interned or deported, the entire friggin' city would grind to a halt. Who would mow the lawns, do the dishes, cook the meals, bus the tables, change the diapers? All we'd be left with is a city of gliterrati and "better bullshitters" (to quote DUer Egalitarian Thug

As is so often the case, youth summon the better angels of our nature and show us the truly moral course of action.

I've been mowing lawns, doing the dishes, cooking the meals and (not as much anymore) bussing the tables. Changing diapers though is not part of my skill set.

I don't buy that the city would grind to a halt. More like there would be a hiring spree of documented workers as opposed to the undocumented type. Especially in food service and construction, two of the areas I've spent most of my life working in. Having said that, I support all people's right to improve their living conditions in non-violent forms of productive endeavors even if that means being undocumented. What has caught my attention is 4 out of 6 of my undocumented co-workers are leaving jobs here that pay 12 an hour to go back home (2 from Honduras, one Mexico and one Guatemala). They said it wasn't worth leaving all they knew and loved to work like rats in America. Some of these guys worked 3 jobs, 7 days a week. They were excellent workers and people. I'll miss them.

since half of the US used to be a Mexican territory. These citizens are not allowed to have the same documentation as other American. Hence, since they are here legally but are not permitted to have the same documentation as other American citizens they are not undocumented, they are undocumented citizens. It reminds me of the 3/5 compromise to allow slave owners to claim us black folks as both property and persons.

... the ones that have been 'born here' since then are U.S. citizens.

The ones that have crossed the border without the proper documents, in modern times, are not here legally and are not U.S. citizens.

But that's been a dead letter for a while now.

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 09:10 AM - Edit history (1)

you seldom hear the U.S. talkin' about making restitution for the theft, much less returning the land to Mexico. That land theft was backed by the same slaveocrats who gave us the 3/5 rule a few generations previously.

Using derogatory terms on DU is a violation of TOS - thinking that people won't notice you've done it is pretty silly.

a post if I don't know exactly what's giving you offense.

But then I guess that's the reason you used that bit of slang. Do you think that was really necessary? I would appreciate it if you would edit your post.

Also, I find any argument about which government "owns" certain lands now incorporated within U.S. borders to be pretty arrogant... the only people who can really lay claim to these lands, both here and in Mexico, are the indigenous people who were here long before any Europeans -- including the Spanish -- arrived on these shores. I'm sure my partner, who is of Zapotec heritage, wouldn't mind the family lands in Oaxaca being returned. But then, the Mexican government is too busy oppressing the people in Oaxaca, isn't it.

"Slaveocrats". All right, all right, I'll edit the offending phrase. But on a not-so-serious note, I must tell you that for 8 long years during the Bush-Cheney Junta, I carried a sign that said simply "Pinche Bush". The Latino workers who would drive by my vigil location would always crack up when they saw me holding the sign (although whether because of the sentiment expressed or the loco gringo holding the sign -- my wife's take -- is still to be determined

you are very aware of what the offending term was - you chose to be obnoxious.

As for hit and run - sorry to disappoint, but that was the end of my online day. I'm not going to stay online just to wait on you, champ.

Thank you for editing, even if you did it under duress.

have supplied specifics. You did neither, i.e., cut and run.

I chose to give you an opportunity to revise your post, rather than alert. Since you don't feel that was the right response, I'll keep in mind that you would prefer to have your words sent to a jury next time.

The United States government paid $18 million for that land ($455 million in 2011 dollars). That was for California, Arizona, New Mexico. Texas we paid nothing for, as it won its independence on its own and then later joined the US.

to the U.S. defeating Mexico. But maybe we just define 'stole' vs. 'bought' differently.

Oh, that's right -- what is now Mexico was unpopulated at the time the Spanish arrived.

I really don't need to use the sarcasm thingy, do I?

when citizens of the U.S. demand that 'illegal immingrants' vacate land we happen to have stolen from their ancestors, that's a bit rich for my blood.

but they are not United States citizens unless they were born or naturalized in the US. Sorry to break it to you, but Mexico ceded the territory by treaty (or sold it - Gadsden's purchase). That's what happens in history. People fight over land and somebody wins and somebody loses. The US and Mexico fought a war and Mexico lost. You might not like that, but those are the facts.


There is no "hence" in your argument. Sorry.

the descendants of persons resident in former Mexican territory in what's now the Western USA became American citizens with the 14th Amendment; those born in Mexico aren't.

all the way down to Cape Horn, is an American. It's all the Americas, North, Central, and South.

The U.S. is not America. It is "the United States of America," and comprises only a small part.

As far as being a U.S. citizen goes, your argument doesn't work. Anyone born here is a citizen; the "undocumented" part is for those born outside the borders who come across in violation of current law.

Not that you don't have a point about some of the U.S. previously belonging to Mexico; not half, but certainly some.

Of course, at one point, the entire place "belonged" to various native tribes; how has that worked out for them?

... that calling a tail a leg does not make it one.

Why not be accurate instead?

Really?

Do you think that the discussion is about whether we should call them people or not?


..........................


Really?

See post #21...

And a university that has taken it's mission to educate seriously enough to interject itself into the issue.

saying they "did" something illegal. As far as the other mistakes listed above, same thing. They are people who committed acts, and we dehumanize them by referring to them as the act, rather than a human. We do that to people who do us harm, such as enemies on the battlefield, arsonists that burn families, etc.

But when one uses terms that racists and bigots use (and, yes, here I am doing the same, but I see no redeeming human quality in the harm racists and bigots do, so it is intentional) as code words to spew their hate, hiding behind them like the little cowards they are, and then has to exclaim "But I'm not a racist", maybe they should think again about what they really are.

Some it might bother, and they grow up and leave such crass terms behind. Others...well, about the only question left for them is whether their bodies will be cold when the women take down their curtains and sell them to the rag picker.

We have no word even like "litterer." Illegal trash disposer? Even that puts the focus on what they did, not on them.

It's also different per person, for instance, those illegally here because they were brought here as children. They haven't really done anything wrong.

And "illegal immigrant" is used in a derogatory manner now. You may think of it as calling a spade a spade but that's not how it's being used by just about everyone on the right. Two words that separate us from them and somehow make it okay to do cruel things in the name of law and order when in fact it's motivated by prejudice. Using the term "undocumented worker" takes the wind out that sail. It doesn't fix everything but it also doesn't imply "illegal person" either which *is* highly prejudicial.

After reading the full article, it's not a ban. It's just a condemnation of the term by a student council. Seemed odd that such terminology could be banned in an environment that professes intellectual freedom. I will remember not to trust Mediaite in the future.

United Methodist Church they are referred to as undocumented individuals also.

that, on behalf of the kochs and the GOP, blanketed the country with 'illegal' immigrants.

that's why those idiot teabags can stand up it those legislatures and suppress votes.

I don't remember KFI ever having sports in recent years.

Anything to make little right wing heads explode, awesome.

That'll show those authoritarians!

A lot of drones use "free speech" as a non defense of bigotry.

Freedom of speech is extremely important. Also, college students should be able to discuss complex issues without whitewashing them. And I think it's funny that you claim to be against authoritarians and then support speech codes.

The truth is, the college didn't actually ban the term "illegal immigrants," they just strongly disagree with it.

The issue is not people being present in the USA without filling in the proper paperwork, it's people entering the USA in deliberate defiance of the law.

"Illegal immigrants/residents" is a perfectly reasonable and accurate term (although "illegals" on its own is undeniably derogatory - it should be specified that all illegal immigrants have done illegally is immigrated, not anything more serious); "Undocumented migrants" is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue, and should be avoided.

But, most importantly, this should be a personal choice - the university should not be taking it upon itself to decide which term students should use.

I have sympathy for these people, I really do. I just don't see why the US is demonized for enforcing immigration laws. Almost every country has some procedures to become a citizen. Somehow, we are the only ones who are seen as the bad guys.

I mean, it's illegal in Mexico for Canadians and Americans to own property! Can you imagine if the US made it illegal for foreign nationals to own property? We have a vacation house in Rocky Point and no one actually owns the property their houses are built on but rather owned by a trust. One has to have the property held in a Mexican bank trust with the trustee being the bank which administers the trust for the benefit of the person in question.

They are likely economic refugees, but to call them "illegal immigrants" extends that meaning to the whole person, as if every cell in their body is illegal for even existing. It's intellectually lazy, and also a device often used by the the bigot or racist as a code word\phrase which embodies the hatred and jealously that they would otherwise not be able to voice in public. And any term which might need to be followed up by "Now, I'm not a bigot or a racist" is certainly suspect.

The university's mission is to educate, and that is what they are doing.

Generally I agree with you about language and choice, but things change, and there are several terms and words which we have found over the years to dehumanize and disrespect people, words that are used to intentionally hurt, or which harm simply by their careless usage. We purposely demonize our enemies, but these people are not our enemies, not nearly as harmful as, say, Al Qaeda, North Korea, a few corporations and some bankers. And because such words hurt and de-humanize, through a combination of social pressure, greater awareness, and sometimes rules or law decent people have become more attuned to the violence such ignorance, fear, and hatred feeds, and thus have grown out of their use, like we did our diapers.

Especially in a country which had its great moments because of immigration, both by documented and undocumented workers, with a past that was founded on slavery and genocide, it doesn't seem insurmountable that we might figure out why other people are hurt by those terms, and find a way to respect them as humans, while resolving our geographical arguments.

U.S. citizens, non-citizens, people who were here before California was part of the U.S.A., people who arrived just last week and are living with their citizen relatives. The culture of our community is Mexican. 40% of the school kids have parents who don't speak English at home.

My wife is Mexican-American, her grandparents were immigrants. Her dad is largely Southwest Native-American, from a culture that lived on both sides of the border. His family fled to Mexico to avoid the U.S. Army. If they hadn't they'd be dead or living on a U.S. Reservation. Some of my older white racist relatives had hissy-fits because I was marrying a "Mexican Girl." Some of them got over it. Some of them never did. They're all dead now.

It's especially rotten how someone who was brought here as a kid by their parents, attended school here K-12, who's parent's worked hard in the U.S.A. this entire time, is called an "illegal alien." That bites.

If working people in the U.S.A. are not valued, no matter where they come from (heck even Kansas) just what the fuck is our nation about???

(Wait wait, I know the answer... it's about making wealthy white people wealthier.)

I could solve the immigration problem instantly. Raise the minimum wage and toughen up the labor laws so employers caught abusing employees (undocumented or not) are tossed in prison. Then grant temporary status to anyone who works here, and citizenship to anyone who works here for a couple of years. If employees all have to be treated well, if they all have strong unions and strong legal protection, then U.S. citizens are still going to be the preferred new hires. The system we have now is the very wealthy pitting our own citizen wage slaves v.s. the abused non-citizen wage slaves v.s. the actual work-or-die slaves of other nations.

The reality is that immigrants WORK, or they have relatives who work and support them because they sure as heck don't receive enough public assistance to survive here in the U.S. without family support. If an undocumented farmworker, a guy who might be working dawn to dusk seven days a week during peak harvest season, wants to bring his mom, dad, wife or kids here, isn't he still contributing to the California economy???

If he's not, then everything we believe about the U.S.A. is a big fucking lie.

If you make employing citizens or legal immigrants - people who can go to the police - in accordance with the law a less attractive option, as you're proposing, then you make employing illegal immigrants and ignoring things like minimum wage laws much *more* attractive, and hence harder to prevent.

Much of the rest of what you say about immigrants may well be true, but it doesn't change the fact that those people who immigrate illegally are illegal immigrants. There is a strong case to be made for a) making legal immigration easier, and b) granting some illegal immigrants the right to remain in America legally. But illegal immigration *is* a crime - albeit not a terribly serious one - and should be referred to as such.

The police in our community IGNORE immigration status because otherwise their job would be impossible. Much of the community simply wouldn't talk to to them.

In my proposal most everyone would be "legal" and the police everywhere could concentrate on actual crime. A recent immigrant who was abused by an employer could report them to the authorities without fear.

If you have open borders, and make all or almost all immigration legal without restriction, then yes, you will have far less illegal immigration.

But that's a different, separate proposal to your economic/labor laws ones.

I said tougher labor laws that take the profit out of hiring undocumented workers.

What we have now is an undocumented workforce that is afraid to report abusive working conditions, and deceitful employers who actually exploit and profit from this system, employers who don't care if their employees are occasionally deported or they have to pay token fines, mostly because these immigrant employees suppresses unionization and other labor actions.

Essentially they are able to treat their employees, citizen or not, as disposable commodities -- abuse them, underpay them, use them up, wear 'em out, and hire a new batch.

If people are working, being paid living wages, being treated fairly by their employers, what does it matter where they are from? It's generally the cost of living that keeps people from migrating to a place. If you are from Arkansas or Mexico, then the average "entry level" wages of, say, San Francisco might seem incredibly high... until you find out how much it costs to rent a place there.

Some people enter the United States without authorization (the classic sneak-across-the-border-on-a-moonless-night entry). Others have perfectly valid visas. They go through customs and are initially here legally (or, if you prefer, with authorization) -- but their visas are for only a temporary stay, such as six months, and they don't leave as they're supposed to when that time expires. People in this situation are sometimes called "out of status" to indicate that they did at one point have legal status here.