NationStates

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ments.html

Some time ago, New York City passed a law that "alien" and "illegal immigrant" will no longer become the the term used to define people who have entered the US illegally. The new term shall now be "non-citizen."

What do you guys say about this? Opposed, For, or in between? Do you have any more info about this?


That's my opinion, what's yours?

I mean, to be fair they are illegal aliens. Doesn’t really make sense not to call them that, and besides, not all noncitizens are illegal.

I am for this, because it makes the non-citizen feel welcome in NYC.

Mopistan wrote:I mean, to be fair they are illegal aliens. Doesn’t really make sense not to call them that, and besides, not all noncitizens are illegal.

Understandable.

Drew Durrnil wrote:I am for this, because it makes the non-citizen feel welcome in NYC.

But why should they? They came here illegally.

“non-citizen” is just fine. “Illegal alien“ has bad connotations and is just too strong to use nowadays.

Drew Durrnil wrote:I am for this, because it makes the non-citizen feel welcome in NYC.

Why should we make criminals feel welcome?

Unifair wrote:“non-citizen” is just fine. “Illegal alien“ has bad connotations and is just too strong to use nowadays.

It's at least very dehumanizing language. People shouldn't be upset over this because either designation is just as correct.

Drew Durrnil wrote:I am for this, because it makes the non-citizen feel welcome in NYC.

But they came here illegally. They're criminals.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

Drew Durrnil wrote:I am for this, because it makes the non-citizen feel welcome in NYC.

Why should we make criminals feel welcome?

Exactly LOL

Valrifell wrote:

Unifair wrote:“non-citizen” is just fine. “Illegal alien“ has bad connotations and is just too strong to use nowadays.

It's at least very dehumanizing language. People shouldn't be upset over this because either designation is just as correct.

Well, they did kinda come here illegally, why should they have rights?

Valrifell wrote:

Unifair wrote:“non-citizen” is just fine. “Illegal alien“ has bad connotations and is just too strong to use nowadays.

It's at least very dehumanizing language. People shouldn't be upset over this because either designation is just as correct.

"Illegal alien"? Yes, that is clearly dehumanizing.

"Illegal immigrant", however, is by description 100% accurate and non-offensive. I don't see why we should stop calling illegal immigrants what they are.

La xinga wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
It's at least very dehumanizing language. People shouldn't be upset over this because either designation is just as correct.

Well, they did kinda come here illegally, why should they have rights?

Well, there's a large number of illegal immigrants that are Americans that haven't come home yet.

I personally don’t really care so much, but “non-citizen” doesn’t seem the most fitting term for this specific kind of immigrant. To me, it’s just another word for a resident of America, someone who lives there but hasn’t attained naturalisation. Illegal immigrant seems just fine to me, though I can understand the change in regards to how charged the former has become in recent years, partially thanks to a certain world “leader”.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
It's at least very dehumanizing language. People shouldn't be upset over this because either designation is just as correct.

"Illegal alien"? Yes, that is clearly dehumanizing.

"Illegal immigrant", however, is by description 100% accurate and non-offensive. I don't see why we should stop calling illegal immigrants what they are.

The difference between illegal immigrant and non-citizen doesn't strike me as very deep. I'm not seeing why it's worth fussing over either way, honestly.

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:

La xinga wrote:
Well, they did kinda come here illegally, why should they have rights?

Well, there's a large number of illegal immigrants that are Americans that haven't come home yet.

So we should tell them: Go home now, NOW. Right?

La xinga wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
It's at least very dehumanizing language. People shouldn't be upset over this because either designation is just as correct.

Well, they did kinda come here illegally, why should they have rights?

1) human rights should not be contingent on criminal status
1a) especially not non-violent criminal status
2) you realize what rampant government-enforced dehumanization of social minorities gets you, yes?

La xinga wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Why should we make criminals feel welcome?

Exactly LOL

Valrifell wrote:
It's at least very dehumanizing language. People shouldn't be upset over this because either designation is just as correct.

Well, they did kinda come here illegally, why should they have rights?

Even people who immigrate illegally shouldn’t be deprived of their human rights.

Valrifell wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
"Illegal alien"? Yes, that is clearly dehumanizing.

"Illegal immigrant", however, is by description 100% accurate and non-offensive. I don't see why we should stop calling illegal immigrants what they are.

The difference between illegal immigrant and non-citizen doesn't strike me as very deep. I'm not seeing why it's worth fussing over either way, honestly.

A non-citizen can be here legally. An illegal immigrant cannot.

Seems pretty deep to me.

La xinga wrote:

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:Well, there's a large number of illegal immigrants that are Americans that haven't come home yet.

So we should tell them: Go home now, NOW. Right?

It depends on how useful they are. Illegal immigrants are very beneficial to the US manual or menial labour workforce IIRC, especially in agriculture.

Edit: I misread the post, but the general point is that illegal immigrants should only be deported after their value has been estimated or something of that nature, or if returning home is safe for them.

La xinga wrote:

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:Well, there's a large number of illegal immigrants that are Americans that haven't come home yet.

So we should tell them: Go home now, NOW. Right?

Yeah. America is their home. We should show them how to legally obtain citizenship.

Cekoviu wrote:

La xinga wrote:Well, they did kinda come here illegally, why should they have rights?

1) human rights should not be contingent on criminal status
1a) especially not non-violent criminal status
2) you realize what rampant government-enforced dehumanization of social minorities gets you, yes?

1. They came here illegally, so shall not they be deported? Then what good is it becoming a citizen?
2. I'm not saying massacre, I'm saying deportation.

Britannia Maior wrote:

La xinga wrote:So we should tell them: Go home now, NOW. Right?

It depends on how useful they are. Illegal immigrants are very beneficial to the US manual or menial labour workforce IIRC, especially in agriculture.

5.9 million people in America were unemployed in 2019, but shouldn't the citizen come before the illegal immigrant?

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:

La xinga wrote:So we should tell them: Go home now, NOW. Right?

Yeah. America is their home. We should show them how to legally obtain citizenship.

Exactly. But for some reason, they don't wait, they just go in.

La xinga wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:1) human rights should not be contingent on criminal status
1a) especially not non-violent criminal status
2) you realize what rampant government-enforced dehumanization of social minorities gets you, yes?

1. They came here illegally, so shall not they be deported? Then what good is it becoming a citizen?
2. I'm not saying massacre, I'm saying deportation.

Britannia Maior wrote:
It depends on how useful they are. Illegal immigrants are very beneficial to the US manual or menial labour workforce IIRC, especially in agriculture.

5.9 million people in America were unemployed in 2019, but shouldn't the citizen come before the illegal immigrant?

Good luck convincing employers to employ citizens over illegal immigrants. The latter are easier to pay AFAIK and generally more cost effective. In theory, however, I’d usually agree, but America isn’t a command economy so that can’t exactly be enforced I think.

Britannia Maior wrote:

La xinga wrote:So we should tell them: Go home now, NOW. Right?

It depends on how useful they are. Illegal immigrants are very beneficial to the US manual or menial labour workforce IIRC, especially in agriculture.

Edit: I misread the post, but the general point is that illegal immigrants should only be deported after their value has been estimated or something of that nature, or if returning home is safe for them.

You mean the ones being exploited by corporations that want to dodge labor and wage laws?

Virtue signaling.

A "Non-citizen" is a legal immigrant who has not gone through the citizenship process.
There needs to remain a distinction between legal and illegal, because there is a HUGE difference between the two. America welcomes the legals.