Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Yes, I would be an illegal driver.

Wait a minute.... So you're saying that I can't call an illegal alien an illegal alien because someone else might think that a random Latin dude/gal might be here illegally? That's some impressive mental gymnastics, my friend.

But... she did enter the country illegally. So she actually is an illegal alien.

Yet I've never heard someone actually being called an illegal driver. You can drive illegally, but you don't become an illegal. Same thing here, an alien can be in the country illegally, and the phrase "alien illegally present in the U.S." is a legal term, but it does not make them an illegal human being. The action is illegal, not the person.

When you call someone an "illegal alien" it activates the stereotype, whether you intended it or not. Maybe you don't want to equate illegal with Latino, but when you say the phrase that's what people think. I don't like that it is the case, but I can't change the stereotype - all I can do is avoid it.

You also didn't know that she had crossed illegally, you automatically assumed that she did.

I'm getting all technical about this, because the details of immigration law and the way a person broke it matter. In the same way that you get riled up every time someone uses the term "assault rifle" incorrectly.

HV,

I don?t understand what you are trying to drive at here, on the one hand you seem to be excusing breaking the law (be it entering or staying here illegally) because there is no way to do it legally.

On the other you are contesting the whole idea of illegal entry/residency in the country because reasons?

What I'm trying to get at is the need to change current immigration policy in order to actually address the problem. You can deport this young girl, but you would be ignoring the larger problem with the system. I'm also criticizing people's use of the phrase "illegal alien" because it doesn't accomplish anything productive.
 
Yet I've never heard someone actually being called an illegal driver. You can drive illegally, but you don't become an illegal. Same thing here, an alien can be in the country illegally, and the phrase "alien illegally present in the U.S." is a legal term, but it does not make them an illegal human being. The action is illegal, not the person.

When you call someone an "illegal alien" it activates the stereotype, whether you intended it or not. Maybe you don't want to equate illegal with Latino, but when you say the phrase that's what people think. I don't like that it is the case, but I can't change the stereotype - all I can do is avoid it.
I'll start using "criminal alien" and "illegal immigrant" then - happy?


You also didn't know that she had crossed illegally, you automatically assumed that she did.
It's been reported that she did cross the border illegally.
 
Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

No one has ever asked an individual to pay for exclusively for another individual. What you are asking puts in question the very concept of society - am I willing to individually pay $10,000 for someone's medical procedure (or whatever)? No. Am I willing to pay $.0001 and help pay that $10,000 bill - sure, I have no problem with that.
What I am asking is are you willing to put your money where your mouth is. It?s telling indeed that you appear to think (based on your opposition to existing immigration law) US society as a whole should indiscriminately permit illegals constitutional access and open borders, but all you are willing to provide yourself is a measly 1/100th of a penny.

I need to repeat my previous statement: it?s easy to be a socialist with other peoples? money.

As I have pointed out numerous times now, it is possible for a person to enter the U.S. legally, following all its laws, and lose their status at a later stage. "
Yes, because their permits have limits on them they are made fully aware from the outset. It?s transparent, and not at all draconian. Can it happen in cases where said person files on time and things get lost in the mail? Of course, and I support means to legal recourse to remedy those situations. However, I have zero sympathy for those who a) don?t file for extension or b) aren?t granted extensions but stay anyway.

Illegal alien" implies illegal entry, and that is an assumption that cannot be proven in a lot of cases.
Ahem.

Emphases mine.
Dictionary.com said:
Illegal alien - ?a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization?

Merriam-Webster said:
Illegal alien/immigrant - ?a foreign person who is living in a country without having official permission to live there?

Cambridge Dictionary said:
Illegal immigrant - ?someone who lives or works in another country when they do not have the legal right to do this?

Legal dictionary/thefreedictionary.com said:
Illegal alien - ?an alien (non-citizen) who has entered the United States without government permission or stayed beyond the termination date of a visa?

So, no.

