He's responding to a tweet that displays this video of Massachussetts governor Maura Healy saying listening to* "Everyone has something they can offer" and inviting citizens to offer their homes as housing for those who are in the country illegally:
Are you willing to have "an additional family be part of your family"?6 months ago, Massachusetts began to ask residents to host illegals in their homes and properties.
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) January 11, 2024
Soon it will be mandatory. pic.twitter.com/wyhjXlxWDf
I note that Musk uses the emotive expression "illegals," but what is the respectful term? I found this Department of Justice memo recommending "undocumented noncitizen"and "undocumented individual," but these terms don't fit easily in conversation and they confusingly suggest that it's about paperwork and bureaucracy.
ADDED: I'm seeing some people nudging me to accept "illegal aliens" as the respectful term. That's more respectful than "illegals," but it is not respectful. First, even "aliens" is rejected. As you can see from that memo, the current preference is "noncitizen." Second, it's bad to say that the person is "illegal." Their entry into our country was illegal, but they are human beings. It's crude (and nonsensical) to describe the entire person as illegal. A person is not a thing. To say "illegal immigrant" is not like saying "illegal drugs." I would say "a person who has illegally immigrated," but that's too long to work in natural conversation.
____________________
AND YET: We don't generally follow a rule of refraining from referring to a person by one thing that he has done. If a person escapes from prison, we wouldn't refrain from calling him a "fugitive." We wouldn't think it was important to display our goodness by eschewing the simple expression and calling him "a person who has escaped from prison."
পোস্টগুলি
১৬১টি মন্তব্য:
The replacement theory is neonazi propaganda.
The most important commandment of The Party is to believe what they say and to ignore the evidence of your own eyes.
The assholes never realized there’s winter every year…
So far Boston isn’t housing illegals at the Ritz or Four Seasons but I’ll report in a few weeks…
Are you willing to have "an additional family be part of your family"?
Do we get to pick like dogs at the pound?
Let me get the obvious out of the way first; if this is such a good idea why isn't Healy offering up bedrooms in her house for illegal aliens to use? Everyone has something to offer, right?
As to the larger:
"Everyone has something they can offer" and inviting citizens to offer their homes as housing for those who have are in the country illegally
So Healy is making it VERY clear that:
a) She values illegals more than the safety and well being of her actual constituents.
b) She values illegals more than the safety and well being of THEIR kids!
c) She values illegals more then the education of their kids.
d) She values illegals more than the LAW.
Good for her as they elected her. More please. Next step is to start "encouraging" citizens to open their doors to illegals by making use of the heavy had of government cause "we are all in this together", right?
Since citizens are "volunteering" it is safe to assume they would not have any recourse to sue Massachusetts if illegals they are housing decide to steal from them, rape their women, and/or murder them? It was voluntary after all.
Biden must not be worried about his reelection chances.
“Illegal aliens” is the respectful term.
Don’t ever pick up strangers who are hitch hiking, but go ahead and invite them to live with you for a bit.
Should he use the full term ‘illegal aliens’? Probably should.
‘Undocumenteds’? Implies that everyone should have ‘documents’, or papers.
They are illegal invaders. They are invading our towns and cities with the blessing of the Biden regime who is fulfilling Obama's dream of fundamentally transforming America into a shithole.
Unwanted guests. Invaders. Useless eaters. Wetbacks. People from shithole countries who cannot sustain a desirable culture.
You mean like an offering in Church?
The government passes the plate and this time we’re supposed to put in our homes?
Why do we need to use a more respectful term than “illegals”? It captures the essence of the issue. Yes, they’re human beings and deserve some modest amount of care while here, but they have violated our sovereignty and any disrespect shown them is due to their own illegal actions. It’s also due to illegal actions of Biden and Mayorkas, come to think of it… hmmm.
“this video of Massachusetts governor Maura Healy saying …”
Governor Maura Healy is not the person speaking in this video, she is the person to the right of the speaker.
WHY should we be "respectful" to these people?
Call them what they ARE: Invaders
These Invaders Are Solders
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law
"Governor Maura Healy is not the person speaking in this video, she is the person to the right of the speaker"
Well that changes everything said doesn't it? How about we try "social distancing" with undocumented vaccination crowd. Talk about overcrowded hospitals.
Have some silverware or stamp collections to offer? How about that petty cash in the fishbowl?
U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Since these SOLDERS are INVADING our country... HOW is resident Biden NOT guilty of Treason?
"Everyone has something they can offer" and inviting citizens to offer their homes as housing for those who are in the country illegally”
“Inviting”, suuuure. And maybe a tax on those who don’t comply in order to skirt that pesky 3rd Amendment thing.
A person who commits a felony is a felon A person who enters illegally is illegal.
"ILLEGALS" is by far the best term -- I detest those people, as do the legal immigrants here in eastern Kansas, who call them "malditos mojados" [='god-damned wetbacks']. Given that I simply do not remember a time when I did not speak Spanish, learnt to read in Spanish a year before I could read in English, and had a grandfather arrive from Argentina before I was 2 yo, I'm quite arguably "hispanic" [whatever the hell that is], but I refuse to play identity politics. It does mean, however, that, having worked in dozens of small Mexican towns, I have pretty close connections with the regional community.
During the Trump administration, local legals were constantly ratting out "mojados" to ICE, and I'll guess that, for the men at least, roughly two-thirds voted for Trump in the 2020 election. This time around, they are thoroughly pissed off, including, it seems, more of the women.
