I just can't relate to people who think undocumented workers should be referred to as illegal immigrants, that not doing so is some kind of liberal thought police thing.
The choice (yes, it's a choice) to use that type of language in public discussions is a sneaky way to embed your conclusion into your premises. Forget about whether it's racist or incendiary; it's bad discourse. That can be the case even for a factual statement.
Because you have to be able to ask why. Why are the people who sneak across the borders without government approval automatically bad guys? Are you actually prepared to defend our current set of immigration restrictions that make doing so illegal?
Embedding approval of the current state of affairs into your language just shows a lack of critical thought about it. (Which, in case you didn't catch it, is polite speak for 'it makes you look dumb'.)
You should be able to consider a counterfactual. Apply the reversal test, and use a thought experiment: In a world where undocumented workers are legal, what would be the argument to make their presence in our borders illegal?
Substitute 'illegal immigrants' for 'undocumented workers' in that sentence and it suddenly sounds incoherent. Because how can something defined as 'illegal' be 'legal' at the same time?
Obviously the choice of language preferred by those who favor deportation of undocumented workers, serves the purpose of forestalling any such thought experiments. It muddies the linguistic waters just enough to avoid questioning the bottom line conclusion they have already decided they want to reach.
Why would one choose to avoid thinking about it in neutral terms? The most logical reason, apart from simple status quo bias, supported by human behavior throughout history, is that there is a type of tribalistic bias involved, such as racism or xenophobia.
Thinking about the problems undocumented workers can cause, independently of an embedded assumption that they are just inherently a problem (which is what 'illegal' communicates), suggests a host of possible solutions which might just be cheaper and more human(e) than deportation and border protection.
- If it's the fact that they use our public services without paying taxes, why not just give them all work visas and social security numbers so they can pay taxes?
- If the problem is that they don't speak English, why not make English proficiency (or a course of study leading to proficiency) a condition for work visas?
- If it's the fact that it's unjust for line-jumpers to get ahead of the people who immigrate legally, why not make the legal immigration process easier, so the difficulty level they experience is closer to the same?
- If it's the fact that they are doing something illegal, why not change the law so that it's legal?
- If it's the fact that some of them are criminals, why not make committing a crime a precondition for deportation? (Oh, you say existing within our borders without completing an onerous immigration process is a crime? I see what you did there.)
The kind of people who choose their presidential candidate with the goal of affirming existing laws instead of solving problems, I just simply don't feel I have much in common with. At least, I hope I don't.
And while I don't think Johnson or Clinton is a perfect candidate, at least on this issue, Trump seems downright terrible.
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.
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
that is why i refer to them as immigration criminals. they are immigrants and they are guilty of a crime by being here. 100% of people who crossed the border illegally are criminals, crossing the border was their crime. why are we trying to act like words don't mean what they mean? is it to assuage our guilt? for what? is it to not hurt the feelings of people we owe nothing to? one of two things needs to happen. stop all immigration crime or stop all welfare. now. we have been invaded. mass immigration, starvation and disease are three of the most effective weapons of war that are rarely discussed. i would recommend looking into why Rome actually collapsed. there are many parallels to what is happening to the west today. your ad homonym attacks are not reason. you accuse the people that you have chosen as your opponents of lacking critical thinking, then call them bad, sneaky, dumb, incoherent, tribalists, racists, and xenophobes. you present absolutely no proof of any of it. these are all just baseless assertions. all of your conclusions are based on nothing, no one who does not respect the law, when entering the country can be expected to be the kind of person that will constitute a decent, trustworthy, fellow American.
You make an interesting point here having to do with the negative effects of rapid immigration overburdening the welfare system and potentially endangering the civilizational stability of the region. I don't think the risk is as severe as you do, but I can respect that this is a non-circular argument for (some level of) border control.
Nonetheless, in the absence of due consideration for alternatives, your reaction comes across as disproportionate. You can protest at the possibility of being labeled a racist or an idiot or whatever, but it still leaves me scratching my head as to what else it might be.
In the US, if someone commits a crime, we have a spectrum of responses based on the severity. If the crime is severe (such as murder), they might go to jail for the rest of their life. If it is mild (such as speeding), it may be weakly enforced, and the punishment if caught may be a small fine.
Even if your point stands regarding mass immigration being a hazard at the national level, at the individual level, the harm arising from any given case of non-authorized immigration seems to be very mild. Particularly for people who come in order to be gainfully employed. If they were to have documentation such that they would pay taxes, the burden of the welfare system could be offset accordingly. A reasonable and proportionate response in my book would be to say that if someone does not obtain proper authorization before entering, they have to pay a higher tax on everything they earn.
I think this is generally not true when the law is seen to be an unimportant or unjust one. People who speed on the freeway are just as trustworthy in their everyday dealings as people who don't. In fact, people who consistently drive slower than traffic are probably less to be trusted because their behavior endangers lives.
Crossing a border without obtaining governmental permission seems to me in the same category as speeding. Are speeders better described as 'traffic criminals'? It's factual, but is it a good description? I think not. The main consequence of using that label would be a dilution effect, i.e. people being more skeptical that 'criminal' is such a bad thing to be.
Since this is Steemit, which loves Cannabis: Are Marijuana users 'herb criminals'? How about people who live in states where it's legal, while the federal government says it's illegal?
I think we all know that something being 'illegal' is a poor indicator of how bad it is.
so logic really isn't your strong suit then. trying to overwhelm people with word salad still is not logic. please, i implore you, learn how to think. i'm out.
Can you be more specific about what prompted this response?
Pretty sure I didn't do that. Word salad is stringing unrelated words together incoherently. My response was wordy, but coherent.
If you were going to give up this easily, you shouldn't have commented.
i've already been clear, calling people names is not argument and i can't enjoy reasonable discussion with someone who doesn't know what words mean. i'm not giving up out of frustration or loss. i am ceasing to waste both of our time. the guilt attempt was cute but i've seen that too many times to fall for it. the trivium method and quadrivium would be an excellent start. i wish you well. you seem genuine in your desire, at least. good luck. also, be wary of telling people what they should and shouldn't do. control is an addiction, of the worst kind.
Congratulations @lsparrish! You have received a personal award!
Click on the badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about this award, click here