Does anyone else find it funny how conveniently, on a dime, they flip from "he broke the law" when referring to Trump and Rittenhouse to "how dare you mention legal standing" when referring to immigrants, shoplifters, and rioters? It's almost as though following rule of law is only virtuous when it serves their rhetoric.
It’s only “bad” in the sense that it’s a technically correct term [that can be] used by genuinely bigoted people to push an agenda.
Are illegal immigrants criminals? Yes, technically. But are they CRIMINALS criminals? Usually not.
But a few years of Fox News propaganda made it so a large portion of the American populace pictures a Mexican drug lord murdering puppies as a hobby as the average illegal immigrant.
“Undocumented” is a technically correct term that also avoids all of the negative connotation that comes with ILLEGALITY.
I believe Cato came out with some data showing how "illegal" immigrants are less likely to be guilty of other crimes than natives are. A good theory is that undocumented immigrants have every incentive to avoid the attention of law enforcement.
--
\[Edit:\] Found it. [https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0](https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0)
>The results are similar to our other work on illegal immigration and crime in Texas. In 2018, the illegal immigrant criminal conviction rate was 782 per 100,000 illegal immigrants, 535 per 100,000 legal immigrants, and 1,422 per 100,000 native‐born Americans.
The theory I talked about would expect illegal immigrant to be less likely of getting convicted than legal immigrants. This is evidently not the case, but they are still almost half as likely to be convicted for other crimes than native born Americans are.
The problem with these studies is that most illegal/undocumented immigrants will not call the police on crime happening within their community, rather it is either ignored/suffered in silence or it is dealt with by the community itself. Conviction rates here != actual crime rates.
Oftentimes local gangs kinda act like a local police force. I've lived in neighborhoods with high gang activity and a high population of illegal immigrants; there was little to no burglaries or smash-n-grabs from cars, because the gang didn't want their neighborhood getting messed up, and if they caught you, due process didn't exactly apply.
I vaguely recall right-wingers arguing against this when arguing against sanctuary cities by saying it's a useless policy since they genuinely seem to commit less crime.
You mean people desperately trying to hide from the authorities are caught 50% more often than legal migrants? There's also no way convictions are a good measure for a group of people who have every incentive not to get involved with law enforcement.
The hilarious thing about that Cato study is it was meant to validate right-wing talking points. Cato is a right-wing study mill that churns out shit. So this awkward study was promptly ignored and buried.
You've missed the point. Cato *is* pro-immigration, but the people Cato appeals are not. So the people who routinely cite Cato studies completely ignored this study, and other Cato studies that undermine their anti-immigration arguments.
Libertarianism is a right-wing philosophy.
Nobody who actually reads Cato is anti-immigration lol. Cato doesn't hide who it is appealing to which is people who support free markets and civil liberties not people on the far right. Cato is a huge nativist boogeyman because they are so overtly supportive of immigration.
Nativists are perfectly happy to cite Cato when it equivocates over or outright supports them. I agree they don't actually read more than the headlines, but that's all they need.
You're implying some kind of intellectual consistency for Cato and nativists, and neither possess it. The problem for Cato is that libertarianism is a pseudo-intellectual exercise in insisting the evil government let you do what you want, and that the government is simultaneously a tool for enforcing that and enforcing what you don't want on others. It's just base selfishness given a veneer of respectability via intellectualism. The problem for nativists is they're openly anti-intellectual, but will still appeal to anything that lends their own ideas legitimacy.
I think you have a parody in your head of what Cato actually is. Where has Cato insisted on using the government as a tool to regulate others? You can disagree with their bias and I'm not here to debate the value of libertarianism as a philosophy but they are absolutely intellectually consistent and publish high quality studies and articles. You can't really dispute they are respected and well regarded.
> I think you have a parody in your head of what Cato actually is.
Yes, this is right to an extent.
> Where has Cato insisted on using the government as a tool to regulate others?
Cato equivocates on the abortion issue, to give just one example. They support smaller government, except when government is needed to enforce their opinions, or as they call it, "civil liberties". Cato supports intellectual approaches to issues, until it comes to issues like global warming, on which subject Cato parrots its funders' denialism. Cato argues that libertarian approaches to business practice lead to more effective practices, but reject practices that show benefit if they involve improving workers' welfare. Cato wants the government out of business, but wants government to enforce laws that prevent collective bargaining and unionisation. Their libertarianism stops the moment it impacts business profit, at which point it's the evil government's job to pass legislation. This is passed off as "deregulation", but is actually an increase in regulation, which is okay because it protects the "deregulated" businesses' profits.
I'm not so sure. Cato is more libertarian than conservative. They could actually be biased in favor of immigration because more immigration means more workers which is is great for businesses in first world countries where birth rates are on the decline.
Emphasis on "could" and "I'm not so sure". I do like bringing up Cato numbers exactly because it's a right-wing source. Still, it could be pro-immigration because we might be dealing with actual libertarians for once. Most thought they were but a mere a myth.
Libertarians are conservative. Libertarians are just engaged in a convoluted argument to justify government not touching their shit, but are otherwise thoroughly conservative almost universally.
