What are black jobs?

[We Never Know]

Trespass refers to personally or organisationally-owned land and property, not a country, which have specific laws and statutes including the ability to legally declare asylum. Even so, you wouldn't call someone who trespasses on your private land "an illegal". That is language reserved exclusively for people who enter, or stay in, a country illegally, because it is specifically designed to diminish their humanity. I think that's the point being made.

If someone is on my land without permission, they are illegally there.
If someone is in the US without going through the legal process, they are illegally here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If someone is on my land without permission, they are illegally there.
If someone is in the US without going through the legal process, they are illegally here.

That's fine, the point being made in that post is that you wouldn't refer to the person in the first instance as "an illegal", only in the second instance, because it's language specifically used to dehumanise a specific group.

Why do you think we don't refer to any other group that commits an illegal act except for illegal immigrants as "illegals"?

 

[We Never Know]

That's fine, the point being made in that post is that you wouldn't refer to the person in the first instance as "an illegal", only in the second instance, because it's language specifically used to dehumanise a specific group.

Why do you think we don't refer to any other group that commits an illegal act except for illegal immigrants as "illegals"?

"Why do you think we don't refer to any other group that commits an illegal act except for illegal immigrants as "illegals"?"

When one commits fraud they committed an illegal act, they aren't illegally living some where. There is a difference.

To see it from your stance, we don't call trespassers illegals when they occupy a place illegally, we call them squatters. However they are in the country legally.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Why do you think we don't refer to any other group that commits an illegal act except for illegal immigrants as "illegals"?"

When one commits fraud they committed an illegal act, they aren't illegally living some where. There is a difference.

To see it from your stance, we don't call trespassers illegals when they occupy a place illegally, we call them squatters. However they are in the country legally.

So why do you think we refer to people who enter a country illegally as "illegals", despite the fact that we don't do this for any other group, including groups of trespassers or other groups who engage in illegal acts? What do you think the reason for that is?

 

[F1fan]

"Why do you think we don't refer to any other group that commits an illegal act except for illegal immigrants as "illegals"?"

When one commits fraud they committed an illegal act, they aren't illegally living some where. There is a difference.

To see it from your stance, we don't call trespassers illegals when they occupy a place illegally, we call them squatters. However they are in the country legally.

It's not so cut and dry. We know some migrants don't want to live in the USA and will cross into the USA to work easonable jobs and then go back. Do they want to go through the red tape? No. I don't blame them, who wants to get mired in red tape if you can avoid it? Reform of immigrantion policy could resolve these issues, but thus far MAGAs oppose any solutions for now.

And let's note that the legal process can take many years. All a migrant has to do is ask for asylum. That's it. They are allowed to remain in the USA until their case is resolved. Arguably any migrant standing in line on the USA side but hasn't asked for asylum yet is "illegal". Are you referring to the intent of the migrant, and not just their literal status at any given second? I'll bet many migrants don't understand the process, they are running for their lives seeking new opportunity in the USA. Whether crossing at a checkpoint or some random point on the border isn't relevant to them having the domestic and international right to ask for asylum. The "illegality" is not asking for asylum. This gets resolved as soon as a migrant asks for aylum. They are no longer "illegal".

 

[We Never Know]

So why do you think we refer to people who enter a country illegally "illegals",

Because they are not in the country legally.
If they were on my land without permission they would be trespassing plus not in the country legally

despite the fact that we don't do this for any other group, including groups of trespassers?

US citizens on my land would only be trespassers being they are here legally.

What do you think the reason for that is?

One is a trespasser. The other is not only a trespasser but also in the US illegally.

 

[We Never Know]

It's not so cut and dry. We know some migrants don't want to live in the USA and will cross into the USA to work easonable jobs and then go back. Do they want to go through the red tape? No. I don't blame them, who wants to get mired in red tape if you can avoid it? Reform of immigrantion policy could resolve these issues, but thus far MAGAs oppose any solutions for now.

And let's note that the legal process can take many years. All a migrant has to do is ask for asylum. That's it. They are allowed to remain in the USA until their case is resolved. Arguably any migrant standing in line on the USA side but hasn't asked for asylum yet is "illegal". Are you referring to the intent of the migrant, and not just their literal status at any given second? I'll bet many migrants don't understand the process, they are running for their lives seeking new opportunity in the USA. Whether crossing at a checkpoint or some random point on the border isn't relevant to them having the domestic and international right to ask for asylum. The "illegality" is not asking for asylum. This gets resolved as soon as a migrant asks for aylum. They are no longer "illegal".

"The "illegality" is not asking for asylum. This gets resolved as soon as a migrant asks for aylum. They are no longer "illegal".

And those that don't are illegals. Even your post points that out. .

 

[F1fan]

"The "illegality" is not asking for asylum. This gets resolved as soon as a migrant asks for aylum. They are no longer "illegal".

And those that don't are illegals.

As a prejudiced category I understand your terminology. They can remedy their status by asking for asylum.

 

[Tomef]

During the debate some topics were...
-black unemployment...by both
-creating black jobs...by both
-black jobs being stolen by illegal immigrants...by Trump

What are black jobs?

Coal mining. Charcoal burning. Certain kinds of mime artistry.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Has anyone ever referred to them as "illegal people"? I haven't seen that.

I do. I don't try legitimizing illegals by using terms like "undocumented" as if that is somehow a good thing that's harmless and fluffy for a society referring to people who are essentially an invasion force pushing their way into the country and creating havoc by intentionally breaking laws designed to protect its actual citizens.

 

[libre]

people who are essentially an invasion force pushing their way into the country

They just aren't
That's not happening.
Illegal immigrants are filling low-wage production and service roles. Not coming as an armed force.

Why can't we have a discussion about this without the demonizing hyperbole?

 

[Twilight Hue]

They just aren't
That's not happening.
Illegal immigrants are filling low-wage production and service roles. Not coming as an armed force.

Why can't we have a discussion about this without the demonizing hyperbole?

No it's an invasion that was clearly sanctioned by Democrats.

An invasion dosent always mean an armed force, although that is a real possibility we now have terrorist sleeper cells established in this country thanks to the Biden regime.

 

[Tomef]

I do. I don't try legitimizing illegals by using terms like "undocumented" as if that is somehow a good thing that's harmless and fluffy for a society referring to people who are essentially an invasion force pushing their way into the country and creating havoc by intentionally breaking laws designed to protect its actual citizens.

That’s how the ancestors of all modern day ‘Americans’ arrived, just with a lot more violence and death. What makes these more recent immigrants different? Because someone drew up the drawbridge and wrote a set of rules?

 

[Twilight Hue]

That’s how the ancestors of all modern day ‘Americans’ arrived, just with a lot more violence and death. What makes these more recent immigrants different? Because someone drew up the drawbridge and wrote a set of rules?

One can say that you learn from experience and can prevent repeats by taking action.

But history can and does repeat itself not very far from hearing Natives Americans softly whispering in one's ear, "Now you know how we feel".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

During the debate some topics were...
-black unemployment...by both
-creating black jobs...by both
-black jobs being stolen by illegal immigrants...by Trump

What are black jobs?

A talking point for people to stupid to realize damn near every president for decades now can claim to have the lowest black employment rate.

 

[Tomef]

One can say that you learn from experience and can prevent repeats by taking action.

But history can and does repeat itself not very far from hearing Natives Americans softly whispering in one's ear, "Now you know how we feel".

Calling it a repetition is a bit much - do you really think the immigration happening now is comparable to the near genocide of the original European migrants? If so, based on what? Last time I checked, new immigrants are less likely to commit crime than other people living in the US.

There were fewer problems with immigration both in the US and in Europe when borders were more open, and people could easily come and go, work for a while then return home. It’s the mania for closed borders that created this cycle of repeated attempts to get into a country and, when achieved, never leaving. All this scaremongering and bs from tv pundits and politicians is just a vote-spinner. Look into immigration statistics (entering and leaving) before Reagan.

 

[We Never Know]

Calling it a repetition is a bit much - do you really think the immigration happening now is comparable to the near genocide of the original European migrants? If so, based on what? Last time I checked, new immigrants are less likely to commit crime than other people living in the US.

There were fewer problems with immigration both in the US and in Europe when borders were more open, and people could easily come and go, work for a while then return home. It’s the mania for closed borders that created this cycle of repeated attempts to get into a country and, when achieved, never leaving. All this scaremongering and bs from tv pundits and politicians is just a vote-spinner. Look into immigration statistics (entering and leaving) before Reagan.

Studies also show/suggest there's a real fear of being deported for getting into trouble within immigrant communities. Immigrants mostly don't want to rock the boat, stay under the radar.. so to speak.

 

[Laniakea]

The process takes forever and is not immigrant friendly, especially for poor people. That is the problem

It's friendly to the country they want to become a part of, and they should respect that.

 

[Laniakea]

They have often been referred to as "illegal aliens," which is also seen as a dehumanizing term.

Maybe it's because it sounds rather Orwellian, like "un-person." Even if someone commits a crime, even if it's a serious crime, the law still has to deal with them, but still considers them human beings. They have human rights and are entitled to the same protections as any accused person - innocent until proven guilty.

And here's the Oxford Dictionary's definition of that term: "a foreign national who is living without official authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen."
So maybe the Left likes to change our language to demonize people who speak facts, but the fact remains that these people from other countries that illegally cross the southern border to live here illegally are illegal aliens.

 

[Laniakea]

That's fine, the point being made in that post is that you wouldn't refer to the person in the first instance as "an illegal", only in the second instance, because it's language specifically used to dehumanise a specific group.

Why do you think we don't refer to any other group that commits an illegal act except for illegal immigrants as "illegals"?

People often shorten terms when a context is understood. If people are discussing immigration, a person doesn't have to use the entire term, "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" each time. It's understood enough when they say either legal or illegal.