last line of the poster you quoted:

My point as it pertains to illegality was in relation to that.
Click to expand...
I didn't quote that. My post, the post you said you were responding to, was referring specifically about the people who entered the country legally. You misread the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom