home

Giuliani: Illegal Immigration is Not a Crime

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:07:37 PM EST
Tags: Rudy Giuliani (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Rudy's right, it's a civil offense, not a criminal violation, to be in this country without proper documentation. Many of the persons the right blasts as being illegal entered this country legally and then overstayed their visas. Their initial entry was lawful. Staying past the expiration date on their visa is not a crime.

(Note: That's why the term "illegal immigrant" is a misnomer and "undocumented resident" is the correct term.)

Deportation proceedings (which are now called removal proceedings by the way) are also civil, not criminal.

Romney was appalled by his comments. Tancredo would probably be apopletic.

Meanwhile, Fred pretty much bombed in Iowa today.

The Republicans need a viable alternative to Rudy. Who will it be?

< Katrina Nursing Home Owners Acquitted of Homicide | Durbin Takes The Iraq Pledge: No Funding Without End Date For Debacle >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Giuliani: Illegal Immigration is Not a Crime | 62 comments (62 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    He may be right (none / 0) (#1)
    by TomStewart on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:09:09 PM EST
    and it may be the truth, but that won't stop his fellow repubs from beating him across the head and shoulders with his own words.

    Wow, Rudy speaks the truth, now there is a headline!

    With all due respect (none / 0) (#2)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:24:07 PM EST
    I'd like to hear from an immigration lawyer on this. Maybe either of these... persons... could be asked to weigh in with the complete details on what would make various things a crime or not:

    blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind
    lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration

    I'm pretty sure that crossing illegally is a crime, and I believe that getting caught doing it a second time is a felony. And, of course, identity theft is a crime, as is using a fake SSN, as is hiring people known to be illegal aliens.

    Overstaying one's visa (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:23:24 PM EST
    or being present in this country without proper papers is not a crime. Most of the undocumented in this country entered lawfully but overstayed their visas. According to the INS Statistical Yearbook, 75 percent of immigrants have legal, permanent visas. Of the 25 percent who are undocumented, 40 percent overstayed temporary visas, meaning their initial entry into the country was legal.

    While entering unlawfully is a crime, merely being present is not.

    The penalties for overstaying one's visa or being present without proper documentation are civil, not criminal. They include removal, not incarceration.

    The vast majority of immigrants in this country, documented and undocumented, are law-abiding.  There is no immigrant crime wave.

    Parent

    I personally believe (none / 0) (#9)
    by Patrick on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:26:21 AM EST
    that this is mistated....

    75 percent of immigrants have legal, permanent visas. Of the 25 percent who are undocumented, 40 percent overstayed temporary visas, meaning their initial entry into the country was legal.

    and does not take into account people who entered illegally.  Otherwise, how could they even begin to guess at the percentage.  

    Parent

    Identity theft is a crime (none / 0) (#35)
    by Pancho on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:58:38 PM EST
    and 90% of ILLEGAL immigrants are guilty of this. Have you ever had your credit hisory destroyed by identity theft? Move to my town and put your kids in school with a bunch THOUSANDS of illegals and/or anchor babies who demand to be taught in Spanish and then tell me how much you like it.

    Parent
    I am not so sure you would like (none / 0) (#16)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 08:53:34 AM EST
    those aforementioned bloggers  weighing in on this.

    The professors (there is more than one there) use the term "undocumented".

    Siskind

    What's interesting to me is that a number of Republican candidates have secret pro-immigration pasts. Sam Brownback and John McCain have been two of the leading pro-immigration voices in the Republican Party. Rudy Guiliani? His actions as mayor were as pro-immigration as any big city mayor in America. Romney? As governor of liberal Massachusetts, he took a very moderate tone on immigration issues. And Chuck Hegel, if he runs, has a superb immigration record. So it is all the more amusing that they are tripping over each other to prove who is toughest on immigration. The assumption that the Republican base is that rabidly anti-immigrant is simply not supported by the polling and the candidate that realizes this and stakes out a more moderate position may just find themselves being rewarded for doing so.


    Parent
    Why can't you just say ILLEGAL? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Pancho on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:01:16 PM EST
    leading pro-immigration voices

    There is a big difference between immigration and ILLEGAL immigration. If you insist, go ahead and call it undocumented immigration, but don't confuse it with LEGAL immigration.

    Your blatant dishonesty is disgusting!

    Parent

    I was quoting someone (none / 0) (#37)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:23:03 PM EST
    See that is hat the little redline to the left of the passage means. I even gave the name of the person I was quoting.

    Your apology for your ill manners is accepted in advance.

    Parent

    If you agree (none / 0) (#46)
    by Pancho on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 09:24:44 AM EST
    that 'Illegal' should have been in front of 'immigrantts', then I apologize, but I'll bet that is just the way you would have written it.

    Parent
    Sounds like a crime to me (none / 0) (#4)
    by Patrick on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:40:07 PM EST

    8 U.S.C. Section 1325:

    "Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of such an offense, be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months....

    Simply because the Gov't chooses to handle it as a civil matter doesn't change the fact that it is still a crime.  

    that applies to illegal entry (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:43:37 AM EST
    not to those who entered legally and didn't leave when their visas were up.

    Parent
    Fine (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patrick on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:52:06 AM EST
    But illegal immigration as the title implies is a crime, with a punishment affixed.  

    Parent
    BTW, (none / 0) (#5)
    by Patrick on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:43:29 PM EST
    I've seen very few people with expired visas, and literally hundreds who were here illegally (Never had a visa).  I know that's anecdotal, but it seems to counter the "Statistics" previously mentioned.  

    And you personally checked (none / 0) (#14)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 08:37:13 AM EST
    all of these ("hundreds") people's status?  

    Parent
    Yes...Next question (none / 0) (#42)
    by Patrick on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:59:32 PM EST


    Parent
    It may simply be... (none / 0) (#43)
    by roy on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 04:59:55 PM EST
    ... that the ones who enter illegally are more likely to attract attention from the cops later on.  After all, you only know about the ones you know about.

    Parent
    Quite possibly true (none / 0) (#44)
    by Patrick on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:15:01 PM EST
    and in fact I work in an area which is known for migrant workers...All of which doesn't change what I said.  In 20 years, I've met exactly two people who had expired visas.  Both were detained and later deported.  One was from Saudi Arabia and the other from Afghanistan...They were taking flight training lessons and landed at a local airport in October of 2001.  Needless to say they were reported as suspicious.  However, if is was such a significant part of the problem as stated above, one would think I could expect to have seen more.  

    Parent
    I'm not sure what the point is here... (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:16:34 AM EST
    illegal immigration is a crime, but overstaying your non-immigration visa is not?

    There are approximately 1,000,000 green cards (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:26:50 AM EST
    issued every year. Mexico gets some large, I assume, fraction of those, yet the estimates are that there are over 12,000,000 "undocumented" Mexican aliens here.

    The big picture is not the green card worker/non-immigrants who over-stayed their work/non-immigrant visas, but rather the 12,000,000 illegal aliens who swam accross the river or hid in the bottom of a truck.

    They are illegal.

    Which is exactly why (none / 0) (#11)
    by Patrick on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:34:40 AM EST
    I think the "Statistics" stated above are in error.  I'm not doing the math, but if 60% of the 25% undocumented equals 12M, that's a whole lot of documented legals...Somewhere north of 50M. I'd say.  And that only takes into account the 1 country south of the border.  

    Parent
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:42:12 AM EST
    J's INS "statistics" reflect, well, those immigrants who legally went through the INS.

    In the main, we're talking about the tens of millions who illegally chose to not to go through the INS - ie., to evade the INS.

    Good to see you here my friend, it's bed time for me...

