• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SOTU, so what?

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
"Migrant" is a sanitized PC term.
They're "illegal migrants", "illegal immigrants", etc.
"Illegal" is an accurate term, even if it offends the left.
They're typically not even a different race.
If they are indeed "illegal". Right now it appears that well over half of border crossers are those seeking asylum. They are not illegal if they turn themselves in and apply for asylum. And of those over 70% will be granted refugee status.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
"Migrant" is a sanitized PC term.
They're "illegal migrants", "illegal immigrants", etc.
"Illegal" is an accurate term, even if it offends the left.
They're typically not even a different race.
And when they illegally cross the border to come here, seeking asylum or not, they are illegal immigrants.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I'm only talking about illegal immigrants. So are most conservative people. But for some reason (gee, what could it be?) other people insist on calling them all "migrants." They are not all legal migrants. Most people I know, maybe even all the people I know, don't have any issue with LEGAL immigration. It's the ILLEGAL immigration they have a problem with.
Migrants includes all categories, both documented and undocumented. Their status is an additional consideration. We know “illegal” is an emotional reference.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
It's a real category of people. My only issue is with people who are here illegally, so I clarify.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If they are indeed "illegal". Right now it appears that well over half of border crossers are those seeking asylum. They are not illegal if they turn themselves in and apply for asylum. And of those over 70% will be granted refugee status.
If they bypass the legal process, they're "illegal".
This would have been so, even if they later
become legal.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Most immigrants who are coming across the border seeking asylum come across at legal points of entry, from my research.

Also, immigrants seeking asylum can be considered to be children up to age 21.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
And when they illegally cross the border to come here, seeking asylum or not, they are illegal immigrants.

It's a real category of people. My only issue is with people who are here illegally, so I clarify.

If they bypass the legal process, they're "illegal".
This would have been so, even if they later
become legal.
I am legitimately curious. Accepting for the moment the premise that these people are referred to as "illegals" because they did something that was illegal, why don't we refer to other people who do illegal things by the same term?

Should we refer to anyone who has committed tax fraud as an "illegal"? Or if you commit a traffic violation, does that make you an "illegal"? Is every person who jaywalks an "illegal"?
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I am legitimately curious. Accepting for the moment the premise that these people are referred to as "illegals" because they did something that was illegal, why don't we refer to other people who do illegal things by the same term?

Should we refer to anyone who has committed tax fraud as an "illegal"? Or if you commit a traffic violation, does that make you an "illegal"? Is every person who jaywalks an illegal?
I call illegal immigrants illegal immigrants or illegal aliens, as the law calls them.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I am legitimately curious. Accepting for the moment the premise that these people are referred to as "illegals" because they did something that was illegal, why don't we refer to other people who do illegal things by the same term?

Should we refer to anyone who has committed tax fraud as an "illegal"? Or if you commit a traffic violation, does that make you an "illegal"? Is every person who jaywalks an "illegal"?
The only person I have heard call them "illegals" lately is Joe Biden. And wait, I didn't even hear that, because I didn't watch the SOTU address! I have only seen quotes of his.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
The only person I have heard call them "illegals" lately is Joe Biden. And wait, I didn't even hear that, because I didn't watch the SOTU address! I have only seen quotes of his.
And are you such an admirer of Joe Biden that you believe anything he does is good? Is he a role model for you?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I am legitimately curious. Accepting for the moment the premise that these people are referred to as "illegals" because they did something that was illegal, why don't we refer to other people who do illegal things by the same term?
Language isn't rigorously consistent, eg, we drive
on parkways, & park on driveways.
"Illegal" is an abbreviation in a particular context.

What this really boils down to is that the left loathes
the connotations of "illegal". This is solely about
their discomfort.
Should we refer to anyone who has committed tax fraud as an "illegal"? Or if you commit a traffic violation, does that make you an "illegal"? Is every person who jaywalks an "illegal"?
Why don't you try that out,
& see if your meaning is
correctly inferred, eh.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
You should read the news where laws were passed making it illegal and now illegal to cross state lines.

And KITCHENS? WTF. Do you know anything about a woman's body? Anything?
"You should read the news where laws were passed making it illegal and now illegal to cross state lines."

Citation needed for the bold.

Justice Department Files Statement of Interest in Case on Right to Travel to Access Legal Abortions

“Alabama may not infringe the constitutional right to travel in order to meet its policy goals,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The Civil Division will continue to assert the interests of the United States.”

The Department’s statement of interest explains that the right to travel from one state to another is firmly embedded in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence and the Constitution. It notes that Justice Kavanaugh — one of the five justices who formed the majority in "Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — has explained that the question of whether a State may “bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion” is “not especially difficult” — “the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.” The Department’s filing also explains that the Supreme Court has held that states may not prevent third parties from assisting others in exercising their right to travel. Further, the statement of interest explains that because of these precedents, the Alabama Attorney General may not criminalize third-party assistance for interstate travel, particularly where the sole purpose of those prosecutions is to impede individuals’ exercise of their constitutional rights."

 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"You should read the news where laws were passed making it illegal and now illegal to cross state lines."

Citation needed for the bold.

Justice Department Files Statement of Interest in Case on Right to Travel to Access Legal Abortions

“Alabama may not infringe the constitutional right to travel in order to meet its policy goals,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The Civil Division will continue to assert the interests of the United States.”

The Department’s statement of interest explains that the right to travel from one state to another is firmly embedded in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence and the Constitution. It notes that Justice Kavanaugh — one of the five justices who formed the majority in "Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — has explained that the question of whether a State may “bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion” is “not especially difficult” — “the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.” The Department’s filing also explains that the Supreme Court has held that states may not prevent third parties from assisting others in exercising their right to travel. Further, the statement of interest explains that because of these precedents, the Alabama Attorney General may not criminalize third-party assistance for interstate travel, particularly where the sole purpose of those prosecutions is to impede individuals’ exercise of their constitutional rights."

There is law de juro, & law de facto.
There's no question about the constitutional right to
travel between the states. But if a state bans that,
& enforces it, the people victimized by it are subject
to arrest, violence, prosecution, & huge legal bills.

It's analogous to your right to record cops in public.
You can legally do it. And you might be beaten,
arrested, & prosecuted for it anyway. (If you're
lucky & persistent, you might win a civil judgement.)
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
You're both right.
Women can travel to a state where it's legal.
Some women can't travel easily.
Some women can't travel at all. And these travel restriction bills will likely become more common amd restrictive.
 
Top