Illegals in CA can now get driver's licenses

[energiewende]

If the US simply allowed anyone to register their citizenship the way you can register an email address, the US would have a Chinese-Indian majority by the end of the year. The barrier imposed by nature (ie. the cost of an air or sea fare) is not significant compared to the administrative barrier. Paying for a flight is not a problem if you have a >90% chance of getting even a minimum wage job on arrival. The problem is that if you get deported, you are ruined. If you get deported to Mexico, you're still in a relatively wealthy country and the cost of re-entry isn't so great.

So a system where you have to enter illegally and then hang around for 10 years favours Mexicans a lot more strongly than it favours Chinese.

[Darth Lucifer]

Illegal immigrant is not a race. Can you please point out the nation of Illegal Immigrantia on the map? No, it's a criminal status....

Epithets of all kinds are derived from things other than race. There's a whole list of them at the Racial Slur Database.

[Enigma]

Are you familiar with US immigration law? It is, if I remember correctly, retardedly hard to actually enter America as a legal immigrant, to the point where a death march through a desert seems less hassle.

I know it was always a somewhat expensive, time consuming process but I didn't know it was actually difficult to enter. What part about it is so hard?

It takes about infinitely many years to get a green card if you are Juan Ordinaries, unskilled farm laborer. Unskilled laborers, all of them, have to grab one of 10,000 green cards issued annually. His brother, with a higher education, Jesus, went to university, got a job offer from a company in the US, and will have to wait 6-10 years for his green card, with another 5-6 year wait if he applies for citizen ship. If his job offer can't wait 6 years minimum, he'll have to apply for a H-1B Visa, but those visas always are snatched up the day they become available because there are only about half as many as there are people who apply for them. And just applying for one is a hassle for worker and employer. If Jesus doesn't have a job offer, doesn't have an employer willing to help file all this paperwork, or if they loose patience with the government, he's SOL.

But what if Jesus does get his green card? Can Juan get his, now that his brother is a legal resident? Well, no he cannot-only Jesus' wife and child can apply for residence because Jesus is in the US. And if Jesus' child has grown up and gotten married, they can't apply for residence either! If Jesus becomes a citizen, then Juan has a chance-a 11 to 22 year wait, but a chance that he might just get into the US legally before he dies!

TL:DR, even if you are a doctor/engineer/software guru, the US is damn hard to get into. If you are an unskilled farmer with no secondary education, then you're functionally unable to get in at all.

It took me about three years to be able to immigrate to the U.S. from Canada and only because I married an American. I moved here in '09 and found out early this year that I had qualified to become a citizen back in '12. Unfortunately for me, it'll cost me about $700 to start the process to become a citizen. Don't have that kind of spending money ATM. On top of that, if I need to prove someone that I've become a citizen, I'll need to shell out I believe $1,000 (going by memory) for a certificate stating that I'm a U.S. citizen.

[Borgholio]

It's also a term that only the crypto-racists in California politics use. I'm sure this is a complete coincidence.

Ok care to explain that? Seriously, because I wasn't aware that having a negative opinion of the criminal aspect of someone's immigration status automatically means that one thinks they're sub-humans, inferior to us White 'Murrican Citizens, or some other undeniably racist bullshit like that.

[Borgholio]

Illegal immigrant is not a race. Can you please point out the nation of Illegal Immigrantia on the map? No, it's a criminal status....

Epithets of all kinds are derived from things other than race. There's a whole list of them at the Racial Slur Database.

I'm going to have to question the accuracy of that site. First, it doesn't list "Illegal" as a slur. Second, it has terms such as "Blue Collar" which I have never heard be used in a derogatory sense.

Upon further reading, other slurs include "Abe Lincoln, Batman, Branch Manager...Garlic Bread?" What the flipping fuck?

[Darth Lucifer]

You're missing my point. You can turn anything into a derogatory moniker, it doesn't have to be race related. Nor does it have to be on this particular list to be considered offensive. As for accuracy, it's about as accurate as what you'd find on Urban Dictionary. Which is to say questionable because there's no Merriam Webster or Oxford's Dictionary of slurs and epithets.