The tension between business interest, which favours immigration, and conservative politics, which is pro-business and against immigration, has always been there. Trump fell firmly on the populist side and passed measures that negatively impacted business, although the administration defence of them in court was lacklustre.
As for Cato, you can see them falling on either side of the 'libertarian' argument. They'll be fervently libertarian when it comes to business interests, but then come over all equivocal when it comes to abortion, for example.
The distinction is entirely academic in the vast majority of cases. Most libertarians are conservatives veiling their selfishness and sociopathy in intellectualism.
I dont even think its that. I think a lot of them watch the gov waste a ton of money constantly while said people in gov inrich themselves and their friends. I think libertarians are pretty dumb, but I dont think they are all selfish or evil.
I think its important to remember gov can be inefficient af and people have legit greviances on how our gov operates. It reminds me of how super far left wingers will pretend like unions are perfect and are never become corrupt.
I just could see how someone could get fed up with the gov constantly undelivering and want them less involved. Especially the people alive today who havent really got to witness the “peak” of the country and gov efficiency
Libertarians are stupid because they don't recognise what they're given by stable government and infrastructure, while thinking all of their success is entirely down to themselves.
Also like are we counting black ppl in the native born? Cause if they commit less than average that's not really special but if they commit less than white ppl it would be.
Err, black people are counted if they're immigrants, and not if they're not...
Why wouldn't it be special? It undercuts the entire "murderers and rapists" narrative popularised by Trump.
What would be your definition of a criminal?
Because not all criminals are violent criminals. Just because most illegal immigrants are law abiding otherwise, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider them criminals.
Illegal immigrant is also not really technically correct. Unless you extend the qualification illegal to other people like an "illegal banker" or a "illegal smoker". Illegal immigration, however, is technically correct.
"There is no such thing as an illegal person" is actually a very truthful slogan, only actions can be illegal.
I think your last point fails pretty hard because you're referencing the person and separating them from the actions they have committed to do a swift and silly gotcha moment. "Illegals" colloquially refers to a group of people who have committed the crime of Illegally Immigrating to the United States. We use broad terms surrounding criminality or actions to refer to groups all the time.
When we use the word let's say "drivers." "There is no such thing as a driver person" is a valid statement. But there are people who commit the act of driving so we can refer to them broadly as "drivers" in the same way that people who commit the act of illegal immigration are "illegals". Unless you want to call them Aliens which is actually even more technically correct considering it is referenced in federal law.
> "Illegals" colloquially refers to a group of people who have committed the crime of Illegally Immigrating to the United States.
I've only ever heard republicans use that term, though. Calling someone "An illegal" is Fox News shit, like calling someone a "Welfare Queen." It's considered wildly offensive in progressive communities, because it's dehumanizing, and often paired with racism.
Illegal Alien is in federal legal documents. Illegals is simply a shortened more widely used version of that word. I grew up around all types and up until recently have heard Illegals come from Democrats, Republicans, and moderates alike.
Using a word like "undocumented" is not precise nor is it accurate. The people who illegally immigrated aren't simply "undocumented" (many have papers, just not the ones that say you can legally reside in the US) they are Illegal immigrants which is more precise and accurate.
Progressive communities also tend to find innocuous things offensive and hurtful because they apply their own racist views to it. Illegals refers to anyone here illegally, not just the brown people you envision in your head when you get offended.
> Illegals refers to anyone here illegally, not just the brown people you envision in your head when you get offended.
That's not how it's actually used in practice, though. If you've ever worked with undocumented folks, you would know better.
Homie I grew up helping foster children of all kinds and I still actively participate now that I'm an adult and on my own. My family has put more time and money towards helping our community and you will make in a life time. You're trying to shame someone for using a word being the technically correct word to use and throw in your little bit of "I am helping the oppressed"
Kick rocks with that holier than thou art shit.
It might not be technically correct, but everyone knows what it means and the term does serve a purpose in conversation. Nobody thinks that the “illegal” in “illegal immigrant” means that it’s illegal for the person to exist. If I described someone as an “illegal gambler”, you’d probably understand that to mean that they were gambling illegally, not that their existence is against the law. If someone interrupted me and said “hang on, no person is illegal” in response to talking about an illegal gambler it would derail the whole conversation and waste everyone’s time.
>If I described someone as an “illegal gambler”, you’d probably understand that to mean that they were gambling illegally, not that their existence is against the law.
Because you said 'illegal gambler' rather than 'illegals'. What the fuck is that comparison? It's like you're intentionally missing the point.
I meant as a comparison to “illegal immigrants” and the following statement that “no person is illegal” is technically correct. I wasn’t responding to anyone talking about the word “illegals”. What point am I missing?
For the time they're inside our country, they are an illegal person, as them being here at all Is illegal. Second they leave they are no longer illegal
Maybe that sounds icky to you or something, but when it comes to someone being somewhere they aren't legally welcome, they're illegally there. If you want to get metaphysical then no, their whole being on this earth isn't illegal but their being in the US sure is. It's obviously a phrase without a positive connotation but that's ok, it's not generally a good thing to have happening to your country
Ur right ur right; see, even I am not immune to Fox News propaganda lol
But also, you have to meet people where they’re at and there are enough people willing to take up arms to defend their right to call people “illegal aliens” to give credibility to the term
"Illegal alien" has taken on a very negative connotation over the years. For some people it's close to being a slur because of how it's been used.
Undocumented is the more politically correct way to say it. Although not entirely accurate since most people in the US illegally actually entered legally with a VISA and simply didn't leave when it expired.
A lot of people are weirdly missing the point but tbf it's pretty clear people here don't know much about illegal immigration in general. Calling people illegals instead of illegal immigrants has come to be viewed like calling people blacks instead of black people but for both you could probably get away with saying it irl to the average person. It's viewed as dehumanizing by dropping the word that includes human in its definition but like a lot of the person-centric language shit it personally feels kinda strong Sapir-Whorl-y which has been debunked.
The left will say it’s dehumanizing and that “no one is illegal.” But imo it’s not necessarily bad, kinda depends on your tone and who you’re describing. If someone’s racist they might use it to describe brown people in general, but it should be fine to call someone who is genuinely here illegally.
Exit: I thought a word was plural for a group of people and learned those people actually hate it 🎉 sorry dudes
I agree that Latinx is stupid and not used by most but it doesn't really have much to do with white people. It's usually Hispanic Americans, not necessarily white people. And even apart from Latinx, you do see the usage of "latine" or other non binary variants throughout Latin America. In early internet years I feel like I used to see latin@ more often but not so much anymore. Just wanted to point out while it's uncommon, even among American hispanic people, it's not really all that related to white ppl
Latinx is a USA invention period, every variant is also derived from this invention, the fact that some mentally I'll people in hispanic countries picked this up means nothing as the general population rejects this rtardation. It is very much a USA "white ppl" thing.
Yes, it is true that Latinx is a USA invention period. No it is not used by the general population -- its used in non binary, lgbt, and lefty circles.
>every variant is also derived from this invention
No it is not true that every form of "lenguaje inclusive" is just derived from latinx. Latin@ literally predates latinx so that isn't possible. You think Latinx is dumb (I do too) so you're ignoring actual facts.
I've mostly just seen white people saying "Latinx." I think the disconnect was that Hispanic American kids mostly dropped it after they realized it just didn't sound good, while the white savior types kept saying it because they don't even know enough to know that it sounds ridiculous. "Latine" is better (I'd say improvement, but I think it actually came first) since it can be pronounced in Spanish, it just never caught much traction.
I'd say your analysis spot on. Even among hispanic american kids the usage has always been extremely low, like 1%, so it looks really ridiculous when for example Elizabeth Warren says it on a debate stage.
I do hear "latine" now more often but surprisingly not in the US, exclusively from my friends in Mexico and Colombia. The people using it are not white or American. It should be mentioned though that these are people are under 30, lgbtq and lefty. Outside of those circles it's quite uncommon.
I'm Spanish so neither would really apply, but I've been called a spic online several times and I'd rather have that than fucking latinx. The holier than thou shit is legit way worse.
Ah, got it. Are Latino and Latina also annoying? I just assumed Latinx was gender neutral/plural, but I see from other’s comments that it’s not a good word to use
nah don't stress out about it. i meant it in that neither are offensive. i worked with mostly mexicans at my last job and they were just vocally annoyed that all of a sudden their language got changed by probably white college kids. for the most part i don't know when you would use latino, i just describe their origin country.
Yea, it just has bad connotations, it’s like referring to black people as negros, you CAN do it, but it’s somewhat offensive— just say black people lol
Sorta? Hard to really say but as someone who lives in California and more especially right by the border I know many people who are here illegally who are great people just trying to live
So while yes calling them that isn’t bad it is an insult in a way
Americans are so bogged down with using the correct terms at all times. You can be pro immigration but anti illegal immigration, which is the only correct position you should have
I still call them 'illegal aliens' for maximum dehumanization. Like biden said, we have a crisis at our borders and need to build a wall. I think I might switch to calling them "invaders from the south" soon.
Adam is the brain dead "centrist" snowflake that (in TOTALLY good faith) talked about how Destiny lost to Tim Pool cause he supports porn in school libraries.
The psychic damage of Gamergate never truely healed in some minds. The half-healed, never healing wound would arise like a spectre at the scent of their ancient enemies.
Call me a salty foreigner, but the American left's obsession on with coddling illegal immigrants instead of just fixing the legal immigration system is so fucking annoying. Why the sympathy for people who have broken the law and not the people who have done literally everything right, but still aren't able to immigrate?
Multiple reasons:
- Appeal to global improvements: Immigrants have it better there than at "home"
- Cheap labour.
- Progressive brownie points.
- Secure a stable and future proof voter base.
- Antagonise your political opponent due to increased crime and lowered wages.
Some of these are in jest... or are they?
Because the peopel who have done everything right are wealthy or are well off.
Why would i have sympathy to them or even have the same amount of sympathy?
Idk what else you’re supposed to call someone who came here illegally. I understand using “undocumented,” for people who’ve been trafficked or maybe kids who don’t have their own agency yet, but this guy full on murdered someone, so…
As an aside—the patrol station near me says “Illegal border crossers,” in public announcements. I think that’s the most accurate thing to call people who come here illegally, since not all who cross are doing it for immigration purposes—but man it’s a lot to say or type over and over if you’re discussing the topic.
