It's a definition thing.
They crossed the border illegally. Thus they are illegal.
If you consider them immigrants, then they are immigrants.
Add the two together and you get ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
see how it's done?
glad to be of help.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I fully understand the explicit definition of the term you are choosing to use, so there's nothing to correct on that score. Read the article again if you don't understand what I'm arguing.
The problem is that 'illegal' is usually considered a bad thing, whereas you haven't yet provided a reason to think crossing the border without government approval is a bad thing. So when you use this term, you are sneaking in the very assertion that remains to be proven.
Why do you think laws exist that make crossing the border without explicit government approval illegal? Perhaps you have such an argument in mind, but choosing to say 'illegal immigrant' without saying why does nothing to advance a mutual understanding of any such reasons.
If you are wrong, that doesn't change the illegality of the act (explicit definition of the term), but does change whether it's a bad thing, hence the practical and pertinent question of whether we should be defending such laws or spending money to enforce them.
They broke the law. They are not citizens. They have no say.
End of discussion
I never said they did. Odd that you should make that argument.
However, as a US citizen myself, and a taxpayer, I believe I may have some say in the matter of how the government should allocate its resources. A law that has no positive effects that you can point to isn't worth paying to enforce.
Moreover, a law that penalizes harmless activity is likely to be itself harmful, in my opinion.
Maybe Not positive to you. Imagine how many law enforcement agencies would no longer be needed? Do you want to put them all out of WORK? Why..Why...think of their families..THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!
Hmm. Maybe we could employ them breaking windows and producing replacement glass. :P