Judge Bans Use Of ?Illegal? and ?Aliens?

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: CPA
Nice to see Political Correctness is alive and well in this country.

:roll:

So should the lawyers be allowed to call them a beloved patriot?

Everyone here advocates political correctness, they just like to pretend to be all pro free speech when someone points out their latent bigotries.

Can you honestly tell me you think that in most cases a person's immigration status is going to help a group of people ascertain a person's guilt/innocence (in non immigration cases of course).

Really? You haven't been around long enough then.

What I meant is everyone advocates it without realizing.....for example with regards to racial slurs.

except that "illegal alien" isn't a racial term.

there is a difference between advocating for no racism and for PC.

 

[JRich]

Illegal
Alien

What's the problem again?

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: CPA
Nice to see Political Correctness is alive and well in this country.

:roll:

So should the lawyers be allowed to call them a beloved patriot?

Everyone here advocates political correctness, they just like to pretend to be all pro free speech when someone points out their latent bigotries.

Can you honestly tell me you think that in most cases a person's immigration status is going to help a group of people ascertain a person's guilt/innocence (in non immigration cases of course).

Really? You haven't been around long enough then.

What I meant is everyone advocates it without realizing.....for example with regards to racial slurs.

except that "illegal alien" isn't a racial term.

there is a difference between advocating for no racism and for PC.

Apparently to many it is.........poor dumb bastards.

 

[nakedfrog]

You know, I've just now actually read the letter, and I'm not certain the judge's statement qualifies as a ban.
It says "I have taken several steps to notify our judges of your concerns." along with saying he's passing along copies.
The list of "objectionable" terms from the complainer is unsurprisingly laughable. "Illegal immigration" is one of the terms.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: CPA
Nice to see Political Correctness is alive and well in this country.

:roll:

So should the lawyers be allowed to call them a beloved patriot?

Everyone here advocates political correctness, they just like to pretend to be all pro free speech when someone points out their latent bigotries.

Can you honestly tell me you think that in most cases a person's immigration status is going to help a group of people ascertain a person's guilt/innocence (in non immigration cases of course).

Really? You haven't been around long enough then.

What I meant is everyone advocates it without realizing.....for example with regards to racial slurs.

except that "illegal alien" isn't a racial term.

there is a difference between advocating for no racism and for PC.

Apparently to many it is.........poor dumb bastards.

Then they are racist for assuming you mean a Mexican dude, not the other way around.

People need to start taking up hobbies and shit, way to much free time to have people coming up with all this useless crap.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: xeemzor

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Ronstang
So much for free, and correct in this case, speech around liberals.

Freedom of speech, as long as you agree otherwise you're a bigot and hater.

Not a free speech issue.

Unless the reason the person is in court is because they're an illegal immigrant, their immigration status is irrelevant. If they're a witness for or against someone, does their immigration status affect what they saw or what they know? Why should it be allowed to influence the jury? If they're accused of some crime, does their immigration status have any bearing on whether they committed that crime?

It's not uncommon to prohibit mentioning a person's prior unrelated offenses in court. This is the same thing. Fortunately we live in a country where we have the right to a fair trial.

With the way you defend them, I'm sure you must have someone close in your family. Obviously, it clouds your view of the situation.

My father's family came here in the 1930s from the Catalonia region of Spain. My mother's family came here from various places in Europe so long ago that no one knows when. No one in my family is an illegal immigrant. I didn't even defend illegal immigrants, I defended the decision of the court as it is consistent with how we handle native-born American defendants. We don't allow the introduction of irrelevant, prejudicial information in trials.

Calling someone an illegal immigrant in court would have an effect similar to making them wear an orange jumpsuit in court. It introduces irrelevant information that could alter the jury's verdict. I imagine it's hard enough to get a fair trial just being latino without being called an illegal immigrant.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: xeemzor

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Ronstang
So much for free, and correct in this case, speech around liberals.

Freedom of speech, as long as you agree otherwise you're a bigot and hater.

Not a free speech issue.

Unless the reason the person is in court is because they're an illegal immigrant, their immigration status is irrelevant. If they're a witness for or against someone, does their immigration status affect what they saw or what they know? Why should it be allowed to influence the jury? If they're accused of some crime, does their immigration status have any bearing on whether they committed that crime?

It's not uncommon to prohibit mentioning a person's prior unrelated offenses in court. This is the same thing. Fortunately we live in a country where we have the right to a fair trial.

With the way you defend them, I'm sure you must have someone close in your family. Obviously, it clouds your view of the situation.

My father's family came here in the 1930s from the Catalonia region of Spain. My mother's family came here from various places in Europe so long ago that no one knows when. No one in my family is an illegal immigrant. I didn't even defend illegal immigrants, I defended the decision of the court as it is consistent with how we handle native-born American defendants. We don't allow the introduction of irrelevant, prejudicial information in trials.

Calling someone an illegal immigrant in court would have an effect similar to making them wear an orange jumpsuit in court. It introduces irrelevant information that could alter the jury's verdict. I imagine it's hard enough to get a fair trial just being latino without being called an illegal immigrant.

Agreed, impartiality must be maintained to obtain fair justice for the accuser and the accused.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: xeemzor

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Ronstang
So much for free, and correct in this case, speech around liberals.

Freedom of speech, as long as you agree otherwise you're a bigot and hater.

Not a free speech issue.

Unless the reason the person is in court is because they're an illegal immigrant, their immigration status is irrelevant. If they're a witness for or against someone, does their immigration status affect what they saw or what they know? Why should it be allowed to influence the jury? If they're accused of some crime, does their immigration status have any bearing on whether they committed that crime?

It's not uncommon to prohibit mentioning a person's prior unrelated offenses in court. This is the same thing. Fortunately we live in a country where we have the right to a fair trial.

With the way you defend them, I'm sure you must have someone close in your family. Obviously, it clouds your view of the situation.

Yea, seriously, he must.

Or maybe his view is clouded by things like "facts" and "logic".

Either one.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: xeemzor

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Ronstang
So much for free, and correct in this case, speech around liberals.

Freedom of speech, as long as you agree otherwise you're a bigot and hater.

Not a free speech issue.

Unless the reason the person is in court is because they're an illegal immigrant, their immigration status is irrelevant. If they're a witness for or against someone, does their immigration status affect what they saw or what they know? Why should it be allowed to influence the jury? If they're accused of some crime, does their immigration status have any bearing on whether they committed that crime?

It's not uncommon to prohibit mentioning a person's prior unrelated offenses in court. This is the same thing. Fortunately we live in a country where we have the right to a fair trial.

With the way you defend them, I'm sure you must have someone close in your family. Obviously, it clouds your view of the situation.

My father's family came here in the 1930s from the Catalonia region of Spain. My mother's family came here from various places in Europe so long ago that no one knows when. No one in my family is an illegal immigrant. I didn't even defend illegal immigrants, I defended the decision of the court as it is consistent with how we handle native-born American defendants. We don't allow the introduction of irrelevant, prejudicial information in trials.

Calling someone an illegal immigrant in court would have an effect similar to making them wear an orange jumpsuit in court. It introduces irrelevant information that could alter the jury's verdict. I imagine it's hard enough to get a fair trial just being latino without being called an illegal immigrant.

So when someone is on trial for something and they bring up a bunch of past crimes to show what type of person it is, thats wrong?

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: ric1287
So when someone is on trial for something and they bring up a bunch of past crimes to show what type of person it is, thats wrong?

That's what a fair trial is.

It's a defendant's right to be judged solely on the evidence at hand and not their criminal record.

 

[0roo0roo]

nuke the state.

no big loss

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
So much for free, and correct in this case, speech around liberals.

... Are you fucking crazy? This has nothing to do with social liberals. If he's restricting free speech, he's not a socially permissive type, he's a socially restrictive type.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Ronstang
So much for free, and correct in this case, speech around liberals.

... Are you fucking crazy? This has nothing to do with social liberals. If he's restricting free speech, he's not a socially permissive type, he's a socially restrictive type.

Anything he doesn't agree with is the work of dirty, America-hating liberals.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Easy:

Mexican national
Canadian national
Chinese national
Indian national
Albanian national

etc...

Bravo. a very good point.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Easy:

Mexican national
Canadian national
Chinese national
Indian national
Albanian national

etc...

Bravo. a very good point.

You can be a Canadian national and be in the US legally or illegally. If the status of the residency is relevant, then you would need to append it to read "legal Canadian national resident" or "illegal Canadian national resident", or something like that.

