It’s amusing when those pushing propaganda speak with false authority as in “The term is undocumented immigrants and illegal immigration.” You think it’s not obvious that your efforts are to take lawbreaking and make it sound natural and acceptable?
Maybe the minor children who were brought in by their parents were unaware that they were breaking the law, but every adult knew they were breaking the law and did so anyway. Pretty much the definition of criminal behavior.
Well, I’ll take my false authority along with my correct grasp of the English language.
Referencing undocumented immigrants as undocumented immigrants doesn’t change their culpability. It’s simply proper use of the English language. The definition of illegal is “contrary or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.” Illegal immigration is, in most cases, a violation of civil law. But I digress, BY DEFINITION, a person CANNOT BE ILLEGAL, because a person cannot be contrary or forbidden by law. This means, follow me here, an immigrant (a person) cannot be illegal. Only their actions are illegal, again, stay with me…the illegal immigration.
It’s an incorrect usage that has nothing to do with political correctness or legality of the action, but once you’ve gone down the road of personal insults, your comment says much more about you than anyone else posting in this thread. I hope your evening is better than your day.
So you deliberately used “The term is …” rather than “The terms are …”?
You quibble with the language to ignore the facts.
Really?
Well that’s a burn, except context matters.
[quote=“AllieBean, post:19, topic:29391”]
This is a PC bridge too far. They are illegal. Would you all prefer “uninvited guests”?
[/quote] Emphasis mine
Clearly ‘illegal immigration’ does not take the place of 'uninvited guests." So the term would be ‘undocumented immigrants’. My point is that the continuation would then be illegal immigration. Seems to me you got the point, however, in the beginning.
I think the term unauthorized immigrant is more appropriate.
For the last 30 years, the Republican stock in trade has been to find one way to express a bad idea so that it sounds almost like a good idea, didn’t we learn how dangerous that is?
Murder and speeding are defacto illegal because they are terms that describe a crime and have no other meaning.
Immigration is not.
A better example would be parking or money transmission, which are both legal in certain circumstances. I don’t think there would be much complaint in referring to someone who was engaged in illegal unlicensed money transmission as an illegal money transmitter, or someone who illegally parked in a handicapped spot or a fire lane as an illegal parker.
The “illegal” is a modifier on the act in which the referring noun is derived from rather than a a modifier on the person who commited the act in question.
Semantic games don’t really accomplish anything, tbqh.
Do you have to make a pledge to stop saying it? How about just… not saying it anymore? The only reason to announce it is if you want credit for it.
Is it only worth tipping the Starbucks people if they see you put the money in the jar?
Undocumented Immigration is. That is pretty much what I meant, that would be a better term, just like speeding is better than illegal velocity of one’s vehicle.
But they are not. Each illegal transfer of money has a term. Like money laundering, embezzlement, etc. And if people see a person parked in the handicap spot, I have never heard that person called an illegal parker. The offense is a Handicap Parking Violation, and they are usually referred to as “the jerk who parked in the handicap spot”.
Anyone seen my dead horse?
You are all wrong as we use the designation “resident aliens.” Anyone here living and working without going through the proper legal channels is illegal. Someone “undocumented” is illegal.
[quote=“Jeffrey, post:31, topic:29391, full:true”]
You are all wrong as we use the designation “resident aliens.” Anyone here living and working without going through the proper legal channels is illegal. Someone “undocumented” is illegal.
[/quote] Emphasis mine
I’m pretty sure you didn’t bother to actually read my post. Someone is not ‘illegal’ because by definition someone cannot be illegal.
We use the term ‘resident alien’ to note a particular category of person who has not committed illegal immigration.
Someone cannot be contrary or forbidden by law. The ACT of immigration can be illegal, not the act of existing as a PERSON (immigrant).
You continue to argue inadequacies in the English language as if lack of a proper word to describe the crime means it isn’t a crime. Nitpicking and hairsplitting instead of sound arguements.
You’re just playing stupid semantics games.
[quote=“Jeffrey, post:34, topic:29391, full:true”]
You’re just playing **stupid **semantics games.
[/quote] Emphasis mine
So I’m guessing the irony probably doesn’t register here for you, yes?
Semantics is the interpretation of meaning. The dictionary definition is not an interpretation, it is in fact the meaning and it’s pretty specific. If I was engaging in games, I would be trying to define illegal as something it is not. Just because the word has been used improperly this whole time, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t correct it. Words not only have meanings, they have consequences ESPECIALLY when dealing with any sort of crime. I hope, if you ever end up on the receiving end of statutory interpretation, they don’t play stupid semantics games with you.
Actually, meanings are not fixed, but drift over time. Words come and go, too. It’s why something like the plays of Shakespeare were once accessible to the masses, but now often require some explanation. If anything, this evolution of the language is probably faster now. Of course we had vernacular words for illegal aliens, but most of them are politically incorrect to use; a small victory for the propagandists.