BajaNomad

A Victory Against the Language of Bigotry

Cisco - 4-6-2013 at 05:38 PM

Apr 5, 2013

By David Sirota

As one of the world’s largest news outlets, The Associated Press’ linguistic mandates significantly shape the broader vernacular. So when the organization this week decided to stop using the term “illegal immigrant,” it was a big victory for objectivity and against the propagandistic language of bigotry.

Cautious AP executives did not frame it exactly that way. Instead, editor Kathleen Carroll portrayed the decision as one in defense of grammar, saying that the term “illegal” properly “describe(s) only an action” and that it is not an appropriate label to describe a human being.

“Illegal,” of course, has been used as more than a mere label—it has for years been used as an outright epithet by xenophobes. They abhor the notion of America becoming more diverse—and specifically, more non-white—and so they have tried to convert “illegal” into a word that specifically dehumanizes Latinos. Thus, as any honest person can admit, when Republican politicians and media blowhards decry “illegals,” they are pretending to be for a race-blind enforcement of immigration laws, but they are really signaling their hatred of Latino culture.

How can we be so sure that dog-whistle bigotry is the intent? It’s simple, really. Just listen to who is—and who is not—being called an “illegal.”

Almost nobody is uses the term to attack white immigrants from Europe or Canada who overstay their visas. Nobody uses the term to describe white people who break all sorts of criminal laws. Indeed, nobody called Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter an “illegal” upon revelations about his connection to a prostitution service, nor did anyone call Bernie Madoff an “illegal” for his Ponzi schemes.

Instead, the word is exclusively used to denigrate Latinos who entered the country without authorization. Coincidence? Hardly—especially because the term “illegal” is used to describe Latinos whose immigration status is not even a criminal matter.

Yes, as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie noted back in 2008, though “the whole phrase of ‘illegal immigrant’ connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime,” in fact “being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime.”

If Christie runs for president in 2016, he will likely get flak for that comment from anti-immigrant Republicans. But he was 100 percent correct.

“‘Illegal presence’ as the offense is called, is not a violation of the U.S. criminal code,” notes the Newark Star-Ledger, adding that while it is “a violation of civil immigration laws (and) the federal government can impose civil penalties” a person “cannot be sent to prison for being here without authorization from immigration authorities.”

Recognizing these facts is not to condone unauthorized entry into the United States. But it is to note a telling discrepancy: Latinos with non-criminal immigration status are called “illegals” but white people committing decidedly criminal acts are not called the same. Worse, the term is used so often and in such blanket fashion against Latinos that it ends up implying a description of all people of Hispanic heritage, regardless of their immigration status.

What’s amazing is that Republican media voices, which so often invoke such incendiary language, simultaneously wonder why the Republican Party is failing to win the votes of people of color and consequently losing so many elections. Somehow, the GOP doesn’t understand what the Associated Press realized: Organizations—whether political parties, media outlets or businesses - can no longer expect to insult and slander people of color and still have a viable audience.

Those that do not realize that truth will inevitably find themselves as lonely and as marginalized as today’s GOP.

woody with a view - 4-6-2013 at 05:43 PM

blah, blah. let the 11 million take up services that you and yours might require....

but i digress!

DENNIS - 4-6-2013 at 06:02 PM

This "semantics" issue is really tiresome.

Where's the fence?

DianaT - 4-6-2013 at 06:05 PM

Thanks Cisco :)

Ateo - 4-6-2013 at 06:11 PM

Yeah, I like it.

They're already taking up some services. Might as well legalize and collect some taxes.

dtbushpilot - 4-6-2013 at 06:22 PM

So the AP decides to use a different term to describe people who enter the country illegally and you turn it into Republican bashing. Why would you find the need to point to republicans who broke the law to make your point, there are plenty of democrats, independents or any other group that have their share of criminals which by the way is what they would be referred to instead of "illegals".

I find it amusing that the writer writes about the bigotry of others when he is filled with hate and bigotry himself.

[Edited on 4-7-2013 by dtbushpilot]

DENNIS - 4-6-2013 at 06:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DianaT
Thanks Cisco :)


For what? Revisiting the worn out effort to engage in Orwellian New-Speak?
It's transparent: Do away with a word and you do away with the attendant concept.
Simplified.......if there was all of a sudden no word for a baseball, the concept of a baseball wouldn't exist.
More to the point.......if you remove the term, the label, illegal from the alien, illegals will no longer exist.
That is their goal...to normalize the illegals through New-Speak.
It's an effective, childish effort, so why would you allow it to design the way you think? Why would you allow them to treat you like a child who is unable to think for yourself?

Ateo - 4-6-2013 at 07:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
Quote:
Originally posted by DianaT
Thanks Cisco :)


For what? Revisiting the worn out effort to engage in Orwellian New-Speak?
It's transparent: Do away with a word and you do away with the attendant concept.
Simplified.......if there was all of a sudden no word for a baseball, the concept of a baseball wouldn't exist.
More to the point.......if you remove the term, the label, illegal from the alien, illegals will no longer exist.
That is their goal...to normalize the illegals through New-Speak.
It's an effective, childish effort, so why would you allow it to design the way you think? Why would you allow them to treat you like a child who is unable to think for yourself?




Calm down DENNIS. Everything is gonna be OK. ;D

DianaT - 4-6-2013 at 07:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
Quote:
Originally posted by DianaT
Thanks Cisco :)


For what? Revisiting the worn out effort to engage in Orwellian New-Speak?
It's transparent: Do away with a word and you do away with the attendant concept.
Simplified.......if there was all of a sudden no word for a baseball, the concept of a baseball wouldn't exist.
More to the point.......if you remove the term, the label, illegal from the alien, illegals will no longer exist.
That is their goal...to normalize the illegals through New-Speak.
It's an effective, childish effort, so why would you allow it to design the way you think? Why would you allow them to treat you like a child who is unable to think for yourself?


I respectfully disagree---- language is powerful and creates powerful images --- both positive and negative. Changing negative labels can change images; images that need change. We no longer label children born out of wedlock as illegitimate. That label was a powerful statement of what others thought about those children. And to call people illegal creates a similar negative image. Having worked in another country as an undocumented worker, I never thought of myself as an illegal person. Language and labels are powerful.

Child and not thinking for myself? I won't comment on that slam; it was an uncalled for way to change the focus of the subject. :(

Edited because I forgot the quote --- a childlike mistake, I am sure. :biggrin:

[Edited on 4-7-2013 by DianaT]

Ateo - 4-6-2013 at 07:11 PM

Both sides use this tactic.

Let's call Social Security an "Entitlement Program".

Let's add "N-zi" to "Feminist" in order to slander and dirty our opponents with "femi-N-zi".

Let's turn "Liberal" into a weak, unpatriotic idiot.

We must learn to see beyond the word and into the idea and person. Wow, that sounded really liberal of me. Sorry about that.

:biggrin::biggrin:

Ateo - 4-6-2013 at 07:13 PM

Wow, what DianaT said was perfect.

Skipjack Joe - 4-6-2013 at 07:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DianaT
Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
Quote:
Originally posted by DianaT
Thanks Cisco :)


For what? Revisiting the worn out effort to engage in Orwellian New-Speak?
It's transparent: Do away with a word and you do away with the attendant concept.
Simplified.......if there was all of a sudden no word for a baseball, the concept of a baseball wouldn't exist.
More to the point.......if you remove the term, the label, illegal from the alien, illegals will no longer exist.
That is their goal...to normalize the illegals through New-Speak.
It's an effective, childish effort, so why would you allow it to design the way you think? Why would you allow them to treat you like a child who is unable to think for yourself?


I respectfully disagree---- language is powerful and creates powerful images --- both positive and negative. Changing negative labels can change images; images that need change. We no longer label children born out of wedlock as illegitimate. That label was a powerful statement of what others thought about those children. And to call people illegal creates a similar negative image. Having worked in another country as an undocumented worker, I never thought of myself as an illegal person. Language and labels are powerful.

Child and not thinking for myself? I won't comment on that slam; it was an uncalled for way to change the focus of the subject. :(

Edited because I forgot the quote --- a childlike mistake, I am sure. :biggrin:

[Edited on 4-7-2013 by DianaT]


Actually you just supported Dennis' point.

After we stopped calling children born out of wedlock 'illegitimate' we started to have more children born out of wedlock. We legitimized illegitimacy.

vgabndo - 4-6-2013 at 07:28 PM

The Coast Guard contacted a panga with four Mexican guys in it a few miles off San Diego recently. When they interrogated them, they claimed that they were invading the United States, and that they were prisoners of war, not illegal immigrants. The Coast guard said that the argument might work, but there were just four of them. And the panguero says, we are the LAST four senor, the first 11 million are already there!