"Sanctuary" is the virtue-signalling refuge of northern and academic elitists, but only for so long as it doesn't actually *cost* them anything. The more illegals we can dump into their arrogant laps, the better.
"an additional family" as "part of your family"
It sounds as though it's intended to humanize these people, but in reality, what would happen? How could *adults* living in your house become "part of your family"? It's not like taking in foster children. You're more of a landlord. So wouldn't you need to dictate rules and require behavior?
Would these adults clean and cook for you and work on your lawn and garden? Are they unpaid servants? I won't say "slaves," because they'd be free to leave, but these are vulnerable people.
I am also reminded of pets. These days people speak of pets as becoming " part of your family." But that's the *opposite* of humanizing.
“ Second, it's bad to say that the person is "illegal." Their entry into our country was illegal, but they are human beings. It's crude (and nonsensical) to describe the entire person as illegal. A person is not a thing. To say "illegal immigrant" is not like saying "illegal drugs." I would say "a person who has illegally immigrated," but that's too long work in natural conversation.”
Now do “legal immigrant”, or “legal alien”.
Both terms refer status of their presence in the US, not that they are legal people.
Your conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. No wonder you are having problems finding a way around it.
I read in a footnote in a an 8th Circuit opinion that illegal aliens is the correct term. I’m sticking with that.
And why be respectful to these invading moochers? Send them home!
How about "criminals?"
Are we searching for an accurate term, or for verbiage that obfuscates and minimizes the fact of the migrants' illegal entry into the United States?
“Let me get the obvious out of the way first; if this is such a good idea why isn't Healy offering up bedrooms in her house for illegal aliens to use? Everyone has something to offer, right?”
My wife, being an educated suburban white woman, has many liberal friends. One thing I began noticing years ago was that they substituted voting for the right people and thinking the right things for any obligation to actually DO the right things.
That's more respectful that "illegals," but it is not respectful
The fatal flaw in this reasoning is the disrespect you give to citizens who follow the rules and laws of our society. Yes, people response to incentives and the incentives are all wrong thanks to catastrophic policies but for those of us who still want to fight for civilization we need to try and adjust the incentives, including recognizing those who break the rules and laws are not entitled to special treatment. What happened to no one is above the law? Political expediency doesn't count as an excuse...
Above the law and special language is not compassion...
If you don't like what the locals call you, don't illegally break into their country.
Don’t we refer to people who have committed other crimes by that crime? Murderers, rapists, tax evaders, carjackers, money launderers, etc. We do this all the time. These are human beings in every case as well.
The term “illegals” is the sorry result of the name of the crime - “illegal immigration”. It does not mean the human being is illegal - it means their action was illegal. So you’d need to lobby for a change to the name of the crime if you want to remove that ambiguity.
Illegal enterers? Illegal immigraters? Migrating law breakers? Questionable refugees?
In Massachusetts over twenty years ago my wife's business partner, an ultra-liberal kook and her 'best friend' of a US Senator husband tried this adopt-an-illegal-family/liberal-cred-booster trick. It went exactly as you'd expect when you adopt a family with no values similar to ordinary Americans about basic household order or work ethic. I think the the Senator quietly got them off the hook...
Every single person that voted for Joe Biden should be FORCED to take in 20 single illegal alien men. They voted for this...let them deal with it.
Criminal non-Citizens. There, can't get more respectful than that.
Illegal Alien is an accurate description of what the person did. Can we no longer refer to someone as a murderer or rapist if that is an accurate description of what they did?
how is this different from 'quartering' for which The King was castigated in The Declaration
Acch. Word salad. Alien refers to a foreign person in a land not their own. Or, as the Oxford Dictionary states it: "Belonging to another person, place, or family; not of one's own; from elsewhere, foreign." Not their place of birth, or citizenship. Why am I even going through this hoop? We all know what it means. What it has always meant. Stop changing the language to cover for awful governance.
These people are not evil. The word has meaning. They have come here by dismissing our very laws. Their very first action is to ignore and dismiss the law of this nation. Therefore they have come here illegally.
You can patch around it all you like. They are illegal aliens. That does not make them evil, nor diseased (though some are), nor criminals (though some are), nor terrorists (though some are and will show themselves to be). But it does make them a problem for us at numbers somewhere between 9mm and 15 mm just over the past few years.
We are always asked to pay, in some manner, for the bad decisions of bad governance. This is the current situation. This one will have a long lasting, and ever-changing effect on this nation. We will never be the same again. For better or worse, our demographics have been changed in an unnatural way. Sped up like some mad scientist-led experiment to see what would happen if....
Every time a person says "illegal alien" or "undocumented resident" they reveal their political ideology. Noncitizen is neutral and allows one to ignore politics or hold a conversation with an opponent.
They are not "undocumented." They have documents from their home countries. They are "illegal."
wendybar said...
“Every single person that voted for Joe Biden should be FORCED to take in 20 single illegal alien men. They voted for this...let them deal with it.”
Per day. Every day, 24/7 to represent the flow of humans trafficked across our southern border.
I think illegal alien is the proper term, not respectful or otherwise. I prefer criminal alien, but that's just me.
So, if you have ever broken one of our country’s traffic laws, such as exceeding the speed limit, you are an illegal. If, like Elon Musk, you have ever broken a contract to go through with a business acquisition, until ordered by a court, you are an illegal. …
Replying to Enigma - It is a puzzle how you can say the the term noncitizen is neutral. It hides the most salient issue.
"undocumented noncitizen" implies that citizens and select others are being tracked, tapped, perchance entrapped and do not have civil rights under the Constitution.
