Drop the "I Word" Campaign

Movements like this are quite literally odd-ball reasoning where intent has taken the place of reality. As you note, the words they often want "dropped" are then reclaimed and used as forms of "empowerment" by the very communities that claimed harm by the word. It is a gigantic load of crap.

 

 

Yes, it is idiotic. Period. It is also misleading, even lying.

 

 

 

Correct. It is a word that describes their status. Maybe not who they are as human being, but "illegal immigrant" correctly and accurately describes the status of someone who has immigrated illegally into the country. While I have stated my support for far more open borders and immigration in the U.S. (sans welfare state and entitlement programs of course). This whole thing is just nuts. It is an attempt to lie and make something that is currently illegal not seem illegal.

 

 

 

Of course "undocumented" is a weasel word. But what's worse and what's missed is that there is a subtle and somewhat totalitarian implication in being a "documented" worker vs. and "undocumented" worked. The truth is that we all should be undocumented workers.

 

I actually think this is a much needed campaign. Lots of people on here often state they dislike being labeled a such and such. Labels can often just create boundaries, especially those that are negative, or are used in a negative way. In the media "illegal" is often used with the intent of dismissing or aggravating those it's used on. It's long past time that the lives of these undocumented people is given a voice. They're your neighbours for heavens sake, many of them have lived in the US practically all their lives contributing greatly to your lives. They fight and die for their country and they pay more in taxes than they consume. They are driven like your ancestors were to build a better life and like your ancestors that opportunity builds a love and respect for the US. If all you do is put them down, get angry with them and try and ruin their lives, your not only showing a gross disrespect to your country but to yourselves too. 

 

The laws need to catch up and make these immigrants whole, like they deserve. 

 

 

Here's an extract from one of these people who's no longer willing to give in to the stereotypes-

 

 

"My Name is Dulce Guerrero and I am an undocumented student from Georgia.  I came to the United States at the age of 2 along with my parents who were in search of a better life for my brother and I. I am now 19 years old and I have been living in Mableton, Georgia ever since.

 

 

 

Learning about one's undocumented status at such a young age can be a heart breaking moment. Feeling alone in this situation only makes it worse.  There have been many students who have decided it was better to take their own lives before living in this reality. This is one of the many reasons why I decide to share my story every chance I get.  Being able to reach out to someone and find that much needed support is a huge part of being mentally healthy in this movement. If we are going to help others we must first help ourselves. UndocuHealth is a project of NIYA and was created in honor of all those undocumented youth who we have lost throughout the years due to depression and mental health issues.  An issue that is not spoken about openly, but that is very real. UndocuHealth seeks to support students who might be facing these types of challenges.  Students can find more resources and reach out to other undocumented youth who are going through the same situation at undocuhealth.org. UndocuHealth also has a hotline in the works for the near future where undocumented students can call at any time and talk to other undocumented students about what they are feeling.  We realize that no matter what state we live in, we are in this together because no one fights alone!

My name is Dulce, I am a Strong and Beautiful Undocumented Leader; I am Not "illegal.""

~ http://colorlines.com/droptheiword/blog/i-am-a-strong-and-beautiful-undocumented-leader.html

Edited by Hands Sandon - 4/30/12 at 7:23am

 

 

The issue here though is the label is an accurate descriptor of their status or what they have done. It's like calling someone who lies a "liar" or someone who steals and "thief."

 

While I am a supporter of more open immigration, I wonder if dropping the labels is the proper route to that.

 

 

 

On that last point you may be making an assumption. I'm certain that some of them, maybe many, even a majority are net tax payers. But this is hard to know. One thing is certain is that the number of net tax recipients is growing in this country. I doubt that this is primarily immigrants though. In fact we might benefit from a greater influx of immigrants who would rather work and contribute to society than sponge off it as many people in this country do.

 

 

 

I agree that's what most of them are doing, and I would favor more open immigration laws. But, as I've said, I'm not sure that dropping the label is the right way to achieve this.

 

 

 

I agree, the laws need to change. But I'm not certain that simply denying the label is the right path forward. Let's change the laws. Let's make immigration more open. Let's also get rid of all free-riding programs that they or U.S. citizens can exploit. If we do that, then I think we can have all the immigration we want and the country will be better off for it.

 

In conclusion, I'd argue that there are certainly some laws that are worthy of being broken (read aup on the concept of malum in se vs. malum prohibiitum for more on this) and civil disobedience is a proper course of action. But in those cases the disobeyer would be better off claiming the label and using it to bring light to the injustice or immorality of the law being broken. It could be someone standing up and openly saying "I'm an 'illegal' immigrant...I love what America stands for (or used to anyway)...and here's how I contribute* to my community more than I take from it..."

 

*I'm not talking about paying taxes because I don't give a shit about that. I'm sick and tired of everything being about whether someone is paying taxes or their "fair share" or what not. It's actually rather disgusting in a country that was founded basically on a tax revolt! I'm talking about contributing to society. That's not the same thing as paying taxes.

 

Edited by MJ1970 - 4/30/12 at 8:27am

I support the Dream Act and support helping students and young folks like the one giving their personal story below.