DianaT - 4-6-2013 at 07:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote:
Originally posted by DianaT
Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
Quote:
Originally posted by DianaT
Thanks Cisco :)


For what? Revisiting the worn out effort to engage in Orwellian New-Speak?
It's transparent: Do away with a word and you do away with the attendant concept.
Simplified.......if there was all of a sudden no word for a baseball, the concept of a baseball wouldn't exist.
More to the point.......if you remove the term, the label, illegal from the alien, illegals will no longer exist.
That is their goal...to normalize the illegals through New-Speak.
It's an effective, childish effort, so why would you allow it to design the way you think? Why would you allow them to treat you like a child who is unable to think for yourself?


I respectfully disagree---- language is powerful and creates powerful images --- both positive and negative. Changing negative labels can change images; images that need change. We no longer label children born out of wedlock as illegitimate. That label was a powerful statement of what others thought about those children. And to call people illegal creates a similar negative image. Having worked in another country as an undocumented worker, I never thought of myself as an illegal person. Language and labels are powerful.

Child and not thinking for myself? I won't comment on that slam; it was an uncalled for way to change the focus of the subject. :(

Edited because I forgot the quote --- a childlike mistake, I am sure. :biggrin:

[Edited on 4-7-2013 by DianaT]


Actually you just supported Dennis' point.

After we stopped calling children born out of wedlock 'illegitimate' we started to have more children born out of wedlock. We legitimized illegitimacy.


Interesting --- not sure of the statistics, but you could be correct. Not sure that really supports Dennis, but then again, I would like to see the undocumented workers and young people normalized.

Also, I guess I will never be able to view a person as an illegitimate or illegal human being. That is quite a label to carry around that creates such negative images in the minds of others.

Thanks Ateo.

[Edited on 4-7-2013 by DianaT]

Ateo - 4-6-2013 at 07:36 PM

Skipjack,

I'm no expert in anything prior to 1975 and even after that I'm a novice. Did people only get pregnant while married back in the day? I know the answer, as do you.

I think back in the day, people felt they had to get married if someone got pregnant, straight out of fear of being shamed because of this "out of wedlock" thing. This is religious in nature. I know a few of my aunts were rushed off to out of town places where they could give birth "anonymously" and regain their status as "regular" teenage women. This process scarred the ones I talked to.

I truly respect most of your posts, but I disagree on this one.

No child is illegitimate.

How would you feel if your Mom had sex with her boyfriend of 4 years and you were the end result? I don't think you'd like to be referred to as "illegitimate".

Respectfully disagree.

:)

Skipjack Joe - 4-6-2013 at 08:16 PM

Ateo,

I wasn't trying to say that the 'illegitimate child' label was right or wrong. I was simply trying to support Dennis claim that there are ulterior motives here. That is, ulterior to bigotry.

The racism and human rights card is so often used by nations and civic groups to get something that has nothing to do with equality or goodness. Here it is again it seems to me.

Do you remember how upset we got over the human rights issues in Soviet Union. Oh, such a violation of the Helsinki Agreement. Well, the Soviet Union is no more and our government is no longer worried about human rights issues in Russia. Why?

And then there are the Palestinians living under horrid conditions on the Left Bank. I don't hear much anger over their loss of human rights. Again, Why?

Whenever there is a goal to achieve racism is a very handy tool to use to get it.

I'm not saying that it's not right to call them Illegal aliens..... Actually, I am saying that they should be called that. If a criminal is a criminal why would I want to stop calling him that and not hurt his feeling. Become legal and you won't be call illegal. What's wrong with that?

DENNIS - 4-6-2013 at 08:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DianaT
Changing negative labels can change images; images that need change.


Change the image by changing the behavior. Quit breaking the law and the "illegal" classification will disappear.
That, to me, makes more sense than ignoring the deed that earned the label.

danaeb - 4-6-2013 at 08:45 PM

I can't count how many times I've read posts on this forum about Nomads bypassing the FMM tourist visa process because "I've never been asked to show it" or exhibiting a general ignorance of the Mexican visa requirements. It would be interesting to know how many Americans are living in, or visiting Mexico "illegally".

Thank you, Dennis

bajaguy - 4-6-2013 at 08:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
Quote:
Originally posted by DianaT
Changing negative labels can change images; images that need change.


Change the image by changing the behavior. Quit breaking the law and the "illegal" classification will disappear.
That, to me, makes more sense than ignoring the deed that earned the label.




Well said!!!!!!