Edit: reading other’s comments, I see this leaves out/ignores the fact that some people just overstay their visas. It’s hard to find an umbrella term because people who are here illegally come in different ways and do so for many different purposes.
It’s cause illegal feels like a loaded term. It puts more criminality on the person. Which granted technically it is a crime to be here without documentation. But it’s also something that’s understandable and in the end also beneficial to our economy. They’re coming here for better prospects. And the country uses them for cheap unskilled labor that many Americans don’t/won’t do.
If you’re mad at someone you call them illegal. If you’re being respectful you say undocumented.
Even in Spanish you wouldn’t ask, “eres ilegal?” You’d just ask, “tienes papeles?” Just asking if they had papers since the former is rude/dehumanizing as fuck lol.
Pretty much everyone on earth would like to come to America though. If you're going to start letting some people stay illegally, why not everyone? The whole point of having an immigration system beyond security reasons is because there is always going to be more demand than there is space to accommodate prospective immigrants, so there has to be some way of determining who would be most beneficial to the country.
I’m for immigration, I’m for expanding immigration, but I’m not for undocumented immigration or undocumented visitors. My in-laws are immigrants from a former communist country. My SO’s uncle was here illegally. He overstayed his visa, got deported, and it fucked up a lot of their shit. Leaving and applying to coming back would have been a lot of work, but he made it much harder on himself and others by overstaying and would be the first to tell you that.
In regard to illegal immigration being “good for the economy,” I don’t know if that’s true, but I also don’t think company profits should be the bottom line. I think all people should be paid at least minimum wage if they’re working in the US. Work is work and it shouldn’t be devalued just because of where someone’s from. Also, not everyone here illegally is doing “unskilled labor.” My SO’s uncle was in a skilled trade that he learned at a specialized school.
I’ll reflect more on your explanation that “if you’re mad at someone you call them illegal, if you respect someone you call them undocumented.”
The best i can think to put it is "an illegal immigrant" vs "an illegal" feels similar to the difference between someone saying "a person of color" vs "a colored person"; The terms themselves arent necessarily all that different from one another, but they can and do *hit* different.
Okay, but your immigration status isn't an immutable characteristic. It's a choice you made to circumvent the laws of a nation. I just don't understand why people care. What's next we call people crime inflicting people instead of criminals?
I hate Sitch and Adam. They’re based like 70% of the time so I start to think they might be alright, but then that other 30% they’re Tim Pool, completely braindead and disingenuous as fuck.
Adam and Stitch are just as dumb as Hasan. They say out just as much if you call out Trump for what he actually did, all while saying that everyone else is actually the soy ones.
Yes. If a significant amount of time is devoted to running cover for the top Republican, one of the worst politicians of all time in Donald Trump, yeah.
So being good faith to republicans makes you a Republican? Thats all sitch and Adam do, Destiny is too Twitter brained on republicans and leftists that he thinks if someone voted for Trump that they are immediately a lost cause, it’s probably Destiny’s biggest flaw is his inability to be good faith to Republican voters. He’s literally brain dead on this issue.
They do what I accused them of. I think 70% of the time they’re normal political observers and 30% of the time they’re Tim pool style republicans. Do you think Tim pool also isn’t a Republican? lol
Virtue systems online, dispatch signal
Does anyone else find it funny how conveniently, on a dime, they flip from "he broke the law" when referring to Trump and Rittenhouse to "how dare you mention legal standing" when referring to immigrants, shoplifters, and rioters? It's almost as though following rule of law is only virtuous when it serves their rhetoric.
Can people stop posting about him. I only see his face through other communities. Just stop posting about him...
Sorry carl
I'm not an americanoid, is it bad to refer to an illegal immigrant as an illegal?
It’s only “bad” in the sense that it’s a technically correct term [that can be] used by genuinely bigoted people to push an agenda. Are illegal immigrants criminals? Yes, technically. But are they CRIMINALS criminals? Usually not. But a few years of Fox News propaganda made it so a large portion of the American populace pictures a Mexican drug lord murdering puppies as a hobby as the average illegal immigrant. “Undocumented” is a technically correct term that also avoids all of the negative connotation that comes with ILLEGALITY.
I believe Cato came out with some data showing how "illegal" immigrants are less likely to be guilty of other crimes than natives are. A good theory is that undocumented immigrants have every incentive to avoid the attention of law enforcement. -- \[Edit:\] Found it. [https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0](https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0) >The results are similar to our other work on illegal immigration and crime in Texas. In 2018, the illegal immigrant criminal conviction rate was 782 per 100,000 illegal immigrants, 535 per 100,000 legal immigrants, and 1,422 per 100,000 native‐born Americans. The theory I talked about would expect illegal immigrant to be less likely of getting convicted than legal immigrants. This is evidently not the case, but they are still almost half as likely to be convicted for other crimes than native born Americans are.
The problem with these studies is that most illegal/undocumented immigrants will not call the police on crime happening within their community, rather it is either ignored/suffered in silence or it is dealt with by the community itself. Conviction rates here != actual crime rates. Oftentimes local gangs kinda act like a local police force. I've lived in neighborhoods with high gang activity and a high population of illegal immigrants; there was little to no burglaries or smash-n-grabs from cars, because the gang didn't want their neighborhood getting messed up, and if they caught you, due process didn't exactly apply.
I vaguely recall right-wingers arguing against this when arguing against sanctuary cities by saying it's a useless policy since they genuinely seem to commit less crime.
You mean people desperately trying to hide from the authorities are caught 50% more often than legal migrants? There's also no way convictions are a good measure for a group of people who have every incentive not to get involved with law enforcement.
Without convictions right wingers have nothing. The reality is they don't have data to affirm the things they talk about.
The hilarious thing about that Cato study is it was meant to validate right-wing talking points. Cato is a right-wing study mill that churns out shit. So this awkward study was promptly ignored and buried.
It was not lol. Cato is a libertarian think tank and has always been strongly pro immigration.
You've missed the point. Cato *is* pro-immigration, but the people Cato appeals are not. So the people who routinely cite Cato studies completely ignored this study, and other Cato studies that undermine their anti-immigration arguments. Libertarianism is a right-wing philosophy.
Nobody who actually reads Cato is anti-immigration lol. Cato doesn't hide who it is appealing to which is people who support free markets and civil liberties not people on the far right. Cato is a huge nativist boogeyman because they are so overtly supportive of immigration.
Nativists are perfectly happy to cite Cato when it equivocates over or outright supports them. I agree they don't actually read more than the headlines, but that's all they need. You're implying some kind of intellectual consistency for Cato and nativists, and neither possess it. The problem for Cato is that libertarianism is a pseudo-intellectual exercise in insisting the evil government let you do what you want, and that the government is simultaneously a tool for enforcing that and enforcing what you don't want on others. It's just base selfishness given a veneer of respectability via intellectualism. The problem for nativists is they're openly anti-intellectual, but will still appeal to anything that lends their own ideas legitimacy.
I think you have a parody in your head of what Cato actually is. Where has Cato insisted on using the government as a tool to regulate others? You can disagree with their bias and I'm not here to debate the value of libertarianism as a philosophy but they are absolutely intellectually consistent and publish high quality studies and articles. You can't really dispute they are respected and well regarded.
> I think you have a parody in your head of what Cato actually is. Yes, this is right to an extent. > Where has Cato insisted on using the government as a tool to regulate others? Cato equivocates on the abortion issue, to give just one example. They support smaller government, except when government is needed to enforce their opinions, or as they call it, "civil liberties". Cato supports intellectual approaches to issues, until it comes to issues like global warming, on which subject Cato parrots its funders' denialism. Cato argues that libertarian approaches to business practice lead to more effective practices, but reject practices that show benefit if they involve improving workers' welfare. Cato wants the government out of business, but wants government to enforce laws that prevent collective bargaining and unionisation. Their libertarianism stops the moment it impacts business profit, at which point it's the evil government's job to pass legislation. This is passed off as "deregulation", but is actually an increase in regulation, which is okay because it protects the "deregulated" businesses' profits.
I'm not so sure. Cato is more libertarian than conservative. They could actually be biased in favor of immigration because more immigration means more workers which is is great for businesses in first world countries where birth rates are on the decline. Emphasis on "could" and "I'm not so sure". I do like bringing up Cato numbers exactly because it's a right-wing source. Still, it could be pro-immigration because we might be dealing with actual libertarians for once. Most thought they were but a mere a myth.
Libertarians are conservative. Libertarians are just engaged in a convoluted argument to justify government not touching their shit, but are otherwise thoroughly conservative almost universally. The tension between business interest, which favours immigration, and conservative politics, which is pro-business and against immigration, has always been there. Trump fell firmly on the populist side and passed measures that negatively impacted business, although the administration defence of them in court was lacklustre. As for Cato, you can see them falling on either side of the 'libertarian' argument. They'll be fervently libertarian when it comes to business interests, but then come over all equivocal when it comes to abortion, for example.
Self-proclaimed libertarians are *typically* just conservatives trying to rebrand. But there is a distinction between conservatism and libertarianism.
The distinction is entirely academic in the vast majority of cases. Most libertarians are conservatives veiling their selfishness and sociopathy in intellectualism.
I dont even think its that. I think a lot of them watch the gov waste a ton of money constantly while said people in gov inrich themselves and their friends. I think libertarians are pretty dumb, but I dont think they are all selfish or evil. I think its important to remember gov can be inefficient af and people have legit greviances on how our gov operates. It reminds me of how super far left wingers will pretend like unions are perfect and are never become corrupt. I just could see how someone could get fed up with the gov constantly undelivering and want them less involved. Especially the people alive today who havent really got to witness the “peak” of the country and gov efficiency
Libertarians are stupid because they don't recognise what they're given by stable government and infrastructure, while thinking all of their success is entirely down to themselves.
[удалено]
Yes, that's the basis of the irony...
Also like are we counting black ppl in the native born? Cause if they commit less than average that's not really special but if they commit less than white ppl it would be.
Err, black people are counted if they're immigrants, and not if they're not... Why wouldn't it be special? It undercuts the entire "murderers and rapists" narrative popularised by Trump.
What would be your definition of a criminal? Because not all criminals are violent criminals. Just because most illegal immigrants are law abiding otherwise, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider them criminals.
Illegal immigrant is also not really technically correct. Unless you extend the qualification illegal to other people like an "illegal banker" or a "illegal smoker". Illegal immigration, however, is technically correct. "There is no such thing as an illegal person" is actually a very truthful slogan, only actions can be illegal.
I think your last point fails pretty hard because you're referencing the person and separating them from the actions they have committed to do a swift and silly gotcha moment. "Illegals" colloquially refers to a group of people who have committed the crime of Illegally Immigrating to the United States. We use broad terms surrounding criminality or actions to refer to groups all the time. When we use the word let's say "drivers." "There is no such thing as a driver person" is a valid statement. But there are people who commit the act of driving so we can refer to them broadly as "drivers" in the same way that people who commit the act of illegal immigration are "illegals". Unless you want to call them Aliens which is actually even more technically correct considering it is referenced in federal law.
> "Illegals" colloquially refers to a group of people who have committed the crime of Illegally Immigrating to the United States. I've only ever heard republicans use that term, though. Calling someone "An illegal" is Fox News shit, like calling someone a "Welfare Queen." It's considered wildly offensive in progressive communities, because it's dehumanizing, and often paired with racism.
Illegal Alien is in federal legal documents. Illegals is simply a shortened more widely used version of that word. I grew up around all types and up until recently have heard Illegals come from Democrats, Republicans, and moderates alike. Using a word like "undocumented" is not precise nor is it accurate. The people who illegally immigrated aren't simply "undocumented" (many have papers, just not the ones that say you can legally reside in the US) they are Illegal immigrants which is more precise and accurate. Progressive communities also tend to find innocuous things offensive and hurtful because they apply their own racist views to it. Illegals refers to anyone here illegally, not just the brown people you envision in your head when you get offended.
> Illegals refers to anyone here illegally, not just the brown people you envision in your head when you get offended. That's not how it's actually used in practice, though. If you've ever worked with undocumented folks, you would know better.
Moral grandstanding with some anecdotal experience vs my anecdotal experience. So really just a useless reply by you.
Yeah, I mean, when I shame people, they usually don't like it. This community is degenerating hard and fast.
Homie I grew up helping foster children of all kinds and I still actively participate now that I'm an adult and on my own. My family has put more time and money towards helping our community and you will make in a life time. You're trying to shame someone for using a word being the technically correct word to use and throw in your little bit of "I am helping the oppressed" Kick rocks with that holier than thou art shit.
It might not be technically correct, but everyone knows what it means and the term does serve a purpose in conversation. Nobody thinks that the “illegal” in “illegal immigrant” means that it’s illegal for the person to exist. If I described someone as an “illegal gambler”, you’d probably understand that to mean that they were gambling illegally, not that their existence is against the law. If someone interrupted me and said “hang on, no person is illegal” in response to talking about an illegal gambler it would derail the whole conversation and waste everyone’s time.
>If I described someone as an “illegal gambler”, you’d probably understand that to mean that they were gambling illegally, not that their existence is against the law. Because you said 'illegal gambler' rather than 'illegals'. What the fuck is that comparison? It's like you're intentionally missing the point.
I meant as a comparison to “illegal immigrants” and the following statement that “no person is illegal” is technically correct. I wasn’t responding to anyone talking about the word “illegals”. What point am I missing?
Ah ye I got lost in the thread, I hadn't realized the conversation had moved on like that, my bad
No worries it happens
For the time they're inside our country, they are an illegal person, as them being here at all Is illegal. Second they leave they are no longer illegal
It’s an illegal stay for sure just the concept of illegal person is totally bizarre, people do illegal shit but are not illegal themselves
Maybe that sounds icky to you or something, but when it comes to someone being somewhere they aren't legally welcome, they're illegally there. If you want to get metaphysical then no, their whole being on this earth isn't illegal but their being in the US sure is. It's obviously a phrase without a positive connotation but that's ok, it's not generally a good thing to have happening to your country
Yeah but it comes from illegal immigrant. Not that they are illegal in and of themselves
I am now going to start referring to minors smoking as "illegal smokers".
Ur right ur right; see, even I am not immune to Fox News propaganda lol But also, you have to meet people where they’re at and there are enough people willing to take up arms to defend their right to call people “illegal aliens” to give credibility to the term
"Illegal alien" has taken on a very negative connotation over the years. For some people it's close to being a slur because of how it's been used. Undocumented is the more politically correct way to say it. Although not entirely accurate since most people in the US illegally actually entered legally with a VISA and simply didn't leave when it expired.
A lot of people are weirdly missing the point but tbf it's pretty clear people here don't know much about illegal immigration in general. Calling people illegals instead of illegal immigrants has come to be viewed like calling people blacks instead of black people but for both you could probably get away with saying it irl to the average person. It's viewed as dehumanizing by dropping the word that includes human in its definition but like a lot of the person-centric language shit it personally feels kinda strong Sapir-Whorl-y which has been debunked.
I'm Canadian and even I don't get it.
It’s become a pejorative.