    Parent

    "Illegal" means "criminal"? (none / 0) (#13)
    by roy on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:11:22 AM EST
    Common parlance says something is illegal if is violates any law, civil, criminal, or other.  Downloading a pirated song is illegal.  Speeding is illegal.  For the police to conduct an unreasonable search is illegal.  Running a restaurant without a wheelchair ramp is illegal.

    The definition is quite broad.  My favorite dictionary has my back on this:

    adjective
    1.forbidden by law or statute.
    2.contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.

    As does the legal dictionary from FindLaw, although I'm not qualified to say whether it counts as a "real" legal dictionary:

    contrary to or in violation of a law: "illicit" "unlawful"

    The one from Law.com (which at least has a more impressive domain name) goes even further:

    1) adj. in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance, which may be criminal or merely not in conformity. Thus, an armed robbery is illegal, and so is an access road which is narrower than the county allows, but the violation is not criminal.

    (there's a related argument that calling somebody "illegal" is wrong because it implies that their whole existence is illegal, not just their presence, or that it means they have no significance beyond their immigration status, but I'm not addressing that)

    ...

    Tangentially, isn't "undocumented" at least as much a misnomer?  If they entered on a legal visa, they're documented, they didn't cease to be documented when the visa expired, and so "undocumented" isn't accurate.  If they entered in such a way as not to be documented, they commited a crime upon entering, and either "undocumented" or "illegal" (under even the criminal-only definition) is equally accurate.

    Plus, some US citizens are undocumented, but neither illegal (under either definition) nor a part of the group under consideration.

    Similarly, "resident" is wanting, as migrant workers aren't residents but they are central figures in the debate.

    Just an add on. (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 09:01:11 AM EST
    Calling someone an illegal alien is a descriptive term and is no different than calling someone a professional baseball player.

    If they object to being referred to as illegal, they shouldn't have came here illegally.


    Parent

    Sigh (none / 0) (#21)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 09:43:33 AM EST
    If they object to being referred to as illegal, they shouldn't have came here illegally.

    See 3 above

    Specifically

    Of the 25 percent who are undocumented, 40 percent overstayed temporary visas, meaning their initial entry into the country was legal.


    Parent
    First of all, I do not believe the numbers. (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 10:12:16 AM EST
    Secondly, when they over stay they become illegal aliens, just as if they had swam the Rio.

    At that point they have become an "ex professional baseball player."

    If the don't want to be called illegal aliens they shouldn't have over stayed their visa.

    BTW - A few weeks back I suggested some terms to differentiate between those who overstayed a visa, and those who never had one. If you are interested, check the archives.
     

    Parent

    Do you have better numbers? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:29:00 PM EST
    If so, where are the from and what is the methodology?  If not, then the INS numbers will have to do. You can't just say, I don't like the facts, therefore they are incorrect and not factual. We have to deal with reality, no matter how painful.

    I think "undocumented" is a perfectly useful term.

    Parent

    The numbers don't pass (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 10:35:35 AM EST
    the reasonableness test.

    And I think undocumented means no documents.

    What that has to do with aliens who have entered the country illegally or aliens who have over stayed their visas and are here illegally I do not know.

    The fans of "undocumented" like it because it doesn't accurately describe the person's status.

    The following is from a document provided by tnthorpe.

    Link

    A few definitions of terms are in order. We use the terms immigrant and foreign born interchangeably. These terms, in turn, divide into two sub-categories: naturalized citizens and noncitizens.

    In other words this study doesn't show illegal aliens and those here on a visa. It does show AZ  has 830,000 of which 211,000 are naturalized citizens, and 619,000 are "non citizens."

    Nonsense.  If you know the total of "non citizens" and you know the total of visas issued, it is simple subtraction to find the illegal aliens.

    (619,000 - N visas) = Illegal Aliens

    The fact that the study didn't do this shows they didn't like answer.

    And from the same study:

    Of the $134.4 million in uncompensated care costs associated with immigrants, $119.9 was incurred by non-citizens.

    That is about $200.00 per "non citizen/illegal alien" paid for by the taxpayers.

    And from the same study:

    Law enforcement: In the area of law enforcement, the cost to the Arizona Department of Corrections of incarcerating immigrants in 2004 was $90.9 million, of which $89.1 million was for non-citizens.

    That's about $150.00 per non-citizen/illegal alien paid for by the tax payers.

    You may like those numbers. A large percentage of the country does not.

    Parent

    of course (none / 0) (#57)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 12:12:01 AM EST
    what you leave out is the much larger contributions made by immigrant workers that very same group that study documents. Some numbers:

    "How much of Arizona's immigrant population is here illegally?
    We do not know. The U.S. Census does not ascertain legal presence in the United States when
    conducting its surveys and the non-citizen category includes both legal and illegal non-citizen
    immigrants. However, there are reasonable, statistically derived estimates. Research by Jeffrey
    Passel at the Pew Hispanic Center indicates that, in 2002, there were between 250,000 and 350,000
    unauthorized immigrants in Arizona most of whom came from Mexico and that by 2005 their
    numbers had increased to as many as 500,000. " (page 10)
    An individual state doesn't issue visas in any case, so Arizona can't perform the subtraction you reference. Once a person is admitted, who knows where they're going to finally end up. They may well migrate from CA to WA or IN to TX seasonally. Fuzzy numbers are the curse of urban studies and sociology, but that's a lot different than saying there's no reasonable idea of who's doing what where.

    from the same study:
    Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an estimated
    $2.356 billion ($862.1 million for naturalized citizens plus $1.49 billion for non-citizens). Balanced
    against estimated fiscal costs of $1.414 billion (for education, health care, and law enforcement), the
    net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive by about $942 million    . (page 6)

    As 14 percent of the workforce, immigrants make significant contributions to Arizona's economy.
    There are also specific fiscal costs associated with immigrants. But, by virtue of their contributions
    as workers to Arizona's economic output, their overall contribution to the state's fiscal health is
    positive. Certainly, these impacts are dynamic over time, but looking at data for one year provides a
    snapshot of the extent and magnitude of immigrants' role in Arizona's economy. (page 9)

    The fact is that the economic numbers for immigrants are positive overall. The question is how to make it work, which means reform that recognizes the valuable presence of workers from and deep traditional connections between the US, Mexico, and Latin America. Figure out how to document people, it's not rocket science. It's not like we just woke up to find Mexico on our border after all.


    Parent

    How many illegals?? (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 11:02:32 AM EST
    We do not know. The U.S. Census does not ascertain legal presence in the United States when conducting its surveys and the non-citizen category includes both legal and illegal non-citizen immigrants. However, there are reasonable, statistically derived estimates. Research by Jeffrey Passel at the Pew Hispanic Center indicates that, in 2002, there were between 250,000 and 350,000 unauthorized immigrants in Arizona most of whom came from Mexico and that by 2005 their numbers had increased to as many as 500,000.

    so Arizona can't perform the subtraction you reference.

    More nonsense. The State Department knows the numbers of visas and they know the legal domicle of the person who has the visa.

    You must be math challenged. Your Udall study gives us the number of "non citizens" which is  the sum of those here on  visa and those illegals.  So you ask State for the number of visas, and the answer is,  say 100,000. Total noncitizens is 619,000. (619,000 - 100,000 visas) = 519,000 illegal aliens.

    You write:

    Once a person is admitted, who knows where they're going to finally end up. They may well migrate from CA to WA or IN to TX seasonally

    The requirement:

    As an alien you are required to make address reports as specified in the law and directed by DHS within 10 days of any move or change of address.

    If they are "admitted" they are supposed to advise  the DHS when they move. People who can't follow the rules should be deported. Of course you are speaking of illegal aliens who aren't following the rules.