That's a list from around the world, so some of the words may seem bizarre. "Garlic Bread," like many other racist monikers are derived from food. I've actually heard that one used like it's original form "white bread."

re blue collar: In the past, "blue collar" also implied a lack of education but these days some blue collar workers can be formally educated, highly skilled or both. Some earn more then their white collar counterparts, so these days it's not considered an insult.

[energiewende]

"Illegal" is a contraction of "illegal immigrant", as opposed to a legal immigrant. It should be obvious why this doesn't work for other crimes: there's no such thing as a legal murderer or legal thief.

While it's nice to be nice to people, "undocumented immigrant" is simply a propaganda term used for obfuscation. No one who uses or hears it really believes that the issue is a lot of legal immigrants who just lost their visas, green cards, etc. But that is the apparent implication. This term is dishonest regardless whether you think immigration should be legal or not.

[Maraxus]

It's also a term that only the crypto-racists in California politics use. I'm sure this is a complete coincidence.

Ok care to explain that? Seriously, because I wasn't aware that having a negative opinion of the criminal aspect of someone's immigration status automatically means that one thinks they're sub-humans, inferior to us White 'Murrican Citizens, or some other undeniably racist bullshit like that.

Sure. Are you familiar with dog-whistle politics? Dog-whistle politics and/or dog-whistle racism is just a term for using words or phrases that seem innocent, but which have deep meaning to people who know what the speaker is really saying. Take the term "welfare queen" for instance. Welfare queen is a term that Reagan used over and over in his '80 Presidential run to lambaste poor folks who were supposedly gaming the system, with the obvious underlying message that the "welfare queen" in question was Black. Reagan couldn't come out and actually say that the country's problems were caused by Black women who were on the government dole, but he didn't have to. Everyone Reagan was trying to reach when he talked about "welfare queens" implicitly understood exactly whom Reagan was talking about.

The term "Illegals" is the same way. This is just my observation, but the only people who use the term "illegals" are guys who would really prefer to use some other racial epithet. They don't because they know they'd get their balls cut off in the court of public opinion. Here I'm talking about guys like the bizarrely popular John and Ken, who have said hilariously racist things in the past. I'm also talking about my dear former Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, formerly of the California Minutemen (and future losing Republican nominee for Govenor). These are all guys who use terms like "illegals" so that they can have plausible deniability when they get called on it. They can say, "Hey, I'm not talking about MEXICANS, I'm talking about illegal immigrants! They could come from Canada you don't know!" When, in reality, everyone understands exactly whom they're talking about. Just like with "welfare queens," anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together can figure out exactly what they're saying.

So please stop using the term "illegals." It's not for convenience's sake. Is it really that hard to type out an additional nine characters? Using the term "illegals" doesn't tell me anything except that you're kind of an idiot whose views can be safely ignored. And if you can't understand why people on this site don't like it when you use the term "illegals," maybe you won't understand when Governor Moonbeam crushes Tim Donnelly by 30 points come next November.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

"Illegal" is used precisely because the word not only dehumanises massively, but reduces the person to the simple state of being a crime. Its creation and spread was a very deliberate choice by people who understand how language matters.

This is the propaganda term, the one that is dishonest to use either way.

[Broomstick]

Yes. The term is "dispirate impact". An amnesty might in principle also apply to illegal Chinese and Indian immigrants, but in practice the systemic policy of kinda-allowing illegal immigration and then granting an amnesty every decade or two strongly discriminates against Chinese and Indians. The alternatives are to never grant citizenship to illegals, or to devise a more equitable system of allowing large-scale non-skilled, non-family reunification immigration.

Except the policy is NOT to offer amnesty every "decade or two". There was ONE amnesty granted, that in 1986 with the Immigration Reform and Control Act. ONE. Period. Over the entire history of the US. You defining this as some sort of on-going policy is either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation.

Also, while the bulk of illegal immigrants are from south of the US border, which immigration is aided by simple facts of geography, the next largest group after that is, in fact, Asians in most years (India exceeded China in 2005). Up until 2004 or so China contributed the largest number of illegal immigrants to the US after Latin American countries, with 200,000 Chinese coming to the US illegally in that year.

Kind of makes you wonder what the numbers would be without the Pacific in the way.

Also makes me wonder if you're pulling your facts out of your ass.

[Broomstick]

If the US simply allowed anyone to register their citizenship the way you can register an email address, the US would have a Chinese-Indian majority by the end of the year.

How would that be a net positive?

he barrier imposed by nature (ie. the cost of an air or sea fare) is not significant compared to the administrative barrier. Paying for a flight is not a problem if you have a >90% chance of getting even a minimum wage job on arrival.

People who are already here don't have odds that high of getting a job unless you're talking prostitution or some other crime.

So a system where you have to enter illegally and then hang around for 10 years favours Mexicans a lot more strongly than it favours Chinese.

Hey, moron, that's not how it works here. You don't get amnesty for just "hanging around". ONE TIME it was granted, in 1986. Never before and never since. Yes, there are people in the US who have lived here under the radar for decades. If they get caught it doesn't matter how long they've been here, they're still deported.

[Broomstick]

The term "Illegals" is the same way. This is just my observation, but the only people who use the term "illegals" are guys who would really prefer to use some other racial epithet. They don't because they know they'd get their balls cut off in the court of public opinion. Here I'm talking about guys like the bizarrely popular John and Ken, who have said hilariously racist things in the past. I'm also talking about my dear former Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, formerly of the California Minutemen (and future losing Republican nominee for Govenor). These are all guys who use terms like "illegals" so that they can have plausible deniability when they get called on it. They can say, "Hey, I'm not talking about MEXICANS, I'm talking about illegal immigrants! They could come from Canada you don't know!" When, in reality, everyone understands exactly whom they're talking about. Just like with "welfare queens," anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together can figure out exactly what they're saying.

I notice that your examples are principally from California. Here in the Chicago area "illegals" is, in my experience, used as often for Polish or Irish people here illegally as for Mexicans or other from south of the border. This is possibly because our not-here-legally population is less dominated by Latinos so the term is not quite so racially loaded in this part of the US as in the far west and southwest.

[Scrib]

You're right, there are no negative consequences to forcing people to live outside the law and maintain a permanent underclass of easily exploitable human beings. Maybe I'm just sensitive because many of "these people" are my friends and relatives, but you could lighten up the rhetoric a bit and stop calling people ridiculous things like "illegals."

Illegals is ridiculous? Do you prefer illegal immigrant? Is the shortening of words that repugnant to you?

Seriously, they are illegal no?
EDIT:

So why don't you call those who break non-immigration laws "illegals"?

We call those theives, murderers, rapists, violent offenders, etc.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Seriously, they are illegal no?

They are not illegal. They may be doing an illegal act but "doing" illegal things and "being" illegal is a very important distinction in how people emotionally react to the issue.

[Civil War Man]

You can easily expect to pay thousands of dollars and months if not years before being denied, let alone allowed into the country. Which then can take an additional 12-15 years.

To expand on this, the quickest way to become a citizen is to be either rich or have an immediate family member (ie spouse, parent, or child) who is already a citizen. If those don't apply, the process can be absolutely insane.

This chart has been posted in other immigration-related threads.

As an example from the chart, let's say you are someone with a fancy degree, like a doctor. Maybe you even graduated from an American university using a valid student visa, and you liked living in the US so much you decided you wanted to stay. In order to become a citizen through legal channels, you'd first already have to have a job offer. Then your employer would have to file the necessary paperwork to get you authorized to work in the US, conduct a job search for the position they just offered to you to make sure there are no qualified Americans who want the job, possibly pay thousands of dollars in legal fees, and be willing to potentially wait up to 10 years for your paperwork to clear before you are able to work. And that's just to get a green card.

[Borgholio]

The term "Illegals" is the same way. This is just my observation, but the only people who use the term "illegals" are guys who would really prefer to use some other racial epithet.

I'm curious, how would you know what other people "prefer"? Do they tell you in private that they said "illegal" when in fact they meant something offensive? Speaking for myself, if I wanted to say Mexican, I would say Mexican. If I wanted to be racist, I would say wetback, beaner, or something similar. I say "Illegal" because it's quicker and easier to speak than "Illegal Immigrant". Look the term "illegal" up in any major dictionary. It is not defined as a word with any racist or bigoted meaning. It is defined as a synonym to "Illegal Immigrant".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nigger

Note how the second link has emphasized "Usually Offensive" If you want to consider "illegal" offensive, go ahead. But it is not a slur where I'm from, and it's not a slur as defined by authorities on the English language.

So please stop using the term "illegals." It's not for convenience's sake. Is it really that hard to type out an additional nine characters? Using the term "illegals" doesn't tell me anything except that you're kind of an idiot whose views can be safely ignored.

You seem to be the only one on this board who seems to care more about arguing the (in)offensive nature of the term "illegals" than arguing the problem itself. Being offended at the term "illegals" doesn't tell me anything except that you're the kind of idiot who would rather bury your head firmly up your ass and bitch about semantics than argue important things such as the state of immigration law, or ways to protect illegal immigrants from exploitation.

I will use the term "illegal" whenever I damn well please. If you find it offensive, cry me a river. I use the term as a simple description. If you take it some other way, then that's your own problem.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Borgholio demonstrates some amazing misconceptions about language.

Do you legitimately, actually think that whether or not a word is offensive, harmful, and dehumanising is up to the people who write dictionaries? If the dictionary didn't include that the n-word is "usually" (lol) offensive, would you try to argue that it isn't?

The reason people argue about the language used is because it sets the very framework of discussion. When the terms used to talk and think about an issue carry such loaded meaning as the absolutely dehumanising "illegal" does, that literally changes how people see the issue. Word choices matter. Are you not aware of the existence of propaganda, or do you think it's just something Other People fall for but not you you're too clever for that kind of thing?

[Borgholio]

Any word can be offensive to an individual, or a group. Certain words such as wetback and nigger are offensive to a wide number of people, whether they're included as targets of those words or not. Certain words are offensive to individuals but not to society as a whole, for any number of reasons. "Illegal" is one of those words. I don't know a single person, aside from in this thread, who are actually offended by that term. Everybody I know uses it the way I do, as a shorthand for "Illegal Immigrant". I link to the dictionaries because I feel that if a word is widely considered offensive, then it will enter into the English language as a primarily offensive term. Earlier, someone linked to a website where "Garlic Bread" was considered an ethnic slur. That just proves my point. If only a small number of people consider a term offensive, then that's not a good enough reason to justify trying to censor the wider use of the word.

I'm well aware that some "crypto racists" (never heard the term until I started this thread, but I'll use it now), say "illegal" when they mean something else. That's not my problem. Most people I know who use the word are actually quite liberal, and use it the same way I do. I know of nobody who intends to use it in a dehumanizing fashion. My next door neighbor is a Tea-Partier. He doesn't even use the term "illegal". He thinks anybody who speaks Spanish should be rounded up and deported. Period. I certainly don't agree with him.

The only propaganda I've seen is the Politically Correct kind, where even the "proper" term "Illegal Immigrant" is redefined as "Undocumented Worker". I don't see how changing the words around makes any difference. They are immigrants who don't belong here because they did not go through the proper channels to get here. Their presence in this country is illegal, thus, they are Illegal Immigrants.

I refuse to censor myself just because a handful of people *choose* to consider "Illegal" a slur.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

It's pretty damn obvious to anyone looking in from the outside how the language used makes a difference. Look at some of the stuff you've posted previously in the thread:

"That's one of the reasons they give, but honestly I would not expect people who are criminals simply by existing here to magically start obeying the law all of a sudden. In other words, how many of them are going to run right out and buy auto insurance? I'd expect not many."
"That's...a good point. I guess when you put it that way you can't simply deny them a license just based on their criminal history. With most other criminals, however, they are still allowed to be in the country legally. I think being guilty of a crime where you aren't even supposed to be here is a bit different in that regard."

You came into this with so many assumptions that did not stand up very well to challenge yet still were there. You didn't even see "illegals" as criminals, but as something far worse, whose very existence is a crime. This makes a lot of sense when you put in the actual effort to depack the word and not just pretend language has no consequences just because as a white guy it tends not to for you.

Out of curiousity, what makes you so different from your neighbor? You keep harping on how their very life here is a crime, how they shouldn't be here, how them being here makes them somehow monsters who cannot follow laws because they're breaking one, and so on. Where's the vast gulf between you who is so angry at their mere existence and someone like your neighbor?

ps "choose to consider something a slur" lol your straight cis white guy is showing

[Borgholio]

For someone who harps on the power of words, you sure do a shitty job of reading them.

I would not expect people who are criminals simply by existing here to magically start obeying the law

Bolded the part you missed. I said that they are committing a crime by existing *HERE*, not *AT ALL*. Big difference, no?

With most other criminals, however...

I most certainly DID refer to them as criminals, and I still do. Illegal, remember?

To satisfy your curiosity, the difference between me and my neighbor is simple. He's racist and I'm not. He advocates extreme solutions to the problem, and I do not. He believes "Them damn Mexicans" are taking our jobs and are invading this country. He believes they should all be deported, whether it rips up families or not. He believes (sincerely) that we should wall off the border and machine-gun anybody who tries to cross. I don't agree with any of that.

I believe that we do need stricter border controls, but not at the cost of murder. I believe that we should enforce existing immigration laws instead of finding ways to undermine them. If existing laws are too difficult or expensive to obey (as many other posters have argued), then we should change the laws to make them more reasonable and easier to comply with. That's my position.

I came into this thread with the belief that giving illegals a driver's license is a bad idea. I felt it was just pandering to the pro-immigrant groups in order to gain votes, and that it had no practical purpose. I was proven wrong by people who had numbers that contradicted my assumption. That's over and done with.

The problem now is that the thread morphed into a discussion about how the term "Illegal" is offensive, and about how I am somehow a racist for using the term. You have not given any evidence to demonstrate the wider populace of the state, or indeed the country use the term "Illegal" in a derogatory fashion. You argue that it's offensive to some and therefore it must be offensive to all. Bullshit. You talk about the use of language, and yet you ignore those published texts that exist SOLELY for defining the fucking language? Yes, it DOES matter.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

"He's racist and I'm not".

You really do think it's that simple, don't you? Do you think your neighbor thinks he's racist? No, he probably doesn't, and he has his own example of someone whose views are just a bit different and thinks "well he's racist and I'm not". Why is your judgement of your neighbor's racism valid but not our judgement of yours? Very few people ever set out and intend to commit racist acts and spread racist views. That doesn't mean they don't do it, but it does mean "I don't consider myself racist" is an entirely useless sentiment.

I ignore the dictionary because language, believe it or not, is determined by the people who use it, not some publishing companies who write reference books. Dictionaries describe language; they do not define it. If members of a group that gets shat upon regularly feels a term used against them is "offensive" (better terms being problematic, harmful, etc) then they're probably the experts on it since they actually have to deal with it. It doesn't matter if they're only a small part of society. Do populations need to be at a certain level before they get decent treatment and have the right to decide if language used against them furthers harmful stereotyping and beliefs? (the answer is no if you're struggling here)

PS the term "illegal immigrant" was first used to slander Jews escaping Nazi Germany so even ignoring the obviously racist shortening to "illegals" the term's already on the shakiest ground imaginable.

I was just gonna cite that but really you should just read this entire article. As in actually read it. It'll do you some good.

[Borgholio]

Why is your judgement of your neighbor's racism valid but not our judgement of yours?

Because your judgement is full of shit. Not once have I advocated violence or discrimination against them. Not once did I say they're sub-human or undeserving of basic human dignity. I called them criminals because that's what they are, and it's not fucking racist to say someone is a criminal when they...gasp...have committed a crime!

My judgment of my neighbor is based on the fact he advocates gunning down immigrants as if they were varmints. I'd like to see you fucking quote me where I said anything like that.

I ignore the dictionary because language, believe it or not, is determined by the people who use it, not some publishing companies who write reference books.

Well there you go. Thank you for proving my point. You determine "Illegal" is offensive. What makes your determination more valid than my own?

It doesn't matter if they're only a small part of society.

Um...yes, it does. If one small part of society determined that "Branch Manager" was an offensive term, would they have the right to demand that the other 267,444,149 speakers of the English Language in the United States stop using the term? Well, yeah they'd have the right to demand it. Would we be obligated to actually do it? I think not. And that leads right into your next question:

Do populations need to be at a certain level before they get decent treatment and have the right to decide if language used against them furthers harmful stereotyping and beliefs?

We're not talking about decent treatment here. I agree people should get "decent" treatment regardless of their immigration status. We're talking about at what point a word should be considered offensive by the general community of the language. So far, despite asking several times, you have yet to demonstrate that "Illegal" is offensive in the eyes of the majority of the population. If one person, one single person, felt a word was offensive...would we be obligated to change the language to suit them? No it'd need to be a larger number of people. You asked me how large? I think you need to think about that one yourself.

You do raise one good point though. And read this one carefully. If the word "Illegal" has been proven to be a word that actually causes an increase in hate crimes or discrimination against hispanics, then it should be retired. If. Can you prove that the word actually causes damage?

PS the term "illegal immigrant" was first used to slander Jews escaping Nazi Germany

Link?

I was just gonna cite that but really you should just read this entire article. As in actually read it. It'll do you some good.

Read it. Several times. It's pretty much a carbon copy of other articles written by other CNN pro-immigration opinion columnists. It calls the word dehumanizing, inaccurate, and a phrase created by racists in the Republican party (partly true, actually). It also says that hate crimes increased during a period of time when immigration was being hotly discussed. Was it simply due to the use of a single word? The article says so, but fails to prove it.

Here's a counter article that might do YOU some good. I suggest you read it.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/opinion/n ... index.html

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

If only black people were "offended" by the n-word would you say then that it isn't offensive and should be used willy-nilly? After all, how dare those 40m black people try to tell us 220m white people we shouldn't use that word? We're the majority therefore we're the only ones who matter, right?

Here's a counter article that might do YOU some good. I suggest you read it.

The best part of this is that even he steps back from the term "illegal" as a noun because even he finds it a terrible thing to use.

Oops.

[Serafina]

So - all you can really take from that article is that the term "illegal immigrant" is factually correct.

Which isn't whats being debated here. The issue is with the "shortened term"* "illegal", which is very dehumanizing. Having the term "illegal immigrant" in common usage makes that "shortening"* way easier, so trying to find a replacement term that doesn't make it as easy to dehumanize people is a desirable thing.

That's the same thing as saying "oh, n-word is just another term for "black", and saying that is factually correct, so it can't be offensive." The majority of offensive terms has some kernel of accuracy in it - what makes it offensive is that you reduce the person to that negative fact by using it, and often attach stereotypes which don't apply to them to boot.


*Why put "shortening" in quotes? Because that's not all there is to this. While plenty of people probably say "illegal" solely for convenience, someone with an agenda against "illegal immigrants" certainly has plenty of motive to use it deliberately because its dehumanizing.

[Borgholio]

If only black people were "offended" by the n-word would you say then that it isn't offensive and should be used willy-nilly? After all, how dare those 40m black people try to tell us 220m white people we shouldn't use that word? We're the majority therefore we're the only ones who matter, right?

So, I ask you again, what's the minimum number? 40m out of 260m is a pretty big ratio so that makes sense. What about 20m? 10m? What about 10 thousand? 5k? How about 17 individuals? At what point do we become obligated to change how we speak to satisfy a minority? And I don't just mean ethnic minority, this goes for all kinds of people and opinions too. Like those who call the Civil War "The War of Northern Aggression". Are we supposed to re-write history to make them feel better?

The best part of this is that even he steps back from the term "illegal" as a noun because even he finds it a terrible thing to use.

And I don't use "illegal" as a noun

So when you don't have facts to use, you pull them out of your ass? Where did he say he finds it a terrible thing to use? He just said he didn't use it but never expanded on why. Don't put words into his fucking mouth.

Oh, and still waiting on the poof that "Illegal Immigrant" originated as an anti-Semitic slur.