Illegal immigrants and racists: a PC question

[Elwher]

I have been told that what I consider Political Correctness should be considered Personal Courtesy, and I can see some validity to the concept. I do wish to examine it a bit fuller, however.

The PC crowd, by whether Political Correctness or Personal Courtesy, claims that we should not use the term Illegal Immigrant, despite the fact that those to which it would apply are living in a country other that the one in which they were born, making them immigrants; and doing so in violation of applicable law, making that immigration illegal. The term should not be used because it is offensive and dehumanizing, and causes personal distress and anguish to those it is applied to. I do see the point.

However, let us consider the application of the term racist, applied to the Republican party. It is applied because some of their actions do apply to certain races more than others, and seem to come from a racial animus. However, it is offensive and dehumanizing, and causes personal distress and anguish to those it is applied to. Therefore, by the logic above, it too should not be used.

One can argue that if the Republicans do not want to be called racist, they should not engage in conduct that earns the term. Again, the same argument can be applied to those referred to as illegal immigrants; were they to cease acting in a fashion described by the term they would no longer be referred to as such.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

What?

[-Astoria]

I can't help but think this is surely satire...

[Maydona]

Being called a 'racist' (probably for acting racist) and getting called an 'illegal immigrant' (someone who's trying to cross an imaginary line drawn on the ground) are two radically different things and the fact that somehow you found a way to equate one to another is baffling.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I can't even think of what point OP is trying to make. You can call an illegal immigrant as such because....they might be? But it's racist if you call all immigrants illegal without proof. And if you call people racist for calling someone an illegal immigrant with proof that's also bad, right? Am I with you so far?

[Pacomia]

Both terms are fine. They just say what a person is. Sort of like the terms “fraudulent” or “murderer” imply criminal activity (which is fair, because they refer to a criminal), so does “illegal immigrant”, which also refers to a criminal. What else are we supposed to call them?

[Pacomia]

I can't even think of what point OP is trying to make. You can call an illegal immigrant as such because....they might be? But it's racist if you call all immigrants illegal without proof. And if you call people racist for calling someone an illegal immigrant with proof that's also bad, right? Am I with you so far?

The hypocrisy paradox

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Yeah.....

Sorry I am just really confused. Is OP saying it's ok to be racist, or...?

[Ethel mermania]

Kinda bloggy, what are we suppose to discuss?

[Elwher]

Kinda bloggy, what are we suppose to discuss?

Is it hypocritical to refrain from using the technically accurate term illegal immigrant because illegal immigrants are offended by it but to not refrain from using the technically accurate term racist when racists are offended by it?

[Ethel mermania]

Kinda bloggy, what are we suppose to discuss?

Is it hypocritical to refrain from using the technically accurate term illegal immigrant because illegal immigrants are offended by it but to not refrain from using the technically accurate term racist when racists are offended by it?

Thanks.

[Nakena]

Yeah.....

Sorry I am just really confused. Is OP saying it's ok to be racist, or...?

Probably he means that it is ok to be white.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Your rhetorical style is dizzying and your ideas are unique—I’ll give you that.

[World Builder]

Innocent until proven guilty. You don't know if any given stranger is here legally, here illegally, born here, studying here, etc. until you have more information. If they are indeed an undocumented immigrant or an illegal immigrant, you get to call them that. If you just assume they are, that's the offensive part.

People claiming to be offended by being called racist for saying racist things have nothing to do with a matter of legal fact. But, rule of thumb, if most people think a thing you said is racist, it probably is. Try not knee-jerk reacting like a little baby and instead rationally approach the possibility that you did indeed say something cruddy, even if you didn't realise it was cruddy at the time. Ask questions instead of telling people what you think they mean. Only way to learn.

[Bear Stearns]

Innocent until proven guilty. You don't know if any given stranger is here legally, here illegally, born here, studying here, etc. until you have more information. If they are indeed an undocumented immigrant or an illegal immigrant, you get to call them that. If you just assume they are, that's the offensive part.

You can make fairly accurate assumptions based on certain behavior patterns and characteristics.

Alone in the country, but clearly not a student, tourist, or skilled worker?
No ID or bank account?
Expired visa?
Works under the table all the time or doesn't have a 1099 form?
Avoids situations where proof of residency/identification is needed?

[Elwher]

Innocent until proven guilty. You don't know if any given stranger is here legally, here illegally, born here, studying here, etc. until you have more information. If they are indeed an undocumented immigrant or an illegal immigrant, you get to call them that. If you just assume they are, that's the offensive part.

People claiming to be offended by being called racist for saying racist things have nothing to do with a matter of legal fact. But, rule of thumb, if most people think a thing you said is racist, it probably is. Try not knee-jerk reacting like a little baby and instead rationally approach the possibility that you did indeed say something cruddy, even if you didn't realise it was cruddy at the time. Ask questions instead of telling people what you think they mean. Only way to learn.

Many news outlets have clear public policies that insist that their reports use the term undocumented rather than illegal immigrant, even when it is know that the person is in the country illegally. That is not an assumption of anything. The question is, should these outlets have a similar policy towards the term racist?

[Elwher]

Your rhetorical style is dizzying and your ideas are unique—I’ll give you that.

Thank you, sir. One tries one's best.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

If you steal things you are a thief. It offends people so the word is banned. If that word is banned people call them burglars. It inevitably offends people and is also banned. So people say banker. This word is shortly banned.

Basically any way you describe something will be banned because it hurts fefes. Colloquialisms and official terms are not safe. Who decides what words are banned? A tiny group of sjw's. They even ban scientific facts.

I won't censor myself for a a handful of racists.

[Ethel mermania]

Innocent until proven guilty. You don't know if any given stranger is here legally, here illegally, born here, studying here, etc. until you have more information. If they are indeed an undocumented immigrant or an illegal immigrant, you get to call them that. If you just assume they are, that's the offensive part.

People claiming to be offended by being called racist for saying racist things have nothing to do with a matter of legal fact. But, rule of thumb, if most people think a thing you said is racist, it probably is. Try not knee-jerk reacting like a little baby and instead rationally approach the possibility that you did indeed say something cruddy, even if you didn't realise it was cruddy at the time. Ask questions instead of telling people what you think they mean. Only way to learn.

Many news outlets have clear public policies that insist that their reports use the term undocumented rather than illegal immigrant, even when it is know that the person is in the country illegally. That is not an assumption of anything. The question is, should these outlets have a similar policy towards the term racist?

They are trying to influence public opinion by doing so, which shows bias.

An undocumented worker is a 14 year old kid working without working papers. An illegal alien is an illegal alien.

[Page]

1) Calling undocumented immigrants (or unauthorized immigrants if you prefer because you think undocumented is "PC") "illegals" is nonsensical. There is no such thing as an illegal person, and their ongoing status living in the country changes nothing. If you steal something from a store, it's a single illegal act whether you keep the item forever or bring it back 5 seconds after you walk out the door. An illegal border crossing is no different. It's one action.

2) Consider when we do and don't define a person or group by which laws they have broken. If you're talking about Jeffrey Dahmer, the term "serial killer" is going to come up in the first sentence. The first thing one learns about Adolf Eichmann is that he was a nazi and a war criminal. But we don't immediately bring up the fact that Robert Downey Jr. is a convicted felon. We don't refer to all the rockstars of the world as "drug offenders" even though most of them are. We don't call gay people in Saudi Arabia and Iran "illegals" or "illegal homosexuals" even though they literally are. If they are simply "gays" or "LGBT" despite an illegal relationship, why should we say "illegals" in reference to migrants who illegally crossed the border?

3) Consider your biases. Many Jews who lived in Europe illegally settled in countries that banned Jews, not only in the Middle Ages but as recently as the 20th century, so why don't we call them illegals when talking about history? In the present day, the government of Myanmar asserts that the Rohingya people have no right to live within the country despite the fact that their families have lived in the land for several generations, but people of the West tend to think Myanmar is wrong for trying to expel them. So why do we think of the laws of our own society to be more legitimate than historical societies or modern societies on the other side of the world? Why do we think those people have the right to be where they are but not people crossing our borders.

[Nova Cyberia]

The funny thing about the whole "undocumented immigrants" Newspeak is that many of these people are very much documented. Many overstayed their Visas, so we do actually have documentation on them.

"Illegal immigrant" is the more accurate term because, well, they're here illegally.

[Page]

The funny thing about the whole "undocumented immigrants" Newspeak is that many of these people are very much documented. Many overstayed their Visas, so we do actually have documentation on them.

"Illegal immigrant" is the more accurate term because, well, they're here illegally.

There is no such thing as being in a place illegally, there is only the single action of entering a place illegally. How long one stays is irrelevant.

[Nova Cyberia]

The funny thing about the whole "undocumented immigrants" Newspeak is that many of these people are very much documented. Many overstayed their Visas, so we do actually have documentation on them.

"Illegal immigrant" is the more accurate term because, well, they're here illegally.

There is no such thing as being in a place illegally, there is only the single action of entering a place illegally. How long one stays is irrelevant.

Actually, there is. We call it "trespassing". Or, in terms of immigration, "illegal immigration".

[Ethel mermania]

The funny thing about the whole "undocumented immigrants" Newspeak is that many of these people are very much documented. Many overstayed their Visas, so we do actually have documentation on them.

"Illegal immigrant" is the more accurate term because, well, they're here illegally.

There is no such thing as being in a place illegally, there is only the single action of entering a place illegally. How long one stays is irrelevant.

If you are trespassing you are there illegally. If you are anywhere where the lawful authority says you are not suppose to be, you are there illegally.

Aliens who are not suppose to be in this country are here illegally, hence they are illegal aliens

[Elwher]

The funny thing about the whole "undocumented immigrants" Newspeak is that many of these people are very much documented. Many overstayed their Visas, so we do actually have documentation on them.

"Illegal immigrant" is the more accurate term because, well, they're here illegally.

There is no such thing as being in a place illegally, there is only the single action of entering a place illegally. How long one stays is irrelevant.

8 USC 1182 Section 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) Construction of unlawful presence
For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.

Here is the clearest example of the illegality of being in the US without proper documentation; other sections clarify it to a certain extent.