    But either way, based on the information quoted by your beloved study, there were 500,000 illegal aliens in Az in 2005. Now given a 10% per year growth (see 2000-2004 40% growth) that puts the number at 605,000 in 2007... Now, just to keep 2004 as the base year, deduct 10% from 500,000 and you have 450,000 illegal aliens out of a non-citizen group of 620,000.

    As for your net impact, go to page 44 of the report and remember that the total naturalized plus noncitizen is 211,000 plus 620,000 or 831,000(numbers rounded). That's 75% non citizens and 25% naturlized citizens.

    Then look at  taxes. 25% of the population is paying 37% of the total. The actual number is probably worse, given that naturalized citizens will probably earn at a much higher rate than than non-citizens who, as we all know, are near 100% of "day labor." And given that non-citizens are not likely to own a home, their contribution to real property  taxes is limited only to whatever percentage of rental cost it is. Given the larger than average family size and extended family likely to be living with the renter, the per capita contribution becomes even less.

    On the cost side, cost per student is probably in the high $4000 range, say $4800 each, a family with four children costs $19200. That money isn't coming from the illegal alien household.

    So don't be surprised that logical people scoff at the so called "benefits" of a having a large group of illegal aliens in country.

    Parent

    you'll (none / 0) (#60)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:40:17 PM EST
    go through any  bogus gyrations to avoid acknowledging the obvious, that undocumented workers are here because the economy requires them, they contribute mightily, and there's no going back to some putative perfect immigration situation that never in fact ever existed. As for calling me math challenged, oy, get over yourself. You haven't understood my argument and apparently don't read much about how undocumented workers move about the country. That's fine, but you need to remember that snark isn't much of an argument and braying about being logical isn't the same as being logical.

    Parent
    Rudy just elected Thompson. (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 08:47:24 AM EST


    Just for you (none / 0) (#17)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 08:59:18 AM EST
    Courtesy of one of the bloggers that LonewackoDotCom wanted to weigh in on this discussion. (Note: by "decent record" I don't think Siskind meant Thompson had views similar to yours Jim)

    AMERICA'S MOST ANTI-IMMIGRANT PAPER APOPLECTIC OVER FRED THOMPSON RECORD

    Well it was just a matter of time. Remember a few weeks back when I told you that despite his current rhetoric, almost Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson had a decent record on immigration when he was my US Senator back in the 90s? Apparently, the Washington Times has started to look into his immigration votes and is now freaking out.


    Parent
    You still haven't figured out (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 09:03:49 AM EST
    that Thompson has time to apologize/change his position, just as the Repubs as a group can blame the Demos and pull the troops.

    Rudy has cast himself pretty well in concrete as have the Demos.

    Parent

    Long live the Immigration Debate (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 11:03:39 AM EST
    Thompson might have a hard time gathering in those hallowed corporate dollars if he goes the way you're saying he'll go.

    Rudy meanwhile, re immigration, can raise money with his stance, but will the nativists put up with it at the polls?

    What's a Republican to do?  (Hint, the corporatists will win like they always do, but not before "alienating" the nativists)

    Long live the immigration debate!!!!!

    Parent

    You mean flip flop? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 09:05:06 AM EST


    Parent
    If you like (1.00 / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 09:52:39 AM EST
    The gnashing of teeth about changing positions has always seemed a bit dumb to me, and should be more related to time frame than it typically is.

    In 1976 I was a supporter of Carter because I thought he could bring the country together and that he was a very intelligent man.  By late 1978 I had completely changed my position. Did I flip flop?? No, over time I had changed based on observation.

    Plainer... One mans flip flop is another's studied modification of a previous position.

    ;-)

    Parent

    I don't worry about flip flops per se (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:34:37 PM EST
    But then I am neither a Republican nor a conservative. Since Fred  has to get through the GOP primaries which are loaded with Republicans and conservatives who DO worry about flip flops, I'd say your original point that Fred will be more palatable will not stand.

