In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 878
Online now 558 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Oh well in that case, nevermind.
classlessthug: I have too much on my plate to worry about the fact that my junk intimidates some needle D undergrad.
No one is suggesting that all Hispanics are Mexican.
And your link shows that if you are going to guess an illegal immigrants ethnicity, your best bet is guessing Mexican. 6.6 million come from Mexico, the next closest country has .6 million.
Agreed. This is actually the first time I get involved in one (domestic politics). lol. However, if it comes to foreign affairs then I may have a thing or two to say since that's my field.
Wow. This is NOT roomy!
All I'm saying is that "illegal" status is a technical, legal term. The kid who's brought in illegally by his parents is still illegal, even though he can't be held responsible for it.
And just to reiterate, this is all entirely separate from the disparaging remarks people make about illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, etc. It's a legal status issue, regardless of who's fault it is or isn't. Whether someone is illegal or not is important in how/if/when they are eligible or qualified for certain things, so that's why it's important to distinguish illegals from legals.
"Staying here? What, did that Mexican throw you out?"
"She’s not 'that Mexican,'' Mom. She’s my Mexican. And she’s Colombian or something. Anyway, it’s over."
"You’ve got three days."
"Hey... if I can’t find a horny immigrant by then, I don’t deserve to stay here."
"Maryland football: Where everybody gets hurt and the starting left tackle has an existential crisis."
I don't think anyone can fault a kid brought here illegally at 3 yrs old, like in the example EAM gave, it is simply a legal status issue.
I get all that you're saying, but when you hold tight to "it's a legal term" mantra, there are societal implications to it. I'm not even saying I'm for or against the name change, but simply saying it matters only in legalities as opposed to overall perception, I can't agree with that.
This post was edited by OttoMaddox 12 months ago
[Once again, I'll preface this by saying I hadn't given this much thought until yesterday and don't feel strongly about it...]
Having said that, I think it's worth reflecting on why "illegal" is used to describe people, rather than conduct, when it comes to the immigration issue...something we almost never do in other circumstances. The AP Guide is not saying there is anything wrong with you referring to "kids brought in illegally," as you do above. That describes conduct. They are suggesting, however, that referring to people as "illegal" might have some intrinsic connotations involved that we should try to avoid. And upon reflection, I think there is at least some minimal merit to that.
Food for thought:
1. Note how you never said (and people almost never say) "illegal kids." We almost always say "kids brought here illegally" or some variant. Isn't that exactly what the AP is suggesting we do here? And is it so crazy to think that perhaps, at least partly at some subconscious level, we rarely say "illegal children" because we know how that sounds and we view children as less morally culpable when it comes to this and other issues?
2. If someone was to say "John is an illegal," people would immediately and almost universally translate that in their heads (even if that person does not have an immigrant-sounding name) to mean "John is violating our immigration laws." Note how we almost never do that in other contexts and we almost never describe other human beings who violate other laws as "illegals"...we only refer to their conduct. Put differently, there is something intrinsic that goes on in these discussions that is more than just "either they are breaking the law or they are not." When you hear John is an "illegal," you would never assume that John is breaking any of the hundreds of thousands of other laws...you are trained to assume that he is breaking our immigration laws. Whether someone complies with our tax laws, welfare laws etc. is also important to how/if/when they are eligible or qualified for certain things, but we'd never refer to people breaking those laws generally as "illegals."
Note how, once again, in instances where we fault people less, we follow the AP suggestion of saying "kid brought here illegally." I've never thought much about it before, but worth some self-reflection on why if "it is simply a legal status issue," we don't naturally say "illegal kid."
So it's not PC anymore?
IMO, they're doing what they should be doing in noting the illegal status (by writing the term "brought here illegally"). It's a term to note immigration outside of the law. It's really the same thing. You can say "illegal kid" if you want, but that's pretty awkward and might be misconstrued.
If you were to say "illegal immigrant kid" or some variant, I would automatically A) know what you are trying to say, and B) pretty much assume his parents are a lot more responsible than the kid is for the illegal status.
Even though emotions and thoughts might form in peoples' heads when they hear certain terms, those thoughts and emotions shouldn't be applied to the simple definition of a word denoting legal/illegal status.
Isn't it true that just coming into the country without the proper visa or other documents is actually a civil offense and not a criminal one? I know deportation is a civil proceeding rather than criminal. Makes the word "illegal" somewhat inexact. They're violating immigration laws, but generally they have not committed a crime.
ehh...I see what you're saying, but I guess simple things like "illegal U-turns" are common parlance, whether it's technically correct or not.
"Illegal U-turn" describes the conduct, not the person making the illegal turn. If a traffic cop stops a person driving illegally without a license, he doesn't call-in the station to report that he caught an illegal. If someone tries to sneak into a bar illegally at the age of 20, a bouncer is never going to refer to that patron as an illegal. Etc.
Isn't that EXACTLY what the AP is suggesting? The article linked in the OP quite literally states: "Acceptable variations include entering a country illegally...". How are the people referred to in your post "doing what they should be doing" but the AP's suggestion is this hugely objectionable thing?
Its not like the AP is suggesting removing the word illegal or trying to soften it or using some awesome-PC sounding word to replace it. They have no problem using the word illegal, including using it to note immigration outside the law. They are simply suggesting that "Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration..."
So what's the problem? This seems like something being pretty much overblown by the "OMG THE LIBERAL PC ESTABLISHMENT IS OUT TO GET US AGAIN!!!" [NOT suggesting that's you...]
This post was edited by terps99 12 months ago
It's still PC. It just not allowed in anything that requires you to use a style book. So unless you're a journalist or writing a term paper in an English class, it has no effect on you.
I think I understand your objection (correct me if I'm misunderstanding you): You're not Mexican, and you don't want to mistaken for/confused with people from Mexico. And I'm inferring that you're also saying that 'not all Mexicans (or other Hispanics) are here illegally' (which is true.)
Is that correct? I don't think the poster that you're quoting was saying that 'all Hispanics = Mexicans = illegal', though. He could have been a little clearer, but I don't think that would have made you happy, if say, he'd said:
"Ten years from now, Mexicans here illegally who are still in country will be referred to as 'Immobile expatriates."
Neal's question was about criminal/civil.
And my point is that calling someone an illegal immigrant is describing their conduct/action. That's why I think this whole thing is dumb.
This post was edited by frode 12 months ago
I think you're generally correct, but there's a HUGE difference in what was actually said and what you think would have meant the same thing if said more clearly. The qualifying factor of illegality is removed!
It's like someone saying ""we need to be careful of blacks," others taking offense, and someone else suggesting the statement could have been more clear because the speaker actually meant to qualify it by saying "we need to be careful of blacks committing illegal acts."
And my point is that you'd never describe other conduct/action by calling the person engaging in that conduct illegal. No one has ever said that someone under 21 was an illegal drinker. This whole thing is dumb indeed, but when I thought about it for a second, it did seem to me that this is the only instance where people continually refer to the person engaging in that conduct as illegal, and I thought it was interesting that this was the case. (Note: I am including myself in this category of people. I, too, say illegal immigrant.)
No one. I think people are just flying off related to their own individual hot buttons. Even the linked report shows that 2/3 of the not-illegal-but-still-illegal immigrants are from Mexico, so of course the not-illegal-but-still-illegal immigrants from Mexico are going to be (and should be) the focus of the issue.
If they can read/speak English well enough to actually be offended by the term "illegal immigrant," that would solve some of the problems related to providing services to them.
Do you know what "in country" (being Mexico,) and "expatriate" mean?
My brevity has caused some confusion. Let me try again... Mexican citizens still living in Mexico will be referred to as US citizens temporarily living in Mexico because they haven't made it here yet.
I hope that helps.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by WTF 12 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports