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.
My ethnic group never had immigration laws. I'm an original American. How about you?
I seriously doubt you are 100% American Indian. But --- remember --- the Indians didn't have immigration laws or enforce them and look what happened to them! Not smart to just allow an invasion and obviously assimilation doesn't always happen.
Not really. Using the term "illegal" and paring it with "immigrant" conveys that the person has already been found guilty of an illegal action - that is, that he/she illegally entered the US. This judgment, however is passed out by the public without due process and thus, would violate the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Just like a person becomes a felon upon conviction, and not before.
Thus, only an undocumented person who has been found to have entered the US illegally by a court of law would actually be labelled "illegal immigrant." All others would simply remain "undocumented" until a legal judgement can be passed.
It's not that difficult of a concept. Well, I suppose for some of you it clearly is. Are you too lazy to think?
So....people who came into this country illegally shouldn't be called illegal immigrants because it is offensive? What should they be called then? Undocumented citizens? Surprise civilians?
So do you also support unlimited immigration to the USA for all Europeans and Canadians? Or only from all Latin American nations? Or just unlimited immigration from Mexico and other Central American nations? Do you believe there should be no immigration laws in the USA only - but countries like Mexico can limit immigration? Do you support unlimited immigration from all Asian and African nations?
And would you say that Mexicans are racist because their country does have immigration laws and would certainly never allow 1/5 of Americans to move into Mexico? I have never once seen a La Raza type demand that his/her own country end all immigration laws and allow everyone to move into Mexico.
I see, so even when there is knowledge that someone is here illegally they aren't really an illegal alien unless they are convicted in a court of law? How does "undocumented" change that fact? I guess if someone commits murder technically they aren't really a murderer unless a court convicts them of that crime? Are you serious?
You need to contact UCLA for an explanation. All I said is that it's not that difficult to understand the thought processes behind this.
Apparently, even that is too difficult to comprehend... Oy vey.
Alas, yes. Somebody who murders another person is obviously a murderer in most people's eyes. EXCEPT in the eyes of the law where that person remains INNOCENT until proven guilty. Once that person is convicted of MURDER (not manslaughter, etc.) then that person is a murderer in the eyes of the law as well.
And THAT is the point they are making... By labeling all undocumented people illegal, you are side-stepping a constitutional principle. Undocumented is NOT the same as illegal!
Here, let me give you an example why the distinction is valid - it's a bit long since these issues are always complex and never as cut and dry as simple minds would like to have it:
George has been dating Cindy for ten years. George is from France, Cindy is a US citizen. The've been living together in Panama for eight years and have a child who was also born in Panama. Several times a year, they come to the US to visit family and friends. George actually went to school in the US and thus, also has a vested interested in seeing some of his friends. One time, while on vacation in the US, Cindy decides that she is done living in Panama and that she really wants their kid to grow up in the US. In fact, she is so done with it that she doesn't even want to go back. They debate at length and George gives in since it really doesn't matter to him where they live.
Although there are several avenues to apply for permanent residency, none of them are amenable to keeping a family intact, especially with a small child, once both partners are in the US. All require separation of up to several years. Immigration Services recognizes such situations and it is possible for George to obtain a green card by applying while he is already in the US. The process can take up to a year. Since they were just supposed to be on vacation, George entered the US under the Visa Waiver Program, which allows him to legally stay for up to three months. After that, he would be considered an illegal under US law.
However, since George now has an application for a green card pending, INS no longer considers him illegally in the country. In fact, INS does NOT allow him to leave until the process is completed and George is either granted permanent residency or not. In the time between the expiration of his Visa Waiver and the granting of the green card, all George has is an application number. George is now UNDOCUMENTED but NOT illegal.
Innocent until proven guilty refers to legal proceedings, not judgments passed out by the public.
EXACTLY. Wow, you got it. Even though you failed to grasp that this is what they are talking about...A public judgment that places a stigma upon a person before due process has run its course.
EXACTLY. Wow, you got it. Even though you failed to grasp that this is what they are talking about...A public judgment that places a stigma upon a person before due process has run its course.
If you're caught climbing over the fence, sneaking across the border, or swimming across the river then you deserve the stigma. A thief kicks in your backdoor, a neighbor will ring your doorbell and wait for you to answer.
Sometimes I debate to find the truth because of my engineering background.
For an engineer, you seem to apply emotion much more than logic, ignoring facts in favor of feeling sorry for the group under discussion.
I save my compassion for those who truly are victims of unfortunate circumstance totally beyond their control. Once someone has contributed to their own situation (e.g., committing a criminal act by entering another country in violation of that country's laws), they lose all pity from me. And yes, I would include children brought by those same trespassers, looking for them to return to the country from which their parents originated. While the fault in that case lies not with those children, it does lie with their illegal invader parents and certainly not with the citizens of the US who are in no way obligated to accept or financially support them, with the anchor babies being US citizens themselves only due to a bad interpretation of law.
EXACTLY. Wow, you got it. Even though you failed to grasp that this is what they are talking about...A public judgment that places a stigma upon a person before due process has run its course.
This is not a complicated concept, and I "got it" from the second I read the OP.
But um, innocent until proven guilty doesn't protect you from stigma. It protects you from the government locking your ass up. Outside of that context, the concept is nothing more than your own personal preference. Thus irrelevant.
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.