    Neither Mitt nor Rudy, nor Tom Tancredo, will let him get away with changing his stance, at least not without "bloodying" him for it.

    Parent

    Speaking of flp-flops, cut and runs (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jondee on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:27:06 PM EST
    etc etc. I thought you said before that you stopped supprting Dems in '68 when " the radical left took over", Jim.

    Is what you're claiming now a studied modification of your previous claim? Inquiring minds want to know.

    Parent

    Fool me twice, shame on me. (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 10:39:23 AM EST
    I have written many times that I voted for Carter...

    much to my unending disgust and shame..

    Parent

    Fred Thompson will not survive the primaries (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dadler on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:15:20 PM EST
    And by not survive I mean, literally, that he will die.  He looks terrible, his mind sounds just as terrible.  Just my prognostication, and not meant to be cruel, but I just don't get the sense he is going to be around much longer.

    Best,
    Nostradadlerus

    Parent

    As you age (1.00 / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 10:43:27 AM EST
    He has taken a lot of weight off. That's what happens when old people lose weight. To get rid of the fat on the stomach, a real killer for men, and thighs/buttocks for women, you wind up with it also showing on the face/neck unless you have a cut and pull job.... as you lose skin elastically with age.

    Parent
    A human being.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:18:46 PM EST
    is neither legal or illegal....they're a human being.

    Very very few human beings have broken no law.  If you drive 56 in a 55 for example, nobody calls you an illegal American, right?  If we did, literally most everyone I know could be called an "illegal", myself included.

    I dislike the term because it seems to give people license to deny "illegals" the basic human dignity we'd never deny a "legal".

    I agree with you, but, (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:12:23 PM EST
    no one said illegal human beings.

    Are we not allowed to label someone speeding in a car a speeder? Someone playing football a football player? Someone smoking pot a pot smoker?

    Are you driving 56 in a 55 right now? If so, then you would correctly be labeled an illegal speeder. Your nationality has nothing to do with the thing that you are doing that is illegal.

    If you are under 21 and drinking in a bar, you would be correctly labeled an illegal drinker. Not an illegal New Yorker.

    Are you smoking pot? Great, you're an illegal pot smoker. Not an illegal Sunday morning touch football player.

    These people are aliens to our nation by definition, just as we are aliens by definition to Mexico or wherever. These particular aliens are also here illegally.

    Hence illegal aliens.

    fwiw, Jeralyn, imo, the effect of this type pedantic bickering over completely reasonable and acceptable terminology only serves to harden the opposition.

    iow, you're helping your side lose.

    Parent

    Hardly Pedantic (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:20:24 PM EST
    That is always the argument made to keep offensive pejorative names in use. Was it splitting hairs to ask whites to stop calling blacks n*ggers. Technically it is just means black. The connotation is entirely different though.

    Same with illegal. Techincally you may have a weak argument but what you are really arguing for is a put dowm aka slur.

    Parent

    Those who use it as a pejorative... (none / 0) (#33)
    by roy on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:31:34 PM EST
    ... will be just as able to use "undocumented resident" as one.  Just as a KKK rally is no less vulgar if they say "African American".

    Parent
    Technically - and factually - (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:37:07 PM EST
    "my" argument is much stronger than the argument against.

    It's only a slur to the extent that calling a thief a thief, or a big business CEO a big business CEO, or a progressive a progressive, is a slur.

    After too many convos with you like this one, I don't expect you to accept anything anyone says that doesn't fit your agenda, so I won't spend any more time on it with you.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:53:55 PM EST
    Maybe on paper but not in usage. It is a blanket term  hurled, by those that feel that mexicans are taking over the country. Not used for white immigrants but at anyone that looks like a poor Mexican whether they are documented or not. It is ust like the folks that used other derisive words that were "neutral" on paper.

    And no, undocumented worked does not have the same vitrol in it no matter who uses it. And yes racism and bigotry is ugly no matter what word is used.