DianaT - 4-6-2013 at 08:54 PM

This is one of those circular threads where no matter what, there will be no change of ingrained opinions --- so I shall take leave of the discussion with just two final statements:

1. When I was an undocumented worker I am sure glad no one thought of me as an "illegal" person --- especially my students.

2.



And from where did your immigrant ancestors come? That is definitely a rhetorical question.

Adios

DENNIS - 4-6-2013 at 09:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by danaeb
I can't count how many times I've read posts on this forum about Nomads bypassing the FMM tourist visa process because "I've never been asked to show it" or exhibiting a general ignorance of the Mexican visa requirements. It would be interesting to know how many Americans are living in, or visiting Mexico "illegally".


That's a whole other can of worms and a "Red Herring" of trophy proportions.
Firstly....I don't see that many displays of arrogance or outright stupidity on this board. There are a few....yes, but by and large, the majority of posters on Nomad are in full compliance with the regs.
Add to that, many visitors to Mexico arn't required to get a Visa, due to their time in country and destination.
The requirments of our two countrys are different.

You do, however have a valid question as to the US illegals living in Mexico. In the border regions, there are many. I know many.
It's up to Mexico to clean it up, but they seem disinterested. That too may be changeing.

DENNIS - 4-6-2013 at 09:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DianaT

1. When I was an undocumented worker I am sure glad no one thought of me as an "illegal" person --- especially my students.



I guess this means you were the profesora of mind reading. :lol:

Sorry I got nasty with you up there, Diane. Was that the first time? :biggrin:

DianaT - 4-6-2013 at 09:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
Quote:
Originally posted by DianaT

1. When I was an undocumented worker I am sure glad no one thought of me as an "illegal" person --- especially my students.



I guess this means you were the profesora of mind reading. :lol:

Sorry I got nasty with you up there, Diane. Was that the first time? :biggrin:


Oh my, maybe they all thought of me as an illegal person! Yikes! Actually, they were very used to teachers who were undocumented. At least they treated me like I was a real legal person. :biggrin:

First time? No, and it probably won't be the last, but that is OK. Stuart Smalley would think we are OK. :biggrin:

Cisco - 4-6-2013 at 09:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

And then there are the Palestinians living under horrid conditions on the Left Bank. I don't hear much anger over their loss of human rights. Again, Why?



http://forums.bajanomad.com/viewthread.php?tid=66576

This is on OT and there are some rather toxic remarks. Be aware.

Islandbuilder - 4-6-2013 at 09:49 PM

The initial post quotes an article that builds the largest strawman since Burning Man.
It's fine to discuss the concept of the relationships between words, ideas and actions.
It is not fine to project the writters own obvious prejudices.
An all too typical irony to condemn a way of thinking by engaging in that same way of thinking.

Ateo - 4-6-2013 at 09:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by danaeb
I can't count how many times I've read posts on this forum about Nomads bypassing the FMM tourist visa process because "I've never been asked to show it" or exhibiting a general ignorance of the Mexican visa requirements. It would be interesting to know how many Americans are living in, or visiting Mexico "illegally".


I've been illegal in Mexico many times. I'm being honest.

dtbushpilot - 4-6-2013 at 09:57 PM

What islandbuilder said X2

DianaT - 4-6-2013 at 10:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Islandbuilder
The initial post quotes an article that builds the largest strawman since Burning Man.
It's fine to discuss the concept of the relationships between words, ideas and actions.
It is not fine to project the writters own obvious prejudices.
An all too typical irony to condemn a way of thinking by engaging in that same way of thinking.


Only condemning bigotry.

Opps, time to go away for real! Bigotry is a concept that is not defined the same by some and simply not recognized by some for what it is.

[Edited on 4-7-2013 by DianaT]

Islandbuilder - 4-6-2013 at 10:13 PM

Bigotry is defined in political settings as being what your opponent believes while you yourself are just being objective.

ALL of our excretia is odiferous, not just that of those with whom we disagree.

And Diana, when you were working in a foreign country without the proper visa, you were just an illegal alien, not an illegal person.

woody with a view - 4-7-2013 at 07:34 AM

my ancestors were hot on the heels of the boats that landed at Plymouth Rock. There is statue to my ancestors at Alderson Square near London i think. they settled in WVirginia. so what? there were no laws regarding immigration back then and to compare times is disingenous (sp?) to say the least. when is Mexico going to open its borders and allow me the same liberties that they expect in my country? i go to Baja, usually get the FMM, spend a bunch of money AND THEN GO HOME!

Big difference!

[Edited on 4-7-2013 by woody with a view]

Illegal Aliens?

durrelllrobert - 4-7-2013 at 08:33 AM

I always thought that they were just 21st century explorers trying to find the promised land.

DENNIS - 4-7-2013 at 09:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by woody with a view

I go to Baja, usually get the FMM, spend a bunch of money AND THEN GO HOME!



Now...before someone decides to make an example of Woody for the above statement concerning his inconsistancy with Inmigración, I happen to know he, at times, surfs in the "Free Zone" where a foreigner is allowed for a certain amount of time without a visa.

[they were sharpening their teeth, getting ready to attack, Woody. I could feel it. :lol:]

Alan - 4-7-2013 at 09:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by danaeb
I can't count how many times I've read posts on this forum about Nomads bypassing the FMM tourist visa process because "I've never been asked to show it" or exhibiting a general ignorance of the Mexican visa requirements. It would be interesting to know how many Americans are living in, or visiting Mexico "illegally".
It would also be interesting to know how Mexico deals with those that they find here illegally.

Illegal Immigrant

Skipjack Joe - 4-7-2013 at 09:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cisco
Apr 5, 2013

By David Sirota

Instead, the word is exclusively used to denigrate Latinos who entered the country without authorization. Coincidence?



Entering the country without authorization is not the same as illegal?

The very definition of illegal is an act without authorization.

Diane,

I agree with you that some words are/were harmful to people and should be changed. The illness Downs Syndrome was called Mongolism in my day and it really was offensive because it implied that all people from Mongolia are half wits, er I mean mentally impaired.

However in this case you are simply using the very definition of the word for the act. There is no labeling.

On the other hand perhaps I'm not the best judge in these matters. Prisons are now called correctional facilities. I suppose somebody felt that the inmates rights were being violated and we redefined the term. And many must've agreed because that's how it now stands.

Alan - 4-7-2013 at 09:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DianaT
[ Changing negative labels can change images; images that need change. We no longer label children born out of wedlock as illegitimate. That label was a powerful statement of what others thought about those children.
I at least thought "illegitimate" sounded better than to keep calling them "bastards" as they were considered when I was young.

Islandbuilder - 4-7-2013 at 09:33 AM

"Remember, we're all winners here. No winners. No loosers. To try is to win. Grades aren't reflective of effort. Job promotion will be based on tenure not results"

All good feeling ideas with no practical application in the real world.

Once the effects of the pill wears off it's pretty easy to see.:lol:

DENNIS - 4-7-2013 at 10:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Alan
It would also be interesting to know how Mexico deals with those that they find here illegally.


They deported me because someone, a well placed local garbage pail, wanted me out and "sin papeles" was the only reason they could find.
That's how they deal with it.

Ateo - 4-7-2013 at 10:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Ateo,

I wasn't trying to say that the 'illegitimate child' label was right or wrong. I was simply trying to support Dennis claim that there are ulterior motives here. That is, ulterior to bigotry.

The racism and human rights card is so often used by nations and civic groups to get something that has nothing to do with equality or goodness. Here it is again it seems to me.

Do you remember how upset we got over the human rights issues in Soviet Union. Oh, such a violation of the Helsinki Agreement. Well, the Soviet Union is no more and our government is no longer worried about human rights issues in Russia. Why?

And then there are the Palestinians living under horrid conditions on the Left Bank. I don't hear much anger over their loss of human rights. Again, Why?

Whenever there is a goal to achieve racism is a very handy tool to use to get it.

I'm not saying that it's not right to call them Illegal aliens..... Actually, I am saying that they should be called that. If a criminal is a criminal why would I want to stop calling him that and not hurt his feeling. Become legal and you won't be call illegal. What's wrong with that?


Thanks for the nice thought out response. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I hate that phrase, but it applies here. =)

Your last few sentences I agree with. I think there should be a quicker process for these people residing and working within the USA to become legal.

DENNIS - 4-7-2013 at 10:35 AM

If the disingenuous faction that wants to do away with the word, illegal, would offer a viable alternative, I'd openly listen to their reasoning, but this feigned offense to the word alone is not enough.
Next, we would be scolded for using the word, "Alien."
"These are human beings, not Martians."
There would be no end to it.

Brings to mind another New Speak effort by the US bashers...the use of the word, "American" when refering to citizens of the USA.
"Now wait just a minuto, white boy.......we're all Americans so you can't make that reference to your citizenry."
Well....where does that leave us? It leaves us without a name with which to refer to ourselves.
"I'm a United States of America person." See?? It doesn't work.
"I AM AN AMERICAN." That works.

