Judge Bans Use Of ?Illegal? and ?Aliens?

[Bateluer]

So you can't say 'illega' in a court room? WTF?!

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: 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.

I understand where the term comes from; that doesn't mean it is being properly applied. I think it is improper when used to describe LPRs as well, it is as stupid as adding "legal" to everything that is legal. This doesn't raise any practical issues either because there are plenty of ways you can differentiate LPRs and their law-offending counterparts through different term usage.

This isn't a silly political correctness issue either. Using "illegal alien" or simply "illegals" to describe undocumented immigrants is intentional and meant to dehumanize them. It is obvious because the further right you go in the political spectrum, the more "alien" is dropped and it simply becomes "illegals." You'd have to be kidding me to say calling a person an "illegal" is not dehumanizing.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
So you can't say 'illega' in a court room? WTF?!

Doubtful. The linked "article" is from a blog, so take it with a grain of salt. My guess is that you can't refer to a person as illegal, or as an alien, or as an illegal alien, unless their immigration status was pertinent to the trial. Banning the words outright would just be silly

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: 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.

I understand where the term comes from; that doesn't mean it is being properly applied. I think it is improper when used to describe LPRs as well, it is as stupid as adding "legal" to everything that is legal. This doesn't raise any practical issues either because there are plenty of ways you can differentiate LPRs and their law-offending counterparts through different term usage.

This isn't a silly political correctness issue either. Using "illegal alien" or simply "illegals" to describe undocumented immigrants is intentional and meant to dehumanize them. It is obvious because the further right you go in the political spectrum, the more "alien" is dropped and it simply becomes "illegals." You'd have to be kidding me to say calling a person an "illegal" is not dehumanizing.

That is absolute rubbish.

Illegal Alien or Illegal Permanent Resident is a legal term for an immigration status. Illegals is a shortening of the above. Spinning this into a human rights issue is a feeble attempt to frame the discourse about immigration policy. "Illegal" is not dehumanizing, as a matter of fact it says nothing, except that they're trespassing into the U.S.

I was referred to as a Legal Alien by INS, Legal Permanent Resident or Green card holder by employers. It was nothing more than a classification of my immigration status... or are you saying that INS was trying to dehumanize me by calling me a legal alien? Because, you know, 'alien' has such a negative connotation and it hurt my feelings...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Farang

I understand where the term comes from; that doesn't mean it is being properly applied. I think it is improper when used to describe LPRs as well, it is as stupid as adding "legal" to everything that is legal. This doesn't raise any practical issues either because there are plenty of ways you can differentiate LPRs and their law-offending counterparts through different term usage.

This isn't a silly political correctness issue either. Using "illegal alien" or simply "illegals" to describe undocumented immigrants is intentional and meant to dehumanize them. It is obvious because the further right you go in the political spectrum, the more "alien" is dropped and it simply becomes "illegals." You'd have to be kidding me to say calling a person an "illegal" is not dehumanizing.

This attitude is exactly what political correctness is - "but it dehumanizes them"

GOOD! There needs to be shame, social and legal punishment of illegal aliens. You even threw in a "undocumented immigrants" euphemism. Next rapists will be "misunderstood sex addicts".

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Bateluer
So you can't say 'illega' in a court room? WTF?!

Doubtful. The linked "article" is from a blog, so take it with a grain of salt. My guess is that you can't refer to a person as illegal, or as an alien, or as an illegal alien, unless their immigration status was pertinent to the trial. Banning the words outright would just be silly

Perhaps this PDF that is contained in the "article" will interest you.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/d...FYI.McGregorLetter.pdf

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: TallBill
What are they, guest insurrectionists?

uninvited guests that are looking to pack your stuff up and move you out.

 

[ja1484]

Spics?

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: SmoochyTX

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
The actual new term is "People who need to get the fuck out"

:thumbsup:

I dig this.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Bateluer
So you can't say 'illega' in a court room? WTF?!

Doubtful. The linked "article" is from a blog, so take it with a grain of salt. My guess is that you can't refer to a person as illegal, or as an alien, or as an illegal alien, unless their immigration status was pertinent to the trial. Banning the words outright would just be silly

Perhaps this PDF that is contained in the "article" will interest you.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/d...FYI.McGregorLetter.pdf

Thank you. Read it all.

As you can see they are using our own political correctness against us.

Sadly, it's working. Take back your language people. Take it back. Once the the voice is taken, as can be seen in this shit, your voice is no longer heard.

Take back your language people. Fight it. Fight this fucking shit.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Bateluer
So you can't say 'illega' in a court room? WTF?!

Doubtful. The linked "article" is from a blog, so take it with a grain of salt. My guess is that you can't refer to a person as illegal, or as an alien, or as an illegal alien, unless their immigration status was pertinent to the trial. Banning the words outright would just be silly

Perhaps this PDF that is contained in the "article" will interest you.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/d...FYI.McGregorLetter.pdf

:laugh:

Somehow this:

Originally posted by: Chief Justice Ruth McGregor
I have taken several steps to notify our judges of your concerns

became:

Originally posted by: Illiterate blogger
Arizona?s Supreme Court chief justice has agreed to enforce the Hispanic Bar Association?s demands of banning the terms...

Do you agree with their interpretation of the letter? If so, how do you get from what the judge said to what the "article" said? If not, why did you post this?

Seems like much ado about nothing.

Oh oh! I just re-read part of it.

Somehow they interpreted this:

Originally posted by: Hispanic bar association
we ask that you strongly encourage Arizona's judges and court employees to avoid using certain inflammatory...

as

Originally posted by: Illiterate blogger
the Hispanic Bar Association?s demands of banning the terms...

FAIL

 

[ElFenix]

criminal immigrants it is then

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: moshquerade
Perhaps this PDF that is contained in the "article" will interest you.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/d...FYI.McGregorLetter.pdf

:laugh:

Somehow this:

Originally posted by: Chief Justice Ruth McGregor
I have taken several steps to notify our judges of your concerns

became:

Originally posted by: Illiterate blogger
Arizona?s Supreme Court chief justice has agreed to enforce the Hispanic Bar Association?s demands of banning the terms...

Do you agree with their interpretation of the letter? If so, how do you get from what the judge said to what the "article" said? If not, why did you post this?

Seems like much ado about nothing.

Oh oh! I just re-read part of it.

Somehow they interpreted this:

Originally posted by: Hispanic bar association
we ask that you strongly encourage Arizona's judges and court employees to avoid using certain inflammatory...

as

Originally posted by: Illiterate blogger
the Hispanic Bar Association?s demands of banning the terms...

FAIL

Holy crap, somebody else finally read it!

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Holy crap, somebody else finally read it!

Meh, I didn't notice the link to the PDF previously.