    Parent

    About a year ago I googled (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:35:47 PM EST
    "illegal immigrant" and "undocumented worker" to try and find out when the terminology changed.  The INS uses "illegal immigrant" now but didn't used to.  

    P.S.  I agree with you.

    Parent

    That's kinda the point..... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:39:32 PM EST
    I've never heard the terms "illegal speeder", "illegal pot smoker", etc.  It only seems to be used to describe aliens without papers.  Then it gets shortened to simply "illegal".  Thats what I don't like about it. We don't call people who aren't in compliance with other laws "illegal".

    It's a relatively minor thing, but still, I think it works to demonize.

    Parent

    it's nothing more than semantics (none / 0) (#26)
    by cpinva on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:25:06 PM EST
    undocumented = illegally here

    expired documents = illegally remaining here

    driving with an expired driver's license = driving illegally

    driving with no driver's license = driving illegally

    that you came here with legal documentation, which then expired, makes you here no less illegally than if you had swum the rio grande to arrive. or walked through the great north woods, for that matter.

    all of the above are crimes, since they violate statutory law. whether they are major or venal offenses is also a matter of law. no one's suggesting that illegal immigration, by itself, is analogous to mass murder. on the other hand, if it weren' illegal, there wouldn't be laws against it, and punishment provided for doing it.

    the bottom line is this: "undocumented immigrant" sounds better than "illegal alien". the former appears to be more a matter of administrative oversight, the latter sounds like you snuck in in the middle of the night, through a hole in the fence.

    one is "oh darn, forgot to sign the form!", the other is "quick, before they see us!"

    it's all a matter of PR.

    No Small Thing (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:46:27 PM EST
    semantics
         n : the study of language meaning.

    Connotation is the biggie here though.

    connotation
         n 1: what you must know in order to determine the reference of an
              expression [syn: intension]
         2: an idea that is implied or suggested

    Naming is a powerful tool for oppression. An "illegal" is not very different than other derogatory names that have been used to put groups down. Currently it is a code word for Mexicans, or hispanics in general.

    Arguing the technicalities of it legitimately describing is no different than saying that n*gger simply means black.

    Parent

    Nonsense (1.00 / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 10:50:48 AM EST
    Calling someone an illegal alien has nothing to do with race and/or nationally and/or slur. It is a descriptive term only and is not meant to insult any more than call someone a professional baseball player is not meant to insult.

    Parent
    Race (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 11:26:30 AM EST
    It sure does have to do with race in this case. It has to do with white america fearing that they will lose control. That is racism not against a "race" but for a "race". Is White Supremacist racism when its members target a Mexican? Sure is.

    The whole concept of "race" was invented by those who want to dominate and happen to share physical characteristics.

    There is no scientific basis for race. The science supporting race is about as legitimate as phrenology.

    Parent

    Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 11:12:55 PM EST
    No. Being hispanic is not a race, and just because you think it cool, you are not allowed to change the meaning of words.

    Of course you have told us:

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    Just make it up as you go along, eh??

    Parent

    Ppj Lying Again (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 01:12:22 AM EST
    Your out of context quote that you repeat is an intentional lie. It is obvious now that you are thoroughly dishonest and your lies are not just born out of stupidity.

    Although you do seem quite stupid as well:

    People that believe that whites are superior are racist. They are racist whether they are attacking blacks, hispanics, Muslims or Jews. The racism has nothing to do with the target of their venom,  it has to do with their delusional belief that they are superior.

    Parent

    Once and for all (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:45:00 PM EST
    Someone please explain to me how this phenomenom,that has been going on for decades, has suddenly become one of THE issues for the Rip Van Winkle Right that apparently just woke up and discovered illegal immigration. Can you say another lameas*, half-sincere, wedge-issue? I thought you could.

    Meanwhile, outsourcing and tax-break rewards for the out-sourcers is almost a non-issue.

    Now one ever went broke working on the asumption that half of populace was composed of parrots and lemmings.

    Go up to my reply to MB and link (1.00 / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 11:12:54 AM EST
    to the AZ study and you will see that the rate of change is increasing very fast. One, two percent a year is no problem. Eight, ten percent a year is. If you use AZ as a norm, then the illegal US population will double to about 24,000,000 in 2016 and again to 48,000,000 by 2025 (8% growth - see Rule of 72).

    You can also see that it took 14 years to grow 180%, only 4 years to grow about 40%. If the rate of change follows that trend, it will actually double by around 2014.

    There is, of course, not enough low end jobs to care for 48,000,000 construction workers, etc. This will produce some real stress on the system... More simply put, we have to close the borders and force the third world countries to change their politics and improve their education systems, health care, etc.

    We simply can't do it ourselves.

    Parent

    Not enough jobs? (none / 0) (#54)
    by matttheraven on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:22:09 PM EST
    If there are no more jobs willing to take them, they'll probably stop coming, or at least slow considerably. Simple case of supply and demand, it seems to me.

    Parent
    Shutting down the job market (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 11:15:44 PM EST
    by tough laws and aggressive enforcement works for me, but to do that you will need a national ID and rapid resopnse on queries re nationality... Plus, we just have been told by the court that we can't use non-match on SocSecurity numbers as a reason to fire.

    Parent
    It became an issue for many when (none / 0) (#47)
    by Pancho on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 09:48:21 AM EST
    the illegals stopped living in fear of deportation and starting marching in the streets demanding their "rights".

    For me, it became a huge issue when they destroyed our local school district by crowding multiple families into single family homes and demanding to be taught in English.

    Your basic premise that the situation has remained static while politicians have suddenly seized upon it as a wedge issue is seriously flawed; their numbers have grown dramatically.

    Parent

    No, Rudy is wrong. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Angry Snail on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 08:15:05 PM EST
    Rudy Giuliani is wrong. Illegal Immigration is a criminal offense as well as a civil offense.

    If you need proof, check out Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code. I'll paste a portion for you:

    (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

    Any alien who:

    (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
    (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
    (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

     A Federal Criminal misdemeanor. What Giuliani was referring to was the Civil offense of "Improper Time or Place", or basically "Unlawful Presence". This is a civil offense with a fine of $50-$250 for the first offense, and this is all in lieu of any other criminal or civil penalties.

     Visa overstays only account for 40% of the illegal residents inside the US. 60% are those who smuggle themselves in or sneak across the borders. The criminal charges are rarely used; some say because it's hard to prove they willfully entered and then evaded authorities, but I think we all know that is crap. The reason is the strain on the criminal justice system would be unimaginable if they enforced this Code. It is worth arguing that skipping supervision after a visa has expired is much like skipping town while on bail, and should be treated as such.

     The same Title 8 Section 1325 of the USC also lists offenses in the felony category to cover other popular means used to bypass this clause, and the penalties are quite a bit more harsh than the misdemeanor offenses. Title 8 Section 1324 lists a bunch of Federal and Civil offenses for those who aid/abbet illegal immigrants and those who willfully give them jobs and such, also with pretty heavy penalties.

     The laws have been on the books for many a year now.. For convenience's sake, they have not been readily enforced for decades and now we are seeing the consequences. What are the odds of a president coming along who is willing to re-establish sovereignty? I say the chances are slim to nill. We no longer possess the integrity as a nation for such things. It is a political football at this point, and that makes me a sad snail.

    No, You're Wrong (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 08:22:39 PM EST
    Overstaying one's visa is not a crime. Please don't misstate the law here.

    If someone enters lawfully and does not leave when their visa expires, it is not a crime.  Even by your   unsubstantiated statistics, that's 40% of undocumented residents. If there are 12 million undocumented residents in the U.S., more than 4 million of them committed no criminal offense.

    Parent

    Giuliani: Illegal Immigration is Not a Crime | 62 comments (62 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment