Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do you call one person a "speeder" and another an "illegal"? The word "illegal" would describe both, would it not? Yet for one person, you use a name that refers only to the behavior. In the other, you claim that the entire person is "illegal." Why the difference?
The comparison would be more accurate if we were talking about a person who was driving without a license rather than a person driving over the speed limit. In the case of the person driving over the speed limit, their drivng over the speed limit would be illegal, but they are legally allowed to drive. If they were driving and were not licensed, then they would be an illegal driver because their status as a driver would not be legal.
The comparison would be more accurate if we were talking about a person who was driving without a license rather than a person driving over the speed limit. In the case of the person driving over the speed limit, their drivng over the speed limit would be illegal, but they are legally allowed to drive. If they were driving and were not licensed, then they would be an illegal driver because their status as a driver would not be legal.
Good point. I did use that example earlier.
Why does the word "illegal" - as in "illegals are ruining this country!" - refer to an undocumented person, but not to a person driving without a license?
Could someone please point me to a primary sourced article that indicates terrorists have entered the US through Mexico? OR one that says Mexicans and others from Central and South America have been found with bombs strapped to their chest.
ANYONE??
I think this thread is sour grapes from a republican that is mad he didn't win.
For this person it wouldn't matter what Obama did, they would find a way to find fault just in order to NOT have to admit they were wrong.
The comparison would be more accurate if we were talking about a person who was driving without a license rather than a person driving over the speed limit. In the case of the person driving over the speed limit, their drivng over the speed limit would be illegal, but they are legally allowed to drive. If they were driving and were not licensed, then they would be an illegal driver because their status as a driver would not be legal.
Either way. You would not typically call unlicensed drivers "illegals". You would call them people driving without a license. You would not call white collar embezzlers illegals. You would call them people swindling money that is not theirs. So why do you then call people that cross the border without a passport or lawful documentation "illegals" instead of calling them people that cross the border without a passport or other lawful documentation.
The fact when somebody says an "illegal" everyone knows immediately what type of person and crime they are referring to shows the blatant bias.
Why does the word "illegal" - as in "illegals are ruining this country!" - refer to an undocumented person, but not to a person driving without a license?
There are probably a few reasons for this. There are some that may like to demonize people. I would suspect that many of those might use worse terms than this though. I think the main reason is that the question of "undocumented immigrants" has become a huge national issue that has been a public debate for a long period of time and the term has become understood to mean that as a result. I think that if there were an ongoing national discussion about "illegal drivers" instead of this debate, you might see it shortened to "illegals."
Either way. You would not typically call unlicensed drivers "illegals". You would call them people driving without a license. You would not call white collar embezzlers illegals. You would call them people swindling money that is not theirs. So why do you then call people that cross the border without a passport or lawful documentation "illegals" instead of calling them people that cross the border without a passport or other lawful documentation.
The fact when somebody says an "illegal" everyone knows immediately what type of person and crime they are referring to shows the blatant bias.
"people that cross the border without a passport or other lawful documentation" versus "illegal immigrant" - much shorter and more succinct.
"White collar embezzlers" are typically called "white collar criminals" which seems more harsh than "illegal" to me.
There are probably a few reasons for this. There are some that may like to demonize people. I would suspect that many of those might use worse terms than this though. I think the main reason is that the question of "undocumented immigrants" has become a huge national issue that has been a public debate for a long period of time and the term has become understood to mean that as a result. I think that if there were an ongoing national discussion about "illegal drivers" instead of this debate, you might see it shortened to "illegals."
Exactly. And why has the "undocumented immigrants" issue become a huge national issue? Because the far-right drove it. They promoted the use of "illegals" in the same way that they demonized the word "liberal." (And that effort pre-dated 9/11, so it has nothing to do with security.)
I refuse to participate, because it's wrong to call any person an "illegal" unless you are consistent about it, and because I don't want the wingnut PR campaign to have any help from me.
Could someone please point me to a primary sourced article that indicates terrorists have entered the US through Mexico? OR one that says Mexicans and others from Central and South America have been found with bombs strapped to their chest.
ANYONE??
I think this thread is sour grapes from a republican that is mad he didn't win.
For this person it wouldn't matter what Obama did, they would find a way to find fault just in order to NOT have to admit they were wrong.
Can you prove any terrorists haven't entered the US through the Mexican border within the last 7 years? No, because the truth is our Southern border is porous. Terrorists coming through? Not that we know of...yet. But certainly there have been drug runners and murderous coyotes. I also would suspect human traffikers as well. The fact is, that while most of the people coming through are not criminal (beyond being in another country illegally, obtaining false documents such as ssns etc....) does not mean that there are no criminals coming through. Can some of those be terrorists with a dirty bomb? Yes, it could.
As far as sour grapes about Obama goes.....I was not the OP, but I can say that Mccain and Obama both have very similiar views on illegal immigration, and no doubt either would have appointed Napalitano. W himself (rot that bastard) is highly pro amnesty and pro illegal immigration. This really goes beyond a dem/rep issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