Besides, call a Mexican an American and see how it works for you. You'll wish you hadn't said that.

DENNIS - 4-7-2013 at 10:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ateo


Your last few sentences I agree with. I think there should be a quicker process for these people residing and working within the USA to become legal.



That's right. Change the law, not the language.

JoeJustJoe - 4-7-2013 at 10:45 AM

Thank God the "AP" decided to ban the used of the work "illegal immigrant." Illegal immigrants, or illegal Alien are two words you'll rarely ever hear me used, unless I'm quoting someone. Using the term" illegal immigrant" is nothing but hate speech, and I don't believe there is such thing as an "illegal alien/immigrant because everybody in the world has unalienable human rights regardless of their immigration status.

If you visit Mexico, you as an American citizen have basic human rights in Mexico. If a Mexican with papers or without papers visits the USA, he also has basic human rights in the USA, and US constitutional laws on human rights have to be followed.

Saying somebody is an illegal alien/immigrant is like saying somebody is an "illegal person," and it sounds so silly. How can somebody be an illegal person? See it just doesn't sound right, and it's not right:
_______________________________________________

AP bans use of the term 'illegal immigrant'; some newspapers undecided


As lawmakers in Washington debate the possibility of legalization for 11 million immigrants, a more basic question has emerged in the nation's newsrooms and beyond: what to call those immigrants.

Most news organizations have long used the term "illegal immigrant," which some people find offensive. They prefer "undocumented," arguing that "illegal" is dehumanizing and lumps border crossers with serious criminals. Some even view "illegal immigrant" as tantamount to hate speech and refuse to utter it, referring only to the "I-word."

read the rest here:

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/opinion/sound-off/x511...

DENNIS - 4-7-2013 at 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JoeJustJoe
, you as an American citizen have basic human rights in Mexico.


Joe.......If you're refering to bodily functions, a right to breathe, for instance, you may have a point. Other than that, you're worse than naive.
The US should box up the entire ACLU, along with the 9nth District Court, and run them south across the border, against the flow of illegals, and tell them to stay there until they get it just the way they want it.




.

[Edited on 4-7-2013 by DENNIS]

Ateo - 4-7-2013 at 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
Quote:
Originally posted by Ateo


Your last few sentences I agree with. I think there should be a quicker process for these people residing and working within the USA to become legal.



That's right. Change the law, not the language.


Ha ha. I'm for changing both! :tumble:

DENNIS - 4-7-2013 at 11:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ateo

Ha ha. I'm for changing both! :tumble:


Typical Lib. Wants it all. :lol:

Jes kiddin'.

Ateo - 4-7-2013 at 12:05 PM

Nice one D. :lol:

woody with a view - 4-7-2013 at 12:33 PM

i think it's time for a group hug!

DENNIS - 4-7-2013 at 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by woody with a view
i think it's time for a group hug!



Isn't that illegal? We'll have to ask the Supreme Court about that.
Ohhh....they're busy? How about the Supremes then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0HE7TC8y5g

dtbushpilot - 4-7-2013 at 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
Quote:
Originally posted by woody with a view
i think it's time for a group hug!



Isn't that illegal? We'll have to ask the Supreme Court about that.
Ohhh....they're busy? How about the Supremes then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0HE7TC8y5g



It's ok as long as everyone is over 18 and no money changes hands:lol::lol:

[Edited on 4-7-2013 by dtbushpilot]

MMc - 4-7-2013 at 03:51 PM

How about those pesky Illegal's
http://www.workplacewire.ca/immigration/americans-top-list-o...

By the way The term Illegal Imergant is the legal term in a court of law. It is how people with out documents are termed by the US government. I think this whole thread is us talking about the way would like to see the deck chairs arranged. Nothing to solve the real issues.
The topic is to keep us looking a what the left hand is doing, while the trick is with the right. Also maybe pick up a few votes.

[Edited on 4-7-2013 by MMc]

watizname - 4-7-2013 at 05:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
Quote:
Originally posted by woody with a view
i think it's time for a group hug!



Isn't that illegal? We'll have to ask the Supreme Court about that.
Ohhh....they're busy? How about the Supremes then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0HE7TC8y5g





STOP in the name of love. :lol:

DENNIS - 4-7-2013 at 05:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by watizname

STOP in the name of love. :lol:



Why not??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPBkiBbO4_4

wessongroup - 4-7-2013 at 06:20 PM

Say, would legal immigration be hate speech too ..... just asking