MotionMan

 

[nakedfrog]

Yeah, the letter is pushing it to basically say there's nothing wrong with them being here illegally.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Ronstang
So much for free, and correct in this case, speech around liberals.

... Are you fucking crazy? This has nothing to do with social liberals. If he's restricting free speech, he's not a socially permissive type, he's a socially restrictive type.

Anything he doesn't agree with is the work of dirty, America-hating liberals.

Yeah this is the same douchebag who chased black kids out of his neighborhood because they were trick or treating there.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Why is there a Spanish Bar Association? Do they live under different laws than us gringos?

Because there are 11 million illegals in this country and 10 million are mexican, thats why.
Next generation they will be the majority. Eventually we will need a beloved patriot Bar Association.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Ronstang
So much for free, and correct in this case, speech around liberals.

... Are you fucking crazy? This has nothing to do with social liberals. If he's restricting free speech, he's not a socially permissive type, he's a socially restrictive type.

Anything he doesn't agree with is the work of dirty, America-hating liberals.

Yeah this is the same douchebag who chased black kids out of his neighborhood because they were trick or treating there.

whoa, really?

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: actuarial
People can't see how this creates bias during a trial? Do they also refer to speeders as 'illegals' (since they are also breaking the law). Do they wait to be sure they have been convicted of living in America illegally before calling them illegals? Would you be upset if a guy who was accused of murder (but not convicted) was referred to as a murderer during a completely separate trial? Isn't that EXACTLY what you are all advocating?

Unless the fact that they are living in America illegally has a bearing on the guilt or innocence of the person (such as in the murder of an immigration officer), then they shouldn't be calling them that. Would you also be fine if the prosecution continually referred to a person as Gay in a trial, just to get the bigots on their side? I don't see how a lawyer should need to use the term in most cases, and if they are using it they are intentionally playing on people's feelings towards immigration, as opposed to their opinion of guilt or innocence. That is exactly what a good judge is supposed to stop from happening.

I certainly think this is PC, but this is one area where PC was originally designed for. It's not like he's advocating calling them a 'differently statused citizen', just call them a foreign national instead of an 'illegal'. Also, if they were even convicted of being in the US illegally, shouldn't they have been deported?

The difference between your analogy and illegal immigrants is that their continued presence in this nation is illegal, not just in the fact that they crossed the border illegally. Living in a place you are unauthorized to live in is the equivalent of squatting, and is an ongoing crime. Now how this differs from being accused of something without conviction because no proof is necessary if you are legal as the government directory governs whether you have an SSN, legal status, etc... so unless you have obtained legal means to be here, you have not only breaking the law by coming here, but are breaking the law by your mere continued presence on american soil. illegal, alien, whatever.... no representation is needed for something so cut and dry.

 

[MotF Bane]

Illegal. fucking. aliens.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: actuarial
People can't see how this creates bias during a trial? Do they also refer to speeders as 'illegals' (since they are also breaking the law). Do they wait to be sure they have been convicted of living in America illegally before calling them illegals? Would you be upset if a guy who was accused of murder (but not convicted) was referred to as a murderer during a completely separate trial? Isn't that EXACTLY what you are all advocating?

Unless the fact that they are living in America illegally has a bearing on the guilt or innocence of the person (such as in the murder of an immigration officer), then they shouldn't be calling them that. Would you also be fine if the prosecution continually referred to a person as Gay in a trial, just to get the bigots on their side? I don't see how a lawyer should need to use the term in most cases, and if they are using it they are intentionally playing on people's feelings towards immigration, as opposed to their opinion of guilt or innocence. That is exactly what a good judge is supposed to stop from happening.

I certainly think this is PC, but this is one area where PC was originally designed for. It's not like he's advocating calling them a 'differently statused citizen', just call them a foreign national instead of an 'illegal'. Also, if they were even convicted of being in the US illegally, shouldn't they have been deported?

The difference between your analogy and illegal immigrants is that their continued presence in this nation is illegal, not just in the fact that they crossed the border illegally. Living in a place you are unauthorized to live in is the equivalent of squatting, and is an ongoing crime. Now how this differs from being accused of something without conviction because no proof is necessary if you are legal as the government directory governs whether you have an SSN, legal status, etc... so unless you have obtained legal means to be here, you have not only breaking the law by coming here, but are breaking the law by your mere continued presence on american soil. illegal, alien, whatever.... no representation is needed for something so cut and dry.

Ah, screw it.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Farang
The term doesn't really make sense. How can a person be legal or illegal. What they are doing is what is legal or illegal. I've always had a problem with this term and am glad to see that action is being taken.

It does make sense, since my official term for someone with a green card was "Legal Alien" or "Legal Permanent Resident." Thus if you're trespassing into the U.S. you're an illegal alian or illegal permanent resident.

The argument that "no human being is illegal" is absolutely absurd and makes no sense. The term comes from the fact that they've illegal trespassed to get to the U.S.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: actuarial
People can't see how this creates bias during a trial? Do they also refer to speeders as 'illegals' (since they are also breaking the law). Do they wait to be sure they have been convicted of living in America illegally before calling them illegals? Would you be upset if a guy who was accused of murder (but not convicted) was referred to as a murderer during a completely separate trial? Isn't that EXACTLY what you are all advocating?

Unless the fact that they are living in America illegally has a bearing on the guilt or innocence of the person (such as in the murder of an immigration officer), then they shouldn't be calling them that. Would you also be fine if the prosecution continually referred to a person as Gay in a trial, just to get the bigots on their side? I don't see how a lawyer should need to use the term in most cases, and if they are using it they are intentionally playing on people's feelings towards immigration, as opposed to their opinion of guilt or innocence. That is exactly what a good judge is supposed to stop from happening.

I certainly think this is PC, but this is one area where PC was originally designed for. It's not like he's advocating calling them a 'differently statused citizen', just call them a foreign national instead of an 'illegal'. Also, if they were even convicted of being in the US illegally, shouldn't they have been deported?

The difference between your analogy and illegal immigrants is that their continued presence in this nation is illegal, not just in the fact that they crossed the border illegally. Living in a place you are unauthorized to live in is the equivalent of squatting, and is an ongoing crime. Now how this differs from being accused of something without conviction because no proof is necessary if you are legal as the government directory governs whether you have an SSN, legal status, etc... so unless you have obtained legal means to be here, you have not only breaking the law by coming here, but are breaking the law by your mere continued presence on american soil. illegal, alien, whatever.... no representation is needed for something so cut and dry.

Yeah sorry but that argument makes no sense. If you're accused of being being in the U.S. illegally, then you would be an "alleged illegal alien." if it's proven you're here illegally, then you're an illegal alien.

It works the same way for murderer / alleged murderer... why should illegal alien be any different?

Your analogy is false, being Gay is not against the law, thus not at all relevant. If I was on trial for murder and had a previous conviction of killing multiple people, i would be a "serial killer" or at least a "felon" ... regardless what the outcome of the current trial is.

On the same token, speeding is a civil infraction thus not "illegal".*

EDIT: varies by state

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: actuarial
People can't see how this creates bias during a trial? Do they also refer to speeders as 'illegals' (since they are also breaking the law). Do they wait to be sure they have been convicted of living in America illegally before calling them illegals? Would you be upset if a guy who was accused of murder (but not convicted) was referred to as a murderer during a completely separate trial? Isn't that EXACTLY what you are all advocating?

Unless the fact that they are living in America illegally has a bearing on the guilt or innocence of the person (such as in the murder of an immigration officer), then they shouldn't be calling them that. Would you also be fine if the prosecution continually referred to a person as Gay in a trial, just to get the bigots on their side? I don't see how a lawyer should need to use the term in most cases, and if they are using it they are intentionally playing on people's feelings towards immigration, as opposed to their opinion of guilt or innocence. That is exactly what a good judge is supposed to stop from happening.

I certainly think this is PC, but this is one area where PC was originally designed for. It's not like he's advocating calling them a 'differently statused citizen', just call them a foreign national instead of an 'illegal'. Also, if they were even convicted of being in the US illegally, shouldn't they have been deported?

The difference between your analogy and illegal immigrants is that their continued presence in this nation is illegal, not just in the fact that they crossed the border illegally. Living in a place you are unauthorized to live in is the equivalent of squatting, and is an ongoing crime. Now how this differs from being accused of something without conviction because no proof is necessary if you are legal as the government directory governs whether you have an SSN, legal status, etc... so unless you have obtained legal means to be here, you have not only breaking the law by coming here, but are breaking the law by your mere continued presence on american soil. illegal, alien, whatever.... no representation is needed for something so cut and dry.

Ah, screw it.

Damn your ninja edit, I was about to argue with you!