“ The governor of Massachusetts does not receive a mansion or other official residence and resides in their own private residence. However, the governor does receive a housing allowance/stipend for $65,000.”
She can pay for plenty of housing for $65k.
Noncitizen is a squishy term that lumps everyone together and doesn't make necessary distinctions between a.) people who are attempting to immigrate legally; b.) refugees; and c.) people who are attempting to immigrate illegally. The fight over the proper term isn't about humanizing people, its about obfuscating what is happening. Illegal immigrants or illegal aliens is sufficient and isn't dehumanizing. It's accurate.
"Illegal alien" was the legal term for an unlawful foreign entrant. It changed to suit progression of religious sensibilities a la sex that referred to male and female, gender that referred to masculine and feminine, couple for a man and woman, couplet for a transgender union, viability with nervous system function, science is a philosophy in a limited frame of reference, diversity of individuals, insurrection without entrapment, abortion for causes other than life was premeditated murder, abortion with selection was eugenics, war is now Spring, etc.
"...but these are vulnerable people."
Apparently, young men in the 18 - 29 age group are the most vulnerable, because they come from all over the world to make up the vast majority of the invasion force, some paying tens of thousands of dollars to get here and to get across the border. How do highly educated women fail to understand the demographics of the invaders without recognizing that this is the case? "But the women and children" is only the hook to shame the suckers. When we add 6 to 10 million people of a given age to the young adult male population every year, as we are currently doing, eventually the demographics of the whole US are permanently changed. Ask a German what the recent importation of just one million young male Middle Easterners did to that country's demographics and even a well educated middle age woman may come to realize what the current backlash is all about in Western Europe. It's all madness and there is going to be hell for our society to pay before the invasion is over.
Illegal as in unlawful entry and residence, alien as in non-native, immigration reform (e.g. democratic gerrymandering, labor arbitrage, selective-child compensation) in lieu of emigration reform, native as in citizen as in "the People and our Posterity".
If they start bussing illegals to WI, send them to Madison. So far only Whitewater seems to be overrun.
Madison voted for this shit, even though they don't care about these people, nor will they let their protected Ivory Tower be infringed upon.
Boston voted for this too. Just like Martha's vineyard. Open up your home. Put your liberal holier than though money where your mouth is.
Must we be respectful of those who break into our homes?
Must we be respectful of those who break into our cars?
Must we be respectful of those who break into our country?
Perhaps criminal alien... foreign People or Posterity until their status is resolved through a legal process. Perhaps a "burden"? No, that would be too harsh.
“Why do we need to use a more respectful term than “illegals”? “
We don’t. It’s like forcing you to use someone’s preferred pronouns. They are trying to change our perception of things through control of language. Using “illegals” (or maybe even “illegal invaders”) shows that you see through their game, and reject playing it. Why should we be showing the illegal invaders all that much respect? Calling them “undocumented”, etc just validates their presence here. And that results in housing them in swanky hotels, giving them free health care, maybe even the vote, and now forcing kids to school online, because their HS has been given to the illegals.
What's wrong with Alien? When I was an expat in Korea I had to carry my ARC everywhere. ARC= Alien Registration Card. Koreans called us what we were. Aliens in their country.
I think "illegal alien" is preferable to "illegal immigrant" (or any of the precious "undocumented" euphemisms) because to characterise them as "immigrants" imposes without any basis the mental framework of immigration on them, viz. that they have come here with the intention of residing permanently etc. But many foreigners -- probably the majority -- resident in the US are present on non-immigrant visas, for work or education, and aren't immigrants at all. It's stealing a rhetorical base to characterise people who attempted to evade border control as immigrants.
That said, one could quibble with "illegal," since it also presumes that they are unlawfully present in the US, even though some of them are eventually able to establish a case for lawful presence in the US based on asylum claim. Success rate is about 30% for people who claim asylum after they're caught by immigration (the numbers are reversed for people who affirmatively claim asylum in what used to be the normal fashion). 70% denial means the vast majority are indeed likely to be in the US illegally, but 30% is high enough that I think there's a good faith complaint that "illegal" unfairly tars some people with the misconduct of others who superficially resemble them. But it would be unfair to lump them together with people who got a visa in advance or entered under a visa waiver + ESTA, the way they're supposed to, so some distinction still ought to be made in everyday conversation.
Why are you deciding on what is a respectful term based on the Department of Justice memos? Since when do we let the government decide what term is a respectful term or let government decisions decide that? Gov't has no place in deciding whether it is a respectful term. Use other appropriate sources.
Why should freedom loving citizens give a crap about a Department of Justice memo? It is and should be understood to be propaganda. Rather than being followed, it should be held up to ridicule.
In a country, there are citizens and aliens, who are not citizens. If they are here legally, like on some kind of visa, they are legal. If not, they are illegal. I will keep using illegal alien, instead of some kind of euphemism which minimizes the fact that they are aliens who are here in violation of our laws.
Quick question: How many foreign persons of undocumented immigration status - illegal immigrants - are housed in the governor's mansion?
What does blogger Reynolds say? "I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who keep telling me it's a crisis act like it's a crisis." Yeah, you go first, Gov! I'd bet at least a dozen families could fit in your place of residence. Get back to me when you've done that, Gov, and I'll listen to your sales pitch.
What's the difference between a foreign national and an illegal immigrant? About one or two hundred million dollars...The foreign nationals in this country own a fair amount of property on Fifth Ave facing Central Park, including some spacious penthouses. They own these apartments not to live in, but as secure investments. If their own country goes haywire or their great leader develops a taste for expropriation, they'll always have a Fifth Ave apartment to retreat to. Since these apartments are vacant and many of them can comfortably hold up to ten families, why not make use of this extra space. This would serve the dual purpose of giving secure housing to migrant families and helping to blur the invidious line between a foreign national and an illegal immigrant. Win win for everyone. I'm sure Mayor Adams is already considering it.
Why are we arguing about what to call them when we have a disaster at the border that we can’t allow to continue, no matter what it’s called.
I'm seeing some people nudging me to accept "illegal aliens" as the respectful term.
Beyond the meaninglessness of the term illegal, how is the "host an immigrant family" sign up list coming along in Madison, WI? It it full, or as empty as mRNA booster shot participation?
Are Madisonians lining up outside to get their name and address on the list? Any Madison landlords willing to give immigrant families free rent? Is UW-Madison going willing to put them up in dorms?
Instead of "illegals" I'll call them "the greatest people who ever lived" if Madison will put its money where it's mouth is. Oh, wait, I meant student dept and taxpayer money.
They are not undocumented because they have papers not legitimate ones didnt we learn anything from 9-11
Here's another useful idea. Many people in NYC live in spacious rent-controlled apartments. Since the government has already intervened to give them their space at a discounted rate, I see no reason why the government cannot intervene to ensure that some non-bureaucratically authorized foreign nationals are not housed in rent-controlled spaces. People in rent controlled spaces should be entitled to two hundred sq feet of living space, but no more.....Of course some steps should be taken to vet these non bureaucratically authorized foreign nationals before housing them with the elderly or infirm. No rapists or murderers allowed in this program. Of course, it should be emphasized that in America everyone is innocent until proven guilty, so those at liberty on bail or awaiting trial should not be barred from the program....If these steps are taken, it will offer a measure of relief to many migrants. Also, it would serve as an opening wedge to establish the precedent that here in America, we are a welcoming country and lodging is a human right and that excess of living space in excess of two hundred square feet is not a human right. Perhaps here in NYC, we will manage to finally achieve what the early Bolsheviks sought when they commandeered the mansions of the wealthy after the revolution.
Once illegals can vote - we all get forced out.
Here's another useful idea. Many people in NYC live in spacious rent-controlled apartments. Since the government has already intervened to give them their space at a discounted rate, I see no reason why the government cannot intervene to ensure that some non-bureaucratically authorized foreign nationals are not housed in rent-controlled spaces. People in rent controlled spaces should be entitled to two hundred sq feet of living space, but no more.....Of course some steps should be taken to vet these non bureaucratically authorized foreign nationals before housing them with the elderly or infirm. No rapists or murderers allowed in this program. Of course, it should be emphasized that in America everyone is innocent until proven guilty, so those at liberty on bail or awaiting trial should not be barred from the program....If these steps are taken, it will offer a measure of relief to many migrants. Also, it would serve as an opening wedge to establish the precedent that here in America, we are a welcoming country and lodging is a human right and that excess of living space in excess of two hundred square feet is not a human right. Perhaps here in NYC, we will manage to finally achieve what the early Bolsheviks sought when they commandeered the mansions of the wealthy after the revolution.
Sorry if I repeat what others have said, but --
"what is the respectful term?"
Why do we need a "respectful term" for people who disrepect our laws and our country, and who are being used by progs to undermine the law and the republic?
It's crude (and nonsensical) to describe the entire person as illegal"
Crude, yes, and rightly so. Hardly nonsensical: the shorthand makes good sense, and is understood by everyone.
Every time a person says "illegal alien" or "undocumented resident" they reveal their political ideology. Noncitizen is neutral and allows one to ignore politics or hold a conversation with an opponent.
I take your point. Saying "illegal alien" telegraphs your opinión. But so does "non-citizen" - it suggests that you have the "no person is illegal" yard sign. It's a Trojan horse, intended to enable you to enter a conversation with someone who would otherwise not even speak to you.
Whereas I am perfectly willing to converse with someone whose views on border security are opposite mine, the reverse doesn't seem to be true. That side doesn't need a conversational Trojan horse; they can forge right ahead with "undocumented migrant" or whatever. What does that say about the debate?
Illegal aliens it is, then.
Illegal entrants.
Non citizens entering illegally.
Some acts are more worthy of a succinct if impolite label, as the host’s “fugitive” musings illustrate. Illegal Alien is a specific legal term for someone, anyone, in a country without permission to be there. Shortening it only presents two options and we all know what we imagine when someone says “he’s an alien.” That leaves the only other word in the phrase, which everyone understands in context whether they approve of its use or not. It is clear. And when it comes down to communicating I agree with the great Rabbi Prager’s famous pithy maxim, “Clarity is preferable to agreement.”
The corrupt democrat elite left and the dedicated leftwing press call them "migrants"
Sorry, Ann, they are illegal aliens or illegals. The other terms are nothing but euphemisms to whitewash their status. They entered our country illegally, they lie about their refugee status, Democrats welcome them to gain Congressional seats.
The best thing to do is to take down their info, give them a court date and then a one-way ticket to Mexico City. Schedule charter flights to Mexico City and see the Mexican government scream.
In the South it's common to use euphemisms as part of the old chauvinistic ways of avoiding topics of discussion that are embarrassing or socially awkward. The euphemisms are usually chosen in a careful and witty way - for instance, when someone is checking their shoe for a dog turd, one asks, concernedly, 'Did you cut your foot'?. A southerner will know that one right away.
There's nothing euphemistic about the elaborate word salads that Progressives come up with to avoid being factual on uncomfortable topics. Their euphemisms are the opposite of Southern charm - they are meant to obfuscate and re-direct attention, and take the starch out of a discussion. 'Illegal alien' is a perfectly correct term, not an insulting one. There are plenty of insulting, pejorative terms for this available. 'Illegal alien' is not one of them - but Progressives are willing to spend a lot of energy making you think it is, and making you do something different.
"Their entry into our country was illegal"
And what, respectfully, do we call people who commit illegal acts?
We call them "criminals."
Respectfully.
And yes, I realize that you delete all of my comments.
“I'm seeing some people nudging me to accept "illegal aliens" as the respectful term. That's more respectful than "illegals," but it is not respectful. First, even "aliens" is rejected. As you can see from that memo, the current preference is "noncitizen." Second, it's bad to say that the person is "illegal." Their entry into our country was illegal, but they are human beings. It's crude (and nonsensical) to describe the entire person as illegal.”
Show them the respect commensurate with the respect illegals show for our immigration LAWS.
Sorry not sorry, they're "illegal aliens." "Aliens" tells us that the key feature is "not from around here." And "illegal" tells us "Should not be here." Combined, they tell us what we're looking at, and what we should be doing about it.
Which is why that term just has to be obliterated in favor of distracting euphemisms.
The respectful term will be "Democrat voter".
Alien comes from biology... science. Illegal comes from legal philosophy.
Starchild suggested: ‘Noble, un-housed, global, human storytellers.’
Roberts Rules made it law yesterday morning (democratically enforced by the wrecking crew)
N.U.G.S. will be housed at PPW community classrooms until Gaia’s harvest.
They’re poor because you’re rich, oppressor.
Musk is a naturalized citizen, an African-American in Democratic enclaves, a person of white (PoW) in diversity (DEI) vernacular.
That said, emigration reform to mitigate progress at both ends of the bridge and throughout.
The corrupt democrat elite left and the dedicated leftwing press call them "migrants"
Exactly opposite of clarity. Not just imprecise but a misuse of a term that identifies an alien as a temporary visitor passing through to another destination or residing temporarily for employment before returning home. Other than a small number of Mexicans and South Americans the term migrant is pure misdirection to confuse and cloud the issue. Good example April!
I'm encouraged the conversation is only bickering about labels and language. Thankfully nobody wants the conversation about inviting strangers who openly violate immigration laws to live our homes.
Re: Esteban:
Noncitizen is a squishy term that lumps everyone together and doesn't make necessary distinctions between a.) people who are attempting to immigrate legally; b.) refugees; and c.) people who are attempting to immigrate illegally.
And (d) noncitizens who are here temporarily on business, education, or pleasure. I think the government ought to prioritise the interests of the various groups as follows:
(1) Citizens > (2) permanent residents ("green card") > (3) immigrant visas > (4) non-immigrant visas and visa waiver entry > (5) people who entered under a valid visa but overstayed > (6) people who tried to evade border control and maybe tried to claim asylum after they got caught.
Our illegal alien problem isn't about "noncitizens," which is everyone in categories 2 through 6. It's the people in categories 5 and 6. And category 6 is what's creating the real problem at the moment.
I'd go further than "squishy." I'd say trying to use "noncitizen" here is a dishonest rhetorical trick.
The phrase that leaps to mind is "You first"
Why do we need to use a more respectful term than “illegals”?
For clarity. What law is being broken.
Those of any nationality who break state labor (closed union shop) laws are "illegals" and SCABS.
Those of any... who take up abode without title or lease to property are illegal "SQUATTERS".
Those OAN who leap or cut fences and cut across property without permission are illegal "TRESSPASSERS".
Those OAN who apply for state and federal benefits and entitlements without the right paperwork are "FRAUDS".
Those OAN who push young people into the illegal sexual services black market are "PIMPS".
Those OAN who provide workers to manufacturing sweat shops are "SLAVERS".
Respect is fine, but precision is necessary. If we are precise about the crime and criminal then all due respect is both equally and equitably shared among citizens and aliens alike.
What if a person takes something from my porch without asking and I caught them on camera?
My own observation of "undocumented" people is actually close to Mayor Eric Adams concerns. Because they don't have documents, you don't know anything of their identity and their history. Further, as they "integrate" into society, their anonymity allows them to violate other laws that identified citizens likely wouldn't get away. They know how to enter the country lawfully and from there, it is the old adage of "in for a penny, in for a pound". Sure, not all of them will continue unlawful behavior, but even at small odds of just 2 to 5%, can we withstand that percentage with millions crossing illegally? The answer is likely no just looking at the number of known watchlist criminals being caught illegally entering and knowing that not all of them are caught.
The issue isn't what to call them. The issue is preventing the crime which requires barriers. Don't get fooled into shifting the argument from what really needs to be done.
Balfegor said... "(6) people who tried to evade border control and maybe tried to claim asylum after they got caught. ... It's the people in categories 5 and 6. And category 6 is what's creating the real problem at the moment."
Do you then infer a case (7) for those who plan ahead to claim asylum before ever entering?
And what do we call those (very VERY few, but not non-existent) who plan pregnancy such that they enter, then deliver themselves of an "anchor baby". (another pejorative term, who can come up with a better?) Case (8) or what?
"Illegal porch pirate" is also not respectful.
And MadisonMan is right- someone in the press with a fucking backbone should ask this dumb bitch Healy how many "non-citizens" does she have living in the governor's mansion.
Cant believe this 80's ditty is still allowed in the woke intertubes, esp with the cultural "appreciation"
>We don't generally follow a rule of refraining from referring to a person by one thing that he has done. If a person escapes from prison, we wouldn't refrain from calling him a "fugitive." We wouldn't think it was important to display our goodness by eschewing the simple expression and calling him "a person who has escaped from prison."<
Huh? As if the word "fugitive" were somehow pejorative!
But the more salient feature of Althouse's statement there is the mawkish attention to displaying "our" goodness. That quest is tantamount to seeking social approval and appearing morally superior and is generally called "virtue signaling" - a term that is indeed pejorative, and appropriately so.
Don't say burglar, say unauthorized entrant...out of respect.
And hope when the cops come they take him away and not you.
Re: J. Melcher:
Do you then infer a case (7) for those who plan ahead to claim asylum before ever entering?
I guess they'd be category 4? I forget whether asylum is categorised as immigrant or non-immigrant (I think it is non-immigrant but doesn't have a defined end date unlike work or education visas). If they make the asylum application before entering, then they're trying to respect US law and not trying to evade border control. Or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?
And what do we call those (very VERY few, but not non-existent) who plan pregnancy such that they enter, then deliver themselves of an "anchor baby". (another pejorative term, who can come up with a better?) Case (8) or what?
I think these are generally women entering on facially valid short-term non-immigrant visas, so no reason to make up a new category for them. They're in (4). But if they lied on their visa application or something, then I would lump them together with (5). Certainly more sympathetic than the people in (6), but still doing something illegal.
"Everyone has something they can offer"
From each according to his abilities.
Refusing to call a spade a spade doesn't make you fucking anti-American democrat party members good people, it makes you liars.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
So, if you have ever broken one of our country’s traffic laws, such as exceeding the speed limit, you are an illegal. If, like Elon Musk, you have ever broken a contract to go through with a business acquisition, until ordered by a court, you are an illegal. …
1/11/24, 7:26 AM
Except we were born here, live here and pay taxes here. We may have done SOMETHING illegal, but we didn't break the laws to sneak into the country. THEY are invaders. How many are YOU taking in to support since you want them here so badly??
Criminal foreigners? Scofflaw migrants?
Forget calling them "illegals". Let's just call them what they really are. SQUATTERS They have invaded our home unasked and they refuse to leave. SQUATTERS
Illegal alien is just a common sense variant of "Resident Alien," which is what green cards said before it became profitable to confuse things.
I grew up in Eagle Pass, Texas.
Back then, local whites & hispanics alike called them Wetbacks.
The news says over this last year of the Joe & the Hoe "administration", 400,000 Wetbacks moved across the same shallow stretch of the RioGrande that my girlfriends and I used to play in daily. (We'd have to keep an eye out for the Cottonmouth snakes, if they came up to show their face it was because that's when they were ready to bite.)
400,000 at Eagle Pass alone.
Welcome to the end of the United States Citizen. We are merely part of the World now.
How about criminals, you know, people who willingly defy the law?
Border jumper!
"Once illegals can vote - we all get forced out."
I'm open to the idea that the actual "illegals" are, on average, much more conservative and hard working than many people believe. It's their children, indoctrinated by our public school systems, who get the Democrat activists truly excited. If you doubt that, just take a look at the identity of many of the anti-Israel protestors. A few short years ago, you would not have found a lot of Hispanic last names among such protestors. That is not the case at all today.
PS. The Left is very fond of using euphemisms to obscure meaning. Perhaps we can adopt the term "Euphemistas" to describe those who enter the country without following the legally prescribed immigration process.
Maybe "wetback." When I was growing up in SoCal....
We need to stop using the term "euphemism". It reeks of privilege. I suggest we all agree to use the term "true words".
"Everyone has something they can offer."
Especially the property owners of Martha's Vineyard. Nobody with any alternatives stays on the Cape Cod islands during the nor'easter season. Those fabulous mansions are vacant now. How many undocumented asylum seekers will Obama invite to live in his empty house?
Akin to wanting someone to allow the burglar to hang around for dinner whilst pocketing whatever catches the fancy.
Sounds like you might want to partake of a little civility bullshit yourself on this issue. These ARE illegal aliens. They just are.
Bernie has three mansions. Surely he can find room for a few "families" that have snuck in.
OK, they didn't actually sneak but...
I am quite sure we will soon see a government program declaring 2 weeks to flatten the illegal aliens on the street curve, so your home will be used to house them.
@stonethrower: " It is a puzzle how you can say the the term noncitizen is neutral. It hides the most salient issue."
It doesn't hide it, rather, it breaks up the phrase and avoids being tagged instantly with a party position. People then must people think for a half a second, while the rest of the sentence addresses whether legal status is relevant. Examples include "noncitizen voting is prohibited," or "noncitizen visa rules by country," "noncitizen banking laws," "noncitizens in violation of immigration laws," or "noncitizen crime rates," etc.
Parties adopt language as branding per their agenda. See "pro-choice" vs. "anti-choice" vs. "pro-life." All of this allows instant recognition and whether an insider topic might be discussed at all -- much like the divergent religious beliefs of those showing crucifixes, burkas, turbans, forehead red dots, skull caps, etc. Avoiding standard terms can sidestep or hide party affiliation in a good way...when it's not relevant...
I think, by now, I would be re-examining my commitment to pay my taxes.
I wonder what euphemism will be invented for enemies of the new regime.
"I'm seeing some people nudging me to accept "illegal aliens" as the respectful term."
"Settler colonists" hits too close to the mark, I suppose?
The Chicago Tribune calls everybody the incredibly benign "migrant".
Jersey Fled said: "Why are we arguing about what to call them when we have a disaster at the border that we can’t allow to continue, no matter what it’s called." Others have echoed this point. So let me do the same. The argument about terminology is a red herring. The so-called sanctuary cities are overwhelmed by what is just a tiny percentage of those pouring over our border. And there are 10s of thousand more coming everyday. The Biden regime tells me that the border is under control. I'm sticking to the same position I've had since the Democrats reneged on the their part of the Reagan era immigration reform. No changes to the laws until the administration shows a real commitment to enforce the law already on the books (and yes that would include mass deportations). Because if you aren't willing to enforce the laws we have now, why should I believe you when you say you will enforce the new ones. Bruce Hayden brings up the problem (or benefit in the eyes of the Democratic party) of the illegal aliens voting. That may be the ultimate goal but their presence alone props up the party since they are counted in the census and help prop up representation in the house whether they vote or not.
"Would these adults clean and cook for you and work on your lawn and garden? Are they unpaid servants? I won't say "slaves," because they'd be free to leave, but these are vulnerable people."
----------------------------------------------------------
This brings to mind some questions of a practical bent. Here's a few:
Just what the hell are these people gonna do all day?
Lie on your sofa in their underwear and watch telenovelas?
Snarf up the food in your refrigerator?
Are you willing to leave your house or apartment while these people are there? Even if they pinky-swear not to steal anything?
I took in my mid-30s stepson, a legal immigrant from Brazil, 2.5 years ago. He just moved out a week ago. Even under the best of circumstances, it puts innumerable strains on your household and your expenses go up. A lot.
Just another great idea from our Leftist friends. YGF.
Before we get too wrapped up in labeling them, has anyone asked their pronouns?
J Melcher @ 8:54am,
Your last scenario actually has a pretty easy solution: "No citizen who has not reached the age of majority may sponsor any other person for admission to the US."
Yes, you are a US citizen because you happened to be born here while your non-citizen mother was present in the Congratulations! However, you are not entitled to sponsor any other person for temporary or permanent admission to the US until you yourself are an adult.
How about "Uninvited Intruder"; not sure how polite that is, but it is accurate. It can't be non-citizen because there are a lot of non-citizens who are here legally. This open your home stuff is ridiculous, these aren't refugees from a disaster.
We have to cut back on energy usage because of the risk CO2 emissions pose to the planet but the left's argument (you can never be too careful) is nowhere to be seen when allowing millions of invaders into the country.
You want to lower CO2 emissions in the US? Stopping the invasion and sending those millions of illegals already in the country back where they came from will result in a significant reduction in energy demands. Isn't that what the left says they want?
Illegals? I prefer the term Invaders.
In the post I didn't see a resolution on your part as to what to call the people under discussion.
It's going to be an issue in the upcoming election as six million new arrivals under Biden and more on the way will be an unavoidable elephant. So you may need to reach an understanding on the correct label that is suitable to your own sense of humanity and right.
What's it gonna be?
Also, in the near future we will look back fondly on the days when our illegal aliens were primarily Mexicans.
Its a one-way street.
My preference is enemies.
Shirley you're not serious...
Normals have no difficulty or lawyerly parsing guilt understanding or innocently using such terms.
"I'm seeing some people nudging me to accept "illegal aliens" as the respectful term."
No, that was always the term. A small group of people decided that it was "not nice" and they want to confuse people so have invented new terms. Screw them.
Ann Althouse said...
Would these adults clean and cook for you and work on your lawn and garden? Are they unpaid servants? I won't say "slaves," because they'd be free to leave, but these are vulnerable people.
OK. I changed my mind. I've got a few spare bedrooms and a king sized bed. I'll take in three or four smokin' hot 25 to 30 year old Latina's with no children. No hombres.
Send photos for review and consideration. Head shots alone will not be accepted.
Searching the text of the U S Code I find the term "illegal alien" used consistently for those foreign nationals entering the United States without proper documents that allow them legal entry.
Open houses for Illegals?
YOU FIRST WHITE LEFTISTS. YOU FIRST HILLARYWOODLAND. YOU FIRST, CROOK BIDEN.
"I'm seeing some people nudging me to accept "illegal aliens" as the respectful term."
No, that was always the term. A small group of people decided that it was "not nice" and they want to confuse people so have invented new terms. Screw them.
When JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." I don't think that he meant anything like this kind of an ask.
"Just what the hell are these people gonna do all day?"
Well, if Chicago is anything to go by. Thry spend part of the day bitching and moaning about the free food and beds. The rest of the time they're out in the neighborhoods stealing stuff and offering themselves up for prostitution.
This guy nailed it:
All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.
President Bill Clinton, SOTU (1995)
Language exists to convey ideas. Language should be as clear and unambiguous as possible.
Is the person a citizen? No? He is an alien.
That's the correct word.
Is he here legally?
He is a legal alien.
Is he here illegally?
He is an illegal alien.
Conservatives agree that words have meaning. When a law is passed or when you read the constitution words have objective meaning. You can't pretend a word means the opposite of what it means. One reason why it's critical to have originalists in our courts. Words mean what they mean.
Liberals say that words have no objective meaning. The constitution's words don't mean what words mean. A spending bill must originate in the House? But this one did not? Let's ignore the law. A portion of a law is found to be unconstitutional but the writers forgot to write a severable clause? Then the whole law is tossed out. Start over. Not if you're a liberal. If you're a liberal words mean whatever you want them to mean to advance your agenda.
