Thread: It really ought to be illegal (Ruben Navarette)

SAN DIEGO — Those on the pro-immigrant left have shown considerable courage in taking on Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Minutemen vigilantes, border walls and an endless supply of lame immigration enforcement measures. But there's one thing that makes them tremble: the word "illegal."

That's what occurs to me whenever I hear the slogan: "No human being is illegal." It's the creed of the immigrant rights movement — a cause for which I'd have warmer feelings if it called itself "the immigrant responsibility movement." Americans often demand their rights while ignoring their responsibilities. Immigrants would do well not to adopt those ways.
No human being is illegal.
That's nice. It's also nonsense. Of course, we can do without referring to human beings as "illegals." Even in the shorthand, adjectives are best not used as nouns. The term "illegal aliens" is even worse since it intends to dehumanize a whole group of people, perhaps to make it easier for the rest of us to mistreat them.
But the fact is, these people did break the law, either by entering the country without permission or by remaining here without permission once their visas expired.
Granted, technically, they're not all criminals. As any Border Patrol agent will tell you, not everyone who crosses the border uninvited has committed the same kind of offense.
Still, in all these cases, it is accurate to refer to these people as illegal immigrants. After all, in getting here or staying here without permission, they did something that was against the law. Reluctant to accept this uncomfortable truth, the left prefers euphemisms intended to make the violation seem less serious.
Now, thanks to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one euphemism has recently found its way into the annals of the Supreme Court. Her first opinion on the high court came in a case called Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, which involved a business accused of employing illegal immigrants. The first Latina on the Supreme Court preferred the term "undocumented immigrant." According to The New York Times, this was the first time that a Supreme Court justice had used that expression. Other justices had gone with "illegal immigrant."


Sotomayor's choice of words got plenty of tongues wagging. The right-wing group Judicial Watch griped that Sotomayor was "keeping with her race-conscious and activist judicial philosophy" by describing illegal immigrants "in a more friendly and politically correct way." But left-wing Latino blogs applauded Sotomayor for making a positive contribution to the court by adding "humanitarian language" to its proceedings.

There are conservatives who, during her confirmation process, accused Sotomayor of promoting an "ethnic chauvinism." And there are liberals who had hoped that she'd provide a fresh viewpoint and champion the oppressed. Now both sides are insisting that they were right all along.
I supported Sotomayor's nomination because she is eminently qualified for the position she now holds. But on the issue of terminology, we part company.
I've been writing about immigration for more than 15 years, and I have often defended those who lack legal status. Yet I almost never use the term "undocumented immigrant." When I do, it's usually on second reference. For me, the preferred term is "illegal immigrant." And, frankly, I think the whole debate amounts to a silly waste of time and energy.
Sotomayor obviously feels differently, and I respect that. She has the prerogative to use her term, and I insist on the prerogative to use mine.
Apparently though, that's not good enough for some left-wing activists. After my recent column that criticized Democrats for trying to deceive Latinos into thinking that they support immigration reform when what they really support is their own re-election, a leader of an immigrant rights group agreed with the premise but still found room to quibble about — of all things — my choice of words. He wrote: "I wonder why you keep using the word illegal after all these years of anti-immigrant speech that have included this word to criminalize our communities."
Maybe because the term fits. For my part, I wonder why some people insist on making an already complicated issue even cloudier by engaging in semantic wrangling and denying the obvious

http://www.theleafchronicle.com/article ... /912300342


Sorry

And, frankly, I think the whole debate amounts to a silly waste of time and energy.



I could not agree more.

Personally, I'm also quite fed up over the dickering back and forth....from both sides of the issue quite frankly.....about what terminology is used to describe these people.

Illegal alien, illegal immigrant, undocumented immigrant, undocumented alien.....who cares? It all has the same meaning.

It doesn't even really matter how Sotonightmare phrased it. Did she do so to make herself feel warm and fuzzy? To keep the pro-illegal pitbulls lulled into the same warm fuzzies and to protect her political posterior? Doesn't matter.....in reality she was calling these people exactly what they are...... people who have no right to be in this country. Even those on the pro-illegal side of the issue see that and been critical of it, viewing her now as a political sell out who has turned her back on those who, allegedly, are responsible for her success in life.

Why keep getting caught up in the distraction caused by fighting over terminology? That's just what their advocates want....as long as they can keep things focused on all of this nitpicky little nonsense which has nothing to do with the bigger issue, the longer we allow them to avoid having to justify and defend their positions on the bigger issue which they can't because there is NO justification or defense.

Arrest and deport can work.

Hmmm....our constitution, you know, that thing that all politicians and justices have sworn to uphold, defines those that enter our country illegally as "illegal aliens." I guess once again that the constitution is just a piece of g**d*** paper.

Originally Posted by avenger

Hmmm....our constitution, you know, that thing that all politicians and justices have sworn to uphold, defines those that enter our country illegally as "illegal aliens." I guess once again that the constitution is just a piece of g**d*** paper.

Of course not. And.....believe me, I'm no fan of Naverrette's....I don't think that was his point. At least I didn't read it that way.

I think his point was.....for whatever his particular reason might be....similar to mine which is to just stop bogging this issue down in all of the wrangling over words.

To give you an example of what my point was anyway.....as a puppy, my dog, a Jack Russell shorty, came into a home where we had cats. She began acting like a cat and still, to this day, 8 years later, will not touch dog food, sleeps on the window sill and her bed is the cube at the bottom of the cat tree. SHE thinks she's a cat, and we even jokingly say things like "Here kitty, kitty" which she responds to.

BUT, when she goes to the vet for her shots or other treatment, does it matter one bit that she thinks of herself as a cat or that I refer to her as being a cat because that's what makes HER happy and as her advocate I will do anything to make her happy and comfortable.....can the vet treat her as a cat?

Well that's a big no because legally she's a dog. I could stand there arguing with the vet all day, insisting upon him calling her a cat and treating her as such because if he doesn't she might take offense and have to face a harsh reality about herself. It wouldn't make a bit of difference.....under the law she's a dog. Period.

And I don't know what Rueben was driving at but that was my point....let's stop playing into the pro-illegal's distraction from the REAL issue. Let's just call their bluff, let them know that's it time for them to put up or shut up, and watch them fall flat on their faces because they can't make their case which is why they bog things down in all of this "non-issue" crud to begin with.

To give you an example of what my point was anyway.....as a puppy, my dog, a Jack Russell shorty, came into a home where we had cats. She began acting like a cat and still, to this day, 8 years later, will not touch dog food, sleeps on the window sill and her bed is the cube at the bottom of the cat tree. SHE thinks she's a cat, and we even jokingly say things like "Here kitty, kitty" which she responds to.

BUT, when she goes to the vet for her shots or other treatment, does it matter one bit that she thinks of herself as a cat or that I refer to her as being a cat because that's what makes HER happy and as her advocate I will do anything to make her happy and comfortable.....can the vet treat her as a cat?

Well that's a big no because legally she's a dog. I could stand there arguing with the vet all day, insisting upon him calling her a cat and treating her as such because if he doesn't she might take offense and have to face a harsh reality about herself. It wouldn't make a bit of difference.....under the law she's a dog. Period.

Azwreath, if that is not just simple common sense, sprinkled with just enough sarcasm make me ROTFL, I love your analogy!

Poor dog, thinks he is a cat!

PS, be careful of leftist leaning veterinarians. Poor dog would be at their mercy!