They may have papers, but those papers have expired. So it's not disingenuous, it simply recognizes that the complex and disparate positions of undocumented immigrants. Not all of them lack documents, and not all of them crossed illegally.
See above re: my take on those whose papers were legitimately lost. Regardless, all those people listed above by you have one thing in common: they are all in your country (wait for it) illegally.

So modern policy evolved out of nothing? It's not an evolution of previous laws and policies?
You?re getting emotional and putting words in my mouth. I neither said nor implied either of the above. Only that they are irrelevant in the existing discussion of existing immigration law. Historical context has merit when addressing any attempted changes to the law, but that?s not what I?m on about. I?m focused on the application of existing law.

You are basically saying that even if I had proof, if I gave you the list of authors and their books, it still wouldn't matter.
Yes, that is exactly what I?m saying, because a sovereign nation has the right to create immigration policy as it sees fit. Period. However, the data would still be interesting to review, so I?d certainly be grateful if you could provide it.

The cherry picking metaphor is fine, if you want to maintain that. But if that is the case, then the U.S. has to give up on pretending it is an immigrant nation. No more boasting about being a nation of immigrants, celebrating the plight of the Irish, Italian, etc... immigrants. Change the narrative to: United States of America - we choose who to let in.
You?re just language policing again. The US is clearly an immigration nation (with respectful exception made to the First Nations? peoples), regardless of who they choose to let in. Here you go trying to change the language simply because you don?t like it.

If you look it up in a dictionary, sure, the phrase "illegal alien" has no racist connotation.
Exactly.

But in the cultural context of the U.S., the phrase has been solidly attached to Latino/a immigrants. It absolutely is racist, not in its etymology, but in its contemporary application. There are multiple examples of this in YouTube videos where people interact with Latino/as and they ask them if they are legal/illegal, based on an assumption of illegality.
That?s a cultural construct, not a legal one. And said cultural construct is understandable, inasmuch as it is accurate. Although the latest research shows less than 50% of annual illegal immigration into your country is now performed via the US-Mexico border, that port of entry remains the largest source for illegal aliens over any prolonged period of time. Context is hard to erase.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the unconscious bias of thinking ?Mexican/Latino? when the term ?Illegal alien? is brought up. It is wrong, however, to act on that belief and arrest/incarcerate people solely on the basis of presuming they are illegals without any evidence apart from their skin tone or surname.

So no, contemporary use of the term ?illegal alien?, when applied by the legal definition and not just slovenly heaved in the direction of Latinos, is not racist. That would be like me crying ?racist? at the term merchant, which legally has no racist intent, but has been used previously as a pejorative for Jews.
 
Last edited:
A term ?communist? makes you think Russian, should we stop using it because it is now somehow racist? No we shouldn?t it describes a person with certain beliefs.

Term illegal alien describes a person who has broke specific set of laws. Person is not illegal, their status in the country is. People think brown folks? That?s not a reason to drop the term. It?s not a racial slur, you only treat it as such.
 
Don't you think that the illegal immigration over that border is caused in part by the limits imposed on Mexico? Wouldn't the same outcome occur if the same limits were imposed on Canada?



Let's turn this a bit. We have an "ally" that has favorable travel status with this country. There have been some problems with travelers from this country over the last few decades, yet we still allow them to travel here. The scrutiny has changed a bit over the years, but that is bound to happen when there are problems. Then there was a huge problem with travelers from this country, and I mean HUGE (say it in a Trump voice). Yet we still allow travelers from this country. The only reason we allow travelers from there is financial, the Royal Family has many investments in this country. If this country were looked at in the same way some other countries are, not only would there not be travel here, all the Royal Families assets would have been ceased. And that is outside of the problems the travelers have caused coming here.

Why isn't Saudi Arabia blocked from any travel here? Oh, right, O I L. Even though we currently import a tiny fraction of oil from there that we used to, they still get to come here. That is a true problem country that should be addressed.

We make most of our own problems at the Southern border. And the Republicans talk out of both sides of their heads while exploiting it. They want the seasonal workers to come here, it is cheap labor, and cheap labor means better profits. They also want to use this issue as way to rally the base. "we need better border controls". well, if that were true, the first border they would go after would be the mostly unguarded Canadian border. But no, them brown people take our jobs, bring in crime and drugs. It was the same when the Chinese were coming here. They found reasons to marginalize them (opium). The same play book was used with Mexicans (marijuana).


[video=youtube;Jaz1J0s-cL4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaz1J0s-cL4[/video]


EDIT:

By the way, while there has always been harsh feelings towards Mexico and Mexicans by some (again, this extends back to colonization of the Americas(see the history of Britain and Spain) ), the real change against the workers coming here started after they began to organize for better working conditions and wages in the 60s and 70s. After that, they were no better than other Union workers.
 
Last edited:
You're still missing the point. No one here is saying "screw Mexicans, they smell bad, we shouldn't allow them to come here". If there are immigration laws that negatively affect Mexican immigrants and you think that those laws are unjust, we can have a conversation about changing those laws. However, your opinion regarding current immigration laws does not take away from the fact that Mexicans are coming here illegally and staying here illegally - they are criminals, regardless of whether you agree with the laws they've broken. I don't call them criminals because they're brown - I call them criminals because they are criminals.
 
:wall:
 
Don't you think that the illegal immigration over that border is caused in part by the limits imposed on Mexico? Wouldn't the same outcome occur if the same limits were imposed on Canada?
No, because Mexico* is a shit hole and Canada is not. There is a flow of drugs (Cocaine, not weed) through the southern border along with all the fun things they bring. There is not such a problem at the northern border.

*A large number of illegals coming through are actually not from Mexico but from even shittier countries south of MX.

Let's turn this a bit. We have an "ally" that has favorable travel status with this country. There have been some problems with travelers from this country over the last few decades, yet we still allow them to travel here. The scrutiny has changed a bit over the years, but that is bound to happen when there are problems. Then there was a huge problem with travelers from this country, and I mean HUGE (say it in a Trump voice). Yet we still allow travelers from this country. The only reason we allow travelers from there is financial, the Royal Family has many investments in this country. If this country were looked at in the same way some other countries are, not only would there not be travel here, all the Royal Families assets would have been ceased. And that is outside of the problems the travelers have caused coming here.

Why isn't Saudi Arabia blocked from any travel here? Oh, right, O I L. Even though we currently import a tiny fraction of oil from there that we used to, they still get to come here. That is a true problem country that should be addressed.
While I don't disagree with a general sentiment here, but again there is just not a large influx of illegals from SA or UAE or any of those other countries, one significant reason is that there is a big ass ocean in the middle.

They also want to use this issue as way to rally the base. "we need better border controls". well, if that were true, the first border they would go after would be the mostly unguarded Canadian border.
No they wouldn't because for the umpteenth time there is not a problem with Canadians comming into the US and bringing illegal maple syrup or poutine and starting cartels.

But no, them brown people take our jobs, bring in crime and drugs. The same play book was used with Mexicans (marijuana).
It's called statistics, how many Canadian drug cartels have you heard about? You keep bringing race into it again and again despite demonstrable facts. Also as I said above it's not MJ that they bring it's cocaine and it's relatives.
 
Last edited:
Yes, because their permits have limits on them they are made fully aware from the outset. It?s transparent, and not at all draconian. Can it happen in cases where said person files on time and things get lost in the mail? Of course, and I support means to legal recourse to remedy those situations. However, I have zero sympathy for those who a) don?t file for extension or b) aren?t granted extensions but stay anyway.

In a lot of cases, a) isn't even an option.

Ahem.

Emphases mine.

So, no.


See above re: my take on those whose papers were legitimately lost. Regardless, all those people listed above by you have one thing in common: they are all in your country (wait for it) illegally.

You are citing general use dictionaries, which I'm sure would also list definitions for "nigger." I apologize for the parallel, but the point remains - just because a word can be found in a dictionary doesn't mean it is right. The actual law, the Immigration and Nationality Act, does not define the term "illegal alien." It talks about aliens who are in the country illegally, which you also point out in that last sentence above. I have no problem with that phrasing ("aliens illegally present in the country"), but they are not "illegals" as people.

That?s a cultural construct, not a legal one. And said cultural construct is understandable, inasmuch as it is accurate. Although the latest research shows less than 50% of annual illegal immigration into your country is now performed via the US-Mexico border, that port of entry remains the largest source for illegal aliens over any prolonged period of time. Context is hard to erase.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the unconscious bias of thinking ?Mexican/Latino? when the term ?Illegal alien? is brought up. It is wrong, however, to act on that belief and arrest/incarcerate people solely on the basis of presuming they are illegals without any evidence apart from their skin tone or surname.

So no, contemporary use of the term ?illegal alien?, when applied by the legal definition and not just slovenly heaved in the direction of Latinos, is not racist. That would be like me crying ?racist? at the term merchant, which legally has no racist intent, but has been used previously as a pejorative for Jews.

No, because Mexico* is a shit hole and Canada is not. There is a flow of drugs (Cocaine, not weed) through the southern border along with all the fun things they bring. There is not such a problem at the northern border.

*A large number of illegals coming through are actually not from Mexico but from even shittier countries south of MX.

I've bolded the phrases I have a problem with. When phrased like this, you both make it sound like those people are "illegal" by definition, before they even try to enter the country. Source of illegals, illegals coming through...

Their act is illegal, but their personhood is not.

You?re getting emotional and putting words in my mouth. I neither said nor implied either of the above. Only that they are irrelevant in the existing discussion of existing immigration law. Historical context has merit when addressing any attempted changes to the law, but that?s not what I?m on about. I?m focused on the application of existing law.

Yes, that is exactly what I?m saying, because a sovereign nation has the right to create immigration policy as it sees fit. Period. However, the data would still be interesting to review, so I?d certainly be grateful if you could provide it.

True. As it sees fit. But we need to evaluate these reasons and logics of exclusion in order to improve future policies. Just one specific example here, economic experts have repeatedly shown that the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. contribute more than they take, and if they were to be deported (as the law would have it), it would actually harm the U.S. economy significantly.

David Reimers's book "Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America" is an excellent start in terms of data and evidence of the racist underpinnings of contemporary U.S. immigration policy. Even though it's now a couple of decades old, it shows the evolution of U.S. immigration policy from the beginning of the 20th century, and it documents how it systematically established, often arbitrary, justifications for the exclusion of Latino/a immigrants.
 
We do live in a world where "empty barrel" is now considered a racial slur...
 
What else can "illegal alien" mean??

tumblr_obnw79n2ro1tr51nfo1_500.jpg


cdn.lolwot.com_wp-content_uploads_2016_05_10-hilariously-cheap-bootleg-products-that-will-make-you-cringe-2.jpg
 
Superman is okay. #whiteprivilege
 
Yoda has evaded capture to this point, I assume the hunt continues. :p
 
Totally not suspicious at all. Nope! No, siree...

A computer server crucial to a lawsuit against Georgia election officials was quietly wiped clean by its custodians just after the suit was filed, The Associated Press has learned.

The server?s data was destroyed July 7 by technicians at the Center for Elections Systems at Kennesaw State University, which runs the state?s election system. The data wipe was revealed in an email ? sent last week from an assistant state attorney general to plaintiffs in the case ? that was obtained by the AP. More emails obtained in a public records request confirmed the wipe.

The lawsuit, filed by a diverse group of election reform advocates, aims to force Georgia to retire its antiquated and heavily criticized election technology. The server in question, which served as a statewide staging location for key election-related data, made national headlines in June after a security expert disclosed a gaping security hole that wasn?t fixed six months after he reported it to election authorities.

WIPED OUT

It?s not clear who ordered the server?s data irretrievably erased.

The Kennesaw election center answers to Georgia?s secretary of state, Brian Kemp, a Republican who is running for governor in 2018 and is the main defendant in the suit. A spokeswoman for the secretary of state?s office said Wednesday that ?we did not have anything to do with this decision,? adding that the office also had no advance warning of the move.

The center?s director, Michael Barnes, referred questions to the university?s press office, which declined comment.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who are mostly Georgia voters, want to scrap the state?s 15-year-old vote-management system ? particularly its 27,000 AccuVote touchscreen voting machines, hackable devices that don?t use paper ballots or keep hardcopy proof of voter intent. The plaintiffs were counting on an independent security review of the Kennesaw server, which held electronic poll book data and ballot definitions for counties, to demonstrate the system?s unreliability.

Wiping the server clean ?forestalls any forensic investigation at all,? said Richard DeMillo, a Georgia Tech computer scientist who has closely followed the case. ?People who have nothing to hide don?t behave this way.?

STATE SECURITY

The server data could have revealed whether Georgia?s most recent elections were compromised by malicious hackers. The plaintiffs contend that the results of both last November?s election and a special June 20 congressional runoff? won by Kemp?s predecessor, Karen Handel ? cannot be trusted.

Possible Russian interference in U.S. politics, including attempts to penetrate voting systems, has been an acute national preoccupation since the Obama administration first sounded the alarm more than a year ago.

Kemp and his GOP allies insist Georgia?s elections system is secure. But Marilyn Marks, executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance, a plaintiff, believes the server data was erased precisely because the system isn?t secure.

?I don?t think you could find a voting systems expert who would think the deletion of the server data was anything less than insidious and highly suspicious,? she said.

J.Tom Morgan, a former Georgia prosecutor, said destruction of the drive would not be a criminal act unless it was in violation of a protective court order (It appears no such order was requested). But it could seriously damage the defendants? case, he said.

NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON?T

It could still be possible to recover relevant information from the server.

The FBI is known to have made an exact data image of the server in March when it investigated the security hole. The email that disclosed the server wipe said the state attorney general?s office was ?reaching out to the FBI to determine whether they still have the image.?

Atlanta FBI spokesman Stephen Emmett, responding to AP questions, would not say whether that image still exists. Nor would he say whether agents examined it to determine whether the server?s files might have been altered by unauthorized users.

Other backups also appear to be gone. In the same email to plaintiffs? attorneys, assistant state Attorney General Cristina Correia wrote that two backup servers were also wiped clean on Aug. 9, just as the lawsuit moved to federal court.

FAILING TO SERVICE THE SERVER

A 140-page collection of Kennesaw State emails, obtained Friday by the Coalition for Good Governments via an open records search, details the destruction of the data on all three servers and a partial and ultimately ineffective effort by Kennesaw State systems engineers to fix the main server?s security hole.

As a result of the failed effort, sensitive data on Georgia?s 6.7 million voters ? including social security numbers, party affiliation and birthdates ? as well as passwords used by county officials to access elections management files remained exposed for months.

The problem was first discovered by Atlanta security researcher Logan Lamb, who happened across it while doing online research in August 2016. He informed the election center?s director at the time, noting in an email that ?there is a strong possibility your site is already compromised.?

Based on his review of the emails, Lamb believes that electronic polling books could have been altered in Georgia?s biggest counties to add or drop voters or to scramble their data. Malicious hackers could have altered the templates of the memory cards used in voting machines to skew results.

An attacker could even have modified ?ballot-building? files to corrupt the count, said Lamb, who works at Atlanta-based Bastille Networks.

But it will be impossible to know for sure unless the FBI provides a copy of the server image for analysis.
 
Top