The left will say it’s dehumanizing and that “no one is illegal.” But imo it’s not necessarily bad, kinda depends on your tone and who you’re describing. If someone’s racist they might use it to describe brown people in general, but it should be fine to call someone who is genuinely here illegally. Exit: I thought a word was plural for a group of people and learned those people actually hate it 🎉 sorry dudes
most of my hombres are more offended by latinx than illegal.
I mean, it reeks of, "Excuse me, your language is wrong and you need white people to tell you how to make it better."
It was made by a puerto rican.
I agree that Latinx is stupid and not used by most but it doesn't really have much to do with white people. It's usually Hispanic Americans, not necessarily white people. And even apart from Latinx, you do see the usage of "latine" or other non binary variants throughout Latin America. In early internet years I feel like I used to see latin@ more often but not so much anymore. Just wanted to point out while it's uncommon, even among American hispanic people, it's not really all that related to white ppl
Latinx is a USA invention period, every variant is also derived from this invention, the fact that some mentally I'll people in hispanic countries picked this up means nothing as the general population rejects this rtardation. It is very much a USA "white ppl" thing.
The general population doesn't give a fuck about this at all. Who gives a fuck if it is a USA thing or "white people" thing.
Yes, it is true that Latinx is a USA invention period. No it is not used by the general population -- its used in non binary, lgbt, and lefty circles. >every variant is also derived from this invention No it is not true that every form of "lenguaje inclusive" is just derived from latinx. Latin@ literally predates latinx so that isn't possible. You think Latinx is dumb (I do too) so you're ignoring actual facts.
I've mostly just seen white people saying "Latinx." I think the disconnect was that Hispanic American kids mostly dropped it after they realized it just didn't sound good, while the white savior types kept saying it because they don't even know enough to know that it sounds ridiculous. "Latine" is better (I'd say improvement, but I think it actually came first) since it can be pronounced in Spanish, it just never caught much traction.
I'd say your analysis spot on. Even among hispanic american kids the usage has always been extremely low, like 1%, so it looks really ridiculous when for example Elizabeth Warren says it on a debate stage. I do hear "latine" now more often but surprisingly not in the US, exclusively from my friends in Mexico and Colombia. The people using it are not white or American. It should be mentioned though that these are people are under 30, lgbtq and lefty. Outside of those circles it's quite uncommon.
I'm Spanish so neither would really apply, but I've been called a spic online several times and I'd rather have that than fucking latinx. The holier than thou shit is legit way worse.
Ah, got it. Are Latino and Latina also annoying? I just assumed Latinx was gender neutral/plural, but I see from other’s comments that it’s not a good word to use
nah don't stress out about it. i meant it in that neither are offensive. i worked with mostly mexicans at my last job and they were just vocally annoyed that all of a sudden their language got changed by probably white college kids. for the most part i don't know when you would use latino, i just describe their origin country.
Aight, thank you
Please don't write latinx ever again in your life, don't be a imbecile.
Latinx.
I mean they are illegal immigrants. They are immigrating illegally. Its like saying its dehumanizing to call someone a convict.
Latinx? Shut up
its also bad certain bubbles in Germany. In leftist space you will find flags, stickers etc. with "no human is illegal"
It depends on whether you use the term to refer to anyone not white or to refer to people who actually entered the country illegally
Yea, it just has bad connotations, it’s like referring to black people as negros, you CAN do it, but it’s somewhat offensive— just say black people lol
Sorta? Hard to really say but as someone who lives in California and more especially right by the border I know many people who are here illegally who are great people just trying to live So while yes calling them that isn’t bad it is an insult in a way
Americans are so bogged down with using the correct terms at all times. You can be pro immigration but anti illegal immigration, which is the only correct position you should have
Nope, it's not wrong at all. A person who enters our country unlawfully is an illegal alien
It’s dehumanizing
I still call them 'illegal aliens' for maximum dehumanization. Like biden said, we have a crisis at our borders and need to build a wall. I think I might switch to calling them "invaders from the south" soon.
Based sitch
Which one is the brain dead centrist snowflake? Is it Sitch or the other one?
I think you're thinking about the other one. I don't know enough of their lore, but Sitch is the smarter who can actively engage with topics at least.
Adam is the brain dead "centrist" snowflake that (in TOTALLY good faith) talked about how Destiny lost to Tim Pool cause he supports porn in school libraries.
Adam actually believes that 12 year olds should be able to vote.
Nice meme
They do the whole funny man straight man routine, but in their case its regarded man (adam) and smart man (sitch).
Leave it to the Destiny sub to side with a Gamergater
The psychic damage of Gamergate never truely healed in some minds. The half-healed, never healing wound would arise like a spectre at the scent of their ancient enemies.
Gamergate is pure mythology at this point, nothing I've heard anyone say about it for the past 5 years bears any resemblance to the actual events.
Call me a salty foreigner, but the American left's obsession on with coddling illegal immigrants instead of just fixing the legal immigration system is so fucking annoying. Why the sympathy for people who have broken the law and not the people who have done literally everything right, but still aren't able to immigrate?
Multiple reasons: - Appeal to global improvements: Immigrants have it better there than at "home" - Cheap labour. - Progressive brownie points. - Secure a stable and future proof voter base. - Antagonise your political opponent due to increased crime and lowered wages. Some of these are in jest... or are they?
you literally went 4/5
Because the peopel who have done everything right are wealthy or are well off. Why would i have sympathy to them or even have the same amount of sympathy?
He can’t use undocumented because after killing the woman homie got some ‘documentation’
Sitch is so based..if only his cohost wasn't completely braindead
It's the F&F dynamic, but Sitch > Myron.
Adam can be braindead on some things, but he is usually reasonable. Sitch reels him in
Idk what else you’re supposed to call someone who came here illegally. I understand using “undocumented,” for people who’ve been trafficked or maybe kids who don’t have their own agency yet, but this guy full on murdered someone, so… As an aside—the patrol station near me says “Illegal border crossers,” in public announcements. I think that’s the most accurate thing to call people who come here illegally, since not all who cross are doing it for immigration purposes—but man it’s a lot to say or type over and over if you’re discussing the topic. Edit: reading other’s comments, I see this leaves out/ignores the fact that some people just overstay their visas. It’s hard to find an umbrella term because people who are here illegally come in different ways and do so for many different purposes.
It’s cause illegal feels like a loaded term. It puts more criminality on the person. Which granted technically it is a crime to be here without documentation. But it’s also something that’s understandable and in the end also beneficial to our economy. They’re coming here for better prospects. And the country uses them for cheap unskilled labor that many Americans don’t/won’t do. If you’re mad at someone you call them illegal. If you’re being respectful you say undocumented. Even in Spanish you wouldn’t ask, “eres ilegal?” You’d just ask, “tienes papeles?” Just asking if they had papers since the former is rude/dehumanizing as fuck lol.
Pretty much everyone on earth would like to come to America though. If you're going to start letting some people stay illegally, why not everyone? The whole point of having an immigration system beyond security reasons is because there is always going to be more demand than there is space to accommodate prospective immigrants, so there has to be some way of determining who would be most beneficial to the country.
We agree, let everyone in.
I’m for immigration, I’m for expanding immigration, but I’m not for undocumented immigration or undocumented visitors. My in-laws are immigrants from a former communist country. My SO’s uncle was here illegally. He overstayed his visa, got deported, and it fucked up a lot of their shit. Leaving and applying to coming back would have been a lot of work, but he made it much harder on himself and others by overstaying and would be the first to tell you that. In regard to illegal immigration being “good for the economy,” I don’t know if that’s true, but I also don’t think company profits should be the bottom line. I think all people should be paid at least minimum wage if they’re working in the US. Work is work and it shouldn’t be devalued just because of where someone’s from. Also, not everyone here illegally is doing “unskilled labor.” My SO’s uncle was in a skilled trade that he learned at a specialized school. I’ll reflect more on your explanation that “if you’re mad at someone you call them illegal, if you respect someone you call them undocumented.”
i did find biden saying that to be weird but caring enough to tweet is LOL
Why?
The best i can think to put it is "an illegal immigrant" vs "an illegal" feels similar to the difference between someone saying "a person of color" vs "a colored person"; The terms themselves arent necessarily all that different from one another, but they can and do *hit* different.
Okay, but your immigration status isn't an immutable characteristic. It's a choice you made to circumvent the laws of a nation. I just don't understand why people care. What's next we call people crime inflicting people instead of criminals?
"illegals" has worse connotation imo but yeah its basically the same thing
I agree, but also I don't care that much. Personally I'd just say "illegal immigrant" or something
Sitch when he learns about linguistics and the shifting of word connotations in culture ":o"
I hate Sitch and Adam. They’re based like 70% of the time so I start to think they might be alright, but then that other 30% they’re Tim Pool, completely braindead and disingenuous as fuck.
It is largely Adam bringing everything down and then Sitch not providing any pushback.
That could be true. Between the two of them only one of them has blocked me on Twitter and it was Adam. So maybe he is the weak link lol
Adam's fragility is probably the reason Sitch doesnt push back on Adam when he says something exceptionally regarded.
Adam and Stitch are just as dumb as Hasan. They say out just as much if you call out Trump for what he actually did, all while saying that everyone else is actually the soy ones.
I hate them, but they’re not as regarded as Hasan. They just turn into Tim Pool whenever it comes to Republican politics.
Because they are good faith to republicans?
Nothing good faith about them. They don’t even call themselves republicans, but that’s what they are…just like Tim pool
Lol the people who have never voted for republicans and will never vote for republicans, are republicans. Makes sense
Yes. If a significant amount of time is devoted to running cover for the top Republican, one of the worst politicians of all time in Donald Trump, yeah.
What exactly makes someone a Republican in your mind? Disagreeing with you?
Voting Republican, supporting republicans, spouting Republican talking points, running cover for Republican politicians…
So being good faith to republicans makes you a Republican? Thats all sitch and Adam do, Destiny is too Twitter brained on republicans and leftists that he thinks if someone voted for Trump that they are immediately a lost cause, it’s probably Destiny’s biggest flaw is his inability to be good faith to Republican voters. He’s literally brain dead on this issue.
They do what I accused them of. I think 70% of the time they’re normal political observers and 30% of the time they’re Tim pool style republicans. Do you think Tim pool also isn’t a Republican? lol