When do we start calling drug dealers "undocumented pharmacists"?
We do have legal aliens. In contrast, we also have illegal aliens.
Illegal, immigrant, also applies, but that’s a lot of syllables.
And where is the outrage about students being booted from their school to house people who came here illegally? The parents of those students, and everyone else in New York City pay taxes for their schools.
Maybe they will vote smarter next time.
Can we call these people "agents of the state"? Asking for Griswold.
Illegal alien is the English term. All others are but semantical cuteness.
I was under the impression that the term "Illegal Alien" is codified in federal law as the proper term.
I can't understand why the "sanctuary city" types are getting bent out of shape these days. They are receiving exactly what they asked for! They inhabit large and wealthy cities with armies of do-gooder government employees and non-profit organizations devoted to taking care of the downtrodden. Why do they think that these people would be better off encamped in a field in El Paso or Yuma than in the warm embrace of People Who Think Like Us?
Being, at one point, an actual alien, I find it neither disrespectful or inaccurate to use the term either as a legal or illegal alien. When coming to the US, one will receive an alien registration number. It in no way reflects on a person one way or another. However, the illegal status does indicate that, at the very first step of entry to the US, has decided to not follow the law. Read into that what you like.
If we eliminate all of the words that enable crimethink, crimethink becomes impossible. We are just not trying hard enough!
I am so proud of all of the commenters here who have made constructive suggestions as to how the next edition of the Newspeak dictionary should address this topic.
Emerson maintained that humanity had an “ oversoul.” Jung said that we have a collective unconscious. We have both; they live in our language.
Well said, Clyde (5:46AM)
Zavier Onasses
Cameron County TX
(also Maverick, Webb, and Val Verde Counties)
We wouldn't think it was important to display our goodness by eschewing the simple expression and calling him "a person who has escaped from prison."
Well... there's "person experiencing homelessness" and "unhoused person." There's "differently abled person." There's "birthing person." There's "person of color." And none of the characteristics described in these very careful phrases is illegal or immoral. Yet the Left insists that we focus on the "person" part and make any modifier as neutral as possible - even when the modifier doesn't impugn the person at all.
So I think "we" do think it's important to display our goodness by obfuscating.
Contrast and Compare ...
After the Cuban Revolution of 1959 large numbers of Cubans began to emigrate. Cubans settled in various places around the United States, but the majority settled in Miami-Dade County due to its proximity to Cuba and the Cuban community already present in the area. Many settled in the Miami neighborhood of Little Havana and the suburb of Hialeah, where they found cheap housing, new jobs, and access to Spanish-speaking businesses.
As Cubans became more settled in Miami-Dade County, more businesses and media outlets began catering to Spanish speaking audiences. Large numbers of non-Hispanic residents began to leave the county in a case of white flight, with many of them moving to Broward County and Palm Beach County.
Cuban Migration to Miami
How about "unpermitted foreigners"?
“Are you willing to have "an additional family be part of your family"?”
I’m sure the way this works is that if you did let someone stay with you a right of residence would be vested and you could never get them out, perhaps you could evict them after a year of court proceedings. I suspect that if you let someone in they would be legally a tenant.
At least it would require hiring an attorney to review your position.
The Left has always seen the Constitution as an obstacle to its preferred policies and favored groups. Any Amendment that stands in their way is racist and fascist. Now add the 3rd. "But they're not soldiers."
So, if you have ever broken one of our country’s traffic laws, such as exceeding the speed limit, you are an illegal.
Yes. Breaking the law = illegal
What's your point ... other than stupid word games to avoid admitting your side supports lawbreakers invading our country?
Most counties, towns, villages and cities in Massachusetts have zoning regulations forbidding housing more than a certain number of unrelated persons. I don't think most people want those laws suspended.
The respectful and correct term is CRIMINAL.
They broke the fucking law as their very first act on U.S. soil.
Btw, Cesar Chavez called them 'Wetbacks.'
Will that do?
We should be calling them deportees. Respectfully.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
Principals without principles.
Only after Maura has shown them by offering her own homes first.
Regarding Humpty Dumpty, ironically, Google/Alphabet steer you to a site, not about Alice in Wonderland, but to a site advocating for the normalization of CAIR (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Immigration Reform), forced by ethnic Springs, redistributive change, and Green deals in the post-colonial era of woke (sic) and social progress, selective-child, DIE, etc.
Re: illegal aliens:
I propose "unauthorized residents" or "unauthorized entrants." Undocumented sounds like they might be on the up-and-up but someone forgot to get some papers stamped. But "unauthorized" makes it clear that we are dealing with a lack of permission and possibly a complete lack of authorities even being aware of their existence or true identity. And I think that "entrants" or "residents" are neutral and non-perjorative terms.
Illegal immigration or colonialism aided and abetted by transnational interests, anti-nativists, diversitists, progressive religious, Democratic gerrymanderers, redistributive changers (e.g. for-profit welfare schemes), universities, and abortionists?
NBC News reports
In a press conference on Friday, López Obrador called on the U.S. to approve a plan that would deploy $20 billion to Latin American and Caribbean countries, suspend the U.S. blockade of Cuba, remove all sanctions against Venezuela and grant at least 10 million Hispanics living in the U.S. the right to remain and work legally.
Extortion by any other name would taste just as bitter.
That said, emigration reform to mitigate progress at both ends of the bridge and throughout.
Make Sunmer, not Spring.
Equal, not congruent rights.
#HateLovesAbortion
“Foreign invaders” works.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন