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.
But they are not supposed to have documents. “Undocumented” implies that they have a document problem that can be fixed. That is why I don't call them undocumented. Their document problem shouldn’t be fixed.
Undocumented literally means "not documented". The prefix "un" attached to an adjective means "not" or "no" in English. That means the word can be taken 2 ways: 1. Existing but not known, or 2. Without documents. Both apply to these immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are typically not known to the government and don't have the documentation to have entered the country. It's arguably a far more accurate description of these people even without the connotations of "illegal". "Undocumented" has no use or definition whatsoever that implies that a document problem can't or can be fixed. That's a completely unrelated concept.
Show me in our immigration laws where those in our country illegally are referred to as undocumented immigrants rather than illegal aliens. I'll wait! Alien = foreigner. Illegal = their unlawful status in our country. Yeah, so dehumanizing.....NOT! I guess we should stop calling bank robbers what they are and call them unathorized withdrawers instead in PC lingo?
But they are not supposed to have documents. “Undocumented” implies that they have a document problem that can be fixed. That is why I don't call them undocumented. Their document problem shouldn’t be fixed.
If you knew someone was coming to your house to kill you and your family and there was no where in that country you could go, that they would not eventually find you; time is short. Are you going to stop and make sure you have all your documents, before you hit the door?
I'm sure you will come back with some sort of bs, but there it is.
If they could end up in Canada, they are taken to processing as an, irregular crossing and given protection. It was the same in the u.s. until recent.
The u.s. is not interested in protecting any one, except themselves. The last time it was of a mind to do that, was WWII.
You're arguing symptoms. It is not the fault of the immigrant that they can go to an ER. That is our system, and plenty of uninsured natives do the exact same thing. It's not any different than blaming an immigrant for being hired at a job rather than those doing the hiring. In both cases, we're blaming those taking advantage of the system that we have freely set up. No one is really arguing about the system being the problem when that should be the debate, which is exactly why I don't believe everyone is being honest in their arguments against undocumented immigrants.
You continue that with education. Whether legal or not, immigrants would be paying into public schools no differently than any native would. Why are we holding them more accountable than we would anyone else when we have created the system for school funding? The argument was that undocumented don't pay into public education. They, in fact, do. Now you're arguing that they don't pay enough, yet they are paying the same as everyone else. So we're back to a broken system again.
None of these issues were created by undocumented immigrants or had any hand in creating systems with obvious problems, yet everyone is arguing that they are not only uniquely responsible, but there is the suggestion that such problems will be solved without the undocumented. That's a blatant lie. Which again leads me back to the conclusion that all of the arguments are simply excuses to deport immigrants.
Re: bold: I might not agree with some of the posts here but I think that people are being honest about what they believe.
That's part of the reason why there are processes or systems in our form of government, the rules, so to speak, by which everyone can petition the government.
Mr. Trump & his administration would seemingly prefer it to be otherwise, it's an unrealistic expectation.
Show me in our immigration laws where those in our country illegally are referred to as undocumented immigrants rather than illegal aliens. I'll wait! Alien = foreigner. Illegal = their unlawful status in our country. Yeah, so dehumanizing.....NOT! I guess we should stop calling bank robbers what they are and call them unathorized withdrawers instead in PC lingo?
Look, you can use whatever terms you want. I explained exactly why I use the term I do. I'm sorry not sorry if that triggers you, but I could not care less what you think about that. I feel my term is both technically a more accurate description and far less dehumanizing. I'm not going to be part of the pitchfork mob.
Re: bold: I might not agree with some of the posts here but I think that people are being honest about what they believe.
That's part of the reason why there are processes or systems in our form of government, the rules, so to speak, by which everyone can petition the government.
Mr. Trump & his administration would seemingly prefer it to be otherwise, it's an unrealistic expectation.
When I say not honest, I mean in the context that people are using things like procedure (the EO debate) and systemic problems like school and health funding to make excuses as to why DACA people should be deported, when it's far more likely no more complicated than simply holding a nativist position.
Undocumented literally means "not documented". The prefix "un" attached to an adjective means "not" or "no" in English. That means the word can be taken 2 ways: 1. Existing but not known, or 2. Without documents. Both apply to these immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are typically not known to the government and don't have the documentation to have entered the country. It's arguably a far more accurate description of these people even without the connotations of "illegal". "Undocumented" has no use or definition whatsoever that implies that a document problem can't or can be fixed. That's a completely unrelated concept.
And it is exactly the ambiguity, that you mentioned, that I have a problem with. I assume the ambiguity is a positive for the people who advocate for them.
To me, there is nothing ambiguous about it. They are here illegally, so they are illegal aliens.
If you knew someone was coming to your house to kill you and your family and there was no where in that country you could go, that they would not eventually find you; time is short. Are you going to stop and make sure you have all your documents, before you hit the door?
I'm sure you will come back with some sort of bs, but there it is.
If they could end up in Canada, they are taken to processing as an, irregular crossing and given protection. It was the same in the u.s. until recent.
The u.s. is not interested in protecting any one, except themselves. The last time it was of a mind to do that, was WWII.
You are the one BSing here.
Are you really expecting anyone to believe that the majority of these people are escaping murderers, hell bent on following them around their country to kill them?
I’m sure you will come back with some more BS, but there it is.
And it is exactly the ambiguity, that you mentioned, that I have a problem with. I assume the ambiguity is a positive for the people who advocate for them.
To me, there is nothing ambiguous about it. They are here illegally, so they are illegal aliens.
There is no ambiguity. Undocumented doesn't dismiss the act of crossing the border. It still describes their status accurately. Whether or how that status is rectified is a different discussion. I'm not sure why holding onto the "illegal" moniker is so important.
Crossing a border without permission is the only time people are directly called illegal rather than the act of crossing itself. That strikes me as intentional, no matter how long it's been used. I won't be part of that. Undocumented is what they are.
The law is legal. If you are not in compliance with the law, you are in illegal status. If illegal and undocumented are handled the same then it would make no difference. I would have no issue calling them "undocumented" if we had a strict policy of deporting the "undocumented". But libs want to use the "undocumented" term so they can whittle away at enforcement of our immigration laws. Undocumented does not and should not mean the law does not apply to you and you get to continue being here "undocumented".
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.