 

Labels do create boundaries. However in this case they are describe accurate boundaries because they are discussing those who have come to the country in an illegal manner. Illegal is a negative thing. We define it as such in hopes that people will feel compelled to engage in legal acts. It's almost like we build all those jails, prisons and have those law enforcement officers for a reason.

 

 

 

This claim cannot be proven and deals more with intent in the mind of someone viewing the news than in the actual reporting. Any topic can be spun but when legitimate words are given "dog whistle" status, then dialog also becomes impossible because it must involve language and words of common meaning. Intentions cannot replace conversation.

 

 

 

There are several incorrect assuptions within those statements. First they aren't often your neighbor. In keeping closer ties and often sending remittances home to native countries, this population often chooses ethnic enclaves and a denser level of housing than is typical. Second the claim about contributing more than they take often assumes that the services they utilize are only used or rendered to their children who are declared U.S. citizens even when they may not be. However if an illegal immigrant has applied for food stamps as an example and qualifies because their child is a U.S. citizen, the study would declare that illegal immigrant to not be receiving any money from the government. Instead it is their child, the citizen who is receiving services and thus they are not a burden. Reality is different though. They are a burden in that they cannot provide for their children and are making demands through their children.

 

Look at how much of your argument has nothing to do with numbers but deals only with feelings and intentions. The law doesn't stop being the law because someone dislikes a label. It doesn't stop being the law because someone feels disrespected or might even feel hated. The law is the law and it should be BLIND.

 

 

 

Four more years of Obama and the laws won't matter anymore. Mexico will be building fences to keep Americans out since not only will the tide of immigrants have started returning to Mexico as news reports already report, and also since the Mexican economy is growing faster than the U.S economy, but Americans that aren't looters will be fleeing for greener pastures. 

 

 

 

Dulce is stuck in the middle but not really. She has every opportunity to go back to the country where she has citizenship and is a national to try to build a great life for herself. That said, even with the mistakes her parents have made on her behalf, I would support a path to citizenship for her but the path must involve college with degrees in certain fields or military service from my view. We don't need more community activists. We do need more computer scientists. When someone comes legally, they must be sponsored and the sponsor must show they will not be a societal burden. We do not need dependent, depressed and more people with mental health issues. Mistakes can be fixed with service. If they cannot serve then they must resolve their status by going back to the country where they already have citizenship.

It's the use of the term 'illegal' as a noun rather than an adjective. My guess is that most of us here have committed an illegal act. Are we all "illegals?"

 

 

First, while I agree that no human being is "illegal" it is also patently disingenuous to fail to recognize that the people who use the term "illegal" as a noun in this particular case are using it as a short-hand expression for someone who has entered the country illegally. While I personally, prefer to be more precise in my wording, I suspect this campaign would cringe and oppose my referring to someone who has illegally entered the country as an "illegal immigrant" just as much as if I said they were an "illegal."

 

Second, while you're correct that we have undoubtedly all done something illegal (some claim the average person cannot get through the day without (mostly unknowingly) breaking 3-4 laws or regulations) I think most would agree that there's a marked difference between someone that unknowingly or mistakenly does something illegal and someone who deliberately and persistently does something illegal. Someone who is living in an illegal status with regard to the laws of a particular area might be considered an "illegal"...or perhaps an "outlaw" as they are living outside the law.

 

For example we don't call someone who has an occasional alcoholic beverage an alcoholic but someone who persistently and regularly drinks and abuses alcohol (or drugs) is called an addict.

 

We might not call someone who has lied once or twice or told a "white lie" a liar, we would certainly call someone who lies regularly and continues to lie a liar.

 

And so on.

 

 

A nice summary. Similarly, one would be considered a 'refugee' if they were fleeing, say, a war in their home country. Should they decide to simply permanently settle where they are now instead of returning, they cease to be a refugee. Should an illegal immigrant decide to take the tests and get the citizenship, they cease to be an illegal immigrant.

I just looked at this site and... come on, this has got to be a parody site, created by The Onion. UndocuQueer? My bet is that it was in Andrew Breitbart's will to put this up.

Technically, undocumented people are in the country illegally, so the term 'illegal immigrants" is a fair descriptor. And it is a double standard that some folk - especially those from south of the US Mexico border  seem to think that they are a special case in that they play the race card at the first opportunity, while others take the time and considerable expense (immigration lawyers are very expensive) of doing the right thing.

 

On the other hand, there is pressure exerted by parties, especially in big agribusiness, for profit motives, to bring illegals/undocumenteds over the border to work the fields at less than minimum wage to bring cheap produce to the dinner table. In towns adjacent to the border, billboards can be seen advertising everything from the services of "coyotes" to employment and a better life in the US. Employers of illegals seldom get busted, despite the fact that millions of illegals are working in the US.

 

Those who originally settled in the US were immigrants, and arrived without documentation - obviously. At what point in US history did this change? Most of us - barring native peoples - are the descendants of "undocumenteds".

You don't understand that when I engage in actions like this and you call them illegal, it is only because you are hateful and use racist slurs.

@trumpton

 

This is a mind boggling retarded classic!!! Your folk are all for minimising taxes for the rich. Take advantage of any loophole and the rich are just doing what anyone else would do in their position. But if one of these sinister little Mexican peasants dares to avoid paying taxes, indeed gets money back, like so many US corporations, scream about it, till they're all bused home and liberals are excluded from the patriotic ranks of American society.

 

The fact is illegal immigrants use about 50% of the tax dollars of legal immigrants. Look it up. 

 

I'm not for any of the scamming personally, but I sure look forward to you and your folks screaming about...

 

"When it comes to dodging taxes, no company is more skilled than General Electric. As The New York Times reported last year, the company employees 975 tax experts, many of whom used to work for the IRS or the Treasury. From 2008 through 2010, it spent $84 million lobbying Congress. The money was well spent: despite making $10.5 billion in U.S. profits over the three years, GE paid no federal taxes and got $4.7 billion back in rebates." ~ http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2012/02/23/the-top-ten-corporate-tax-dodgers.html

Edited by Hands Sandon - 5/3/12 at 3:55pm

@ mj1970-

 

I had to look up the Latin term and came across this, that perhaps you would agree with. The term "illegal" is clearly being used to mould opinion, it's an abuse of the Mexican's and the word. 

 

 

"Looked at differently, to call "criminal" those persons whose only offenses are merely malum prohibitum is unfairly and inappropriately to tar them with the scorn and wariness that is deserved only by persons who commit genuine offenses against others.

And such language clouds and confuses the political debate.  Because most persons understand the word "criminal" to indicate an individual who, to one degree or another, is harmfully anti-social, calling immigrants who are in the U.S. without official government permission "criminal" gives the impression that these people are all harmfully anti-social.  But that impression is emphatically false (unless you include in your definition of "anti-social" the desire for a better life and willingness to compete for jobs).

There is a legitimate debate over how open America’s borders should be.  But that debate today is far too soiled by those persons who think that merely calling "illegal" immigrants "criminals" settles the matter.  It does not.  "Illegal" immigrants are "criminals" only because government policy declares them to be — in the same way that persons openly practicing Christianity or Judaism in Soviet Russia were "criminals" only because government policy declared them to be.  The contours and specifics of this policy are precisely what is at issue in the debate over how widely open U.S. borders ought to be.  This debate should be on the economics and the national-security issues raised by immigration; it should not be confused by the confusing (and often self-serving) application of the term "criminal" to persons who come to America without Uncle Sam’s permission — permission that is very difficult to get."

~ http://cafehayek.com/2007/05/malum_in_se_mal.html

Edited by Hands Sandon - 5/3/12 at 3:49pm

@ sammijo

 

They were documented... they had their Bibles. ;)

From what I've seen the majority of UndocuPeople (ha) pay income and payroll taxes because it just comes out of the paycheck - and they won't be getting that social security or medicare when they retire, so they're paying more than they'll get back. And of course they pay sales taxes and property taxes and the like. If they have kids in public schools, they're paying for them just like any other property owner via property taxes, and if they're renting then they're not paying for the schools just like any "legals" who are renting.

 

I think most economists would say that immigration - legal or illegal - is an economic benefit to the country. In the end, to most people it's probably more a matter of the racial makeup of the country than the economics of it.

 

If you look at that (crazy) website, they object to the use of the term "illegal" as a noun, as if they're describing the entire person as illegal.

Pardon me, SDW, but you are spewing logorrhea from your asshole.  Illegal immigration has declined and many are heading back home.  Furthermore, your ER story is just another example of why RONALD REAGAN'S solution of socializing medicine (preventing ERs from turning away patients) didn't go far enough.  If we had universal healthcare for all, legal or not, the costs wouldn't be so outrageous.  

It's pretty easy to spot hatred over rational thought when people, like SDW is doing, uses blanket statements. Here's just some of what they ignore-

"Unauthorized immigrants are disproportionately likely to have low incomes, and although most of them work, they are even more likely than LPRs (46 percent) to work at small firms that do not provide insurance. As a result, most unauthorized immigrants (6 million working-age adults and 660,000 children) are uninsured, accounting for 15 percent of the overall uninsured. Yet it is not widely recognized that 31 percent of unauthorized immigrants (some 3.2 million working-age adults and 460,000 children) already have employer coverage."
~ http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/healthcare-Oct09.pdf

They also pay, like generations before them, into the system through taxes, whilst what they get back is only half what an authorised immigrants receives. They're being ripped off. You would have thought that with the US's long history of immigration and discrimination, especially towards the Irish and Africans, that these hateful views would be a very small minority, but sadly they're still widespread. Sadly a portion of the population will never learn and will continue to create fear and immense suffering, always ready to serve their racist masters who delight in utopian goals for their own kind.

Are you denying that Reagan is partly responsible for the increased healthcare costs due to his half-measure of socializing only the ERs?

 

I would have no trouble believing that that's actually true, because whenever the government gets involved with something the more costly it gets. This happens repeatedly. So often in fact that it's almost a proverb at this point.

 

The problem here is that you propose the government get more involved. That will only make things worse.