politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yes, they committed a misdemeanor. So when you jaywalk you’re an illegal pedestrian, and when you do a rolling stop at a stop sign you’re an illegal driver.
So what kinds of illegal are you? I’d assume at the very least an illegal pedestrian, likely also an illegal driver. Are you by chance an illegal shopper as well?
Not to mention many (most? Probably the vast majority) simply overstay their visa.
To be honest, I’d rather deport the howler monkeys.
Sure, that's not a term anybody really uses though.
No, an illegal driver is a driver without a license. It's a pretty widely used term. There's also "illegal doctor" for people who are practicing medicine without a license. Normally when the term is used it's not for a brief violation of the law, but for a persistent status.
If you think "illegal pedestrian" is a thing, I've been that pretty often, but I've never been caught. Was this supposed to be some kind of gotcha?
The point is that an illegal immigrant makes it sound like the human being themselves is illegal. Literally the law they broke is on the same level as jay walking. That’s why people shouldn’t be using the dehumanizing term illegal immigrant.
However, I think you already understood that.
No it doesn't, that's why the word "immigrant" is there, to describe what the illegal thing was. So, an illegal doctor is a doctor who doesn't have a license. An illegal motorist is someone who is driving a car without a license. Nobody thinks that the human being is "illegal" whatever that means, it's the immigration that was illegal.
No, it's not. Has anybody ever been removed from a country when they've been caught jay walking? Even a fine is extremely rare. Being in a country illegally is a more serious offense by a pretty large margin.
I understood that some people trot out those terrible arguments, but I don't think even they actually believe them.
If you honestly think this, you’re not paying attention.
What kind of argument is this? Jay walking and littering are on the same level, has a jay walker ever been forced to go back and pick up their litter? Cmon, you’re smart enough to understand that different crimes can be at the same level, and still have different punishments.
I'm aware that there is a lot of discrimination against immigrants, both illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. But, that discrimination isn't caused by referring to them by an accurate term.
It's a response to the stupid statement "Literally the law they broke is on the same level as jay walking", which is clearly not true.
What does litter have to do with jay walking. Do you even understand what jay walking is?
No.... that's what makes the "level" different. A crime that is punished more severely is at a more severe "level" than one that isn't. Come on, this isn't rocket surgery...
Oh lordy.
So the dehumanizing term should be used because it’s not the reason people are dehumanizing the people.
Are you can fan of racial slurs by chance? Because “it’s just an accurate word for black people” is something racists say about certain words as well.
What does leaving the country have to do with jay walking?…
I’m simply using your own flawed logic. And you’re proving my point.
How exactly is rectifying the law broken a harsher punishment? How would it make any sense to just charge them a fine and let them be on their way? That’s like saying you should just fine someone littering and then ignore the fact that they are continuing to actively litter.
It's not a dehumanizing term. That's ridiculous.
Nothing. Is your brain mushy?
Weird, because this was you up the chain a little:
So which is it?
The majority of the country disagrees.
It's the same consistent thing: Jaywalking is not punished as severely as illegal immigration, because it's not on the same "level".
Which country, because definitely not the USA.
Yes, it does. That's the whole point of why it's bad to use the word "illegal" as a noun to describe people. And that's why people do so. Dehumanization. They're not an illegal immigrant. They're "an illegal". Barely even a person.
We're talking about using the word illegal as an adjective: "illegal immigrant". Immigrant is a noun, illegal is an adjective.
No, we're talking about using it as a noun. Saying "an illegal". Not saying "an illegal immigrant".
Nope, that's not what we're talking about.
>No, it’s not. Has anybody ever been removed from a country when they’ve been caught jay walking? Even a fine is extremely rare. Being in a country illegally is a more serious offense by a pretty large margin.
what makes you think anyone is in the country illegally? in america, people are entitle to a trial by a jury of their peers when they are accused of a crime. it looks to me like the accusation is just that, and you'll forgive me if i don't believe the government without proof.
Do you understand what illegal immigration means?
Illegal street racers are members of the group who race cars illegally on the street. Any person accused of that crime deserves their day in court. But, that doesn't change the fact that we know illegal street racing happens, and therefore there exist illegal street racers. Similarly, any individual person accused of illegal immigration deserves their day in court, but when referring to the group of people who have illegally immigrated into the US, "illegal immigrants" is a perfectly reasonable label.
Unless you're saying that you're not convinced that anybody has ever violated immigration law, so "illegal immigration" is a myth?
>Unless you’re saying that you’re not convinced that anybody has ever violated immigration law, so “illegal immigration” is a myth?
i haven't seen compelling evidence about it. but i will say i think borders are immoral and i know my duty vis-a-vis immoral laws.
Ha, ok.
There's the act of crossing the border illegally, and then there's the act of being in a country without a valid visa. Obviously when people talk about illegal immigration they're generally talking about the second case.
But they will happily use statistics which include both groups.
"Illegal driver" and "illegal doctor" are also terms that nobody uses.
They're not common, but they most definitely are used, and nobody objects because it accurately describes the situation.
Maybe so, but I've never heard it.