Another case of asking for apologies to guilty.

I'm tired of it.

"In a country that believes in due process of the law, calling an immigrant 'illegal' is akin to calling a defendant awaiting trial a 'criminal'."

OK. So? I think that's true if the immigrant did in fact enter the country illegally and the defendant awaiting trial did in fact commit the crime. In that case, the immigrant was "illegal" from the moment he entered the country illegally, and the defendant was a "criminal" from the moment he committed the crime.

So yeah, I can see that. Calling an illegal immigrant "illegal" is akin to calling a criminal awaiting trial a "criminal".

Inflammatory yes, because we all know the term pisses them off and "inflames them", if you would.

But imprecise and inaccurate? No. Inflammatory or not, it's the word that describes their legal status.

I think... the Social Security Administration should set up thousands of kiosks in the desert all along the southern border, stocked with social security cards, all with the same number, and signs in Spanish that say, "Please take one". There would be no name associated with that number. All of the money collected from millions of illegal immigrants and their employers using that number would be used to fund benefits for retired American citizens. This could give illegal immigrants a whole new status.

I believe "Foreign Invader" would be the most accurate.

And the part where Kennedy is quoted does not seem to support the point. That would say that they should not be called "criminal immigrants."

I am suddenly reminded of a spoof/satire where the author demanded that rapists be called "non-consensual sex participate."

so I just tired to look up the term illegal in a law dictionary and got this partial listing:
in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance, which...[pay us for the rest]

Another interesting thing I found. Apparently being in the US with out permission is only a civil infraction...entering the US without permission is often criminal (e.g. making false statements on the immigration form, sneaking over the border).

TIME was once a decent magazine, now it's become a socialist workers party mouthpiece.

My understanding is that it is a crime to enter the country illegally, but I am too lazy to look it up.

On the other hand, if the argument is that this is a civil offense, than "unlawful alien," is probably more accurate, but less euphonic.

However, my computer often shuts down when I do something Microsoft considers an "illegal operation," and I do not worry my pretty little head that the FBI is going to come knocking.

Nor, do I worry when a referee in football calls an "illegal formation." A five or ten yard penalty is more along the lines of a civil infraction, and not worthy of a jury trial.

So, is it technically inaccurate? Maybe. Is it useful shorthand? Sure. So, as long as we all know what we are talking about, "illegal alien" is fine with me.

-Jut

Absolutely incorrect. Entering without inspection is a federal criminal violation. 8 UCS 1325.

Does anyone besides me perceive an implied threat in Vargas' article? Along the lines of "Appease us or we'll go all Muslim on your ass." Narcissistic groups of all types have been emboldened by the Appeaser-in-Chief.

ParatrooperJJ: "Absolutely incorrect. Entering without inspection is a federal criminal violation. 8 UCS 1325."

Thanks for the cite. Still too lazy to verify.

But, one problem with this is that "illegal alien" also is used, at times, to encompass those who overstay their visas. So, someone may enter legally on a student visa or a tourist visa (like many of the 9-11 hijackers did) and do not leave when they are supposed to. We call them "illegal aliens," even though they may have entered legally, and not violation of that statute.

So, in that sense, the term may be imprecise.

-Jut

Why am I not surprised that another leftist appeaser thinks that changing the name alters reality? A classic example of magical thinking at work.

Legally "illegal alien" is probably not the correct term, but so what we are not in atrial, legally correct terms are rarely used in either the press or political speech. Especially when rying to apply it to millions of people, no one term ever complately encompasses it.

The term he suggests "undocumented people" or "undocumented workers" is also not the proper term. Many have documents - forged ones, stolen identities, some have plenty of documentation, back in ther home countries. And workers, implies that they are ALL currently employed, which is not true.

I also like the term "Foriegn invader" it is probably the legally most accurate term.
Foreign is completely true.
invader: 3. to enter as if to take possession.
Is demonstratably true in many cases.
Remember, the US troops have taken over Afghanistan using under 100,000 troops. We are talking 11-20 million invading the US. if less than 1% are armed, it is a larger invading army than the US one which took Afghanistan. And PS, the US troops were asked in / welcomed in by some groups. Not the reigning government, but by some of the population.

"Illegal immigrant" might be inflammatory, but unfortunately for the offended, it's also accurate. And it's what I'll be using. You don't like it, then don't come into the country illegally!

Or, if you must, and you're a refugee from some barbaric Central American nation that's governed by a military junta or whatever that wouldn't give you a passport to visit the U.S. in the million years, then get onto a pathway to citizenship. That is your number one priority.

Joe J: I also like the term "Foriegn invader" it is probably the legally most accurate term.

Very interesting, because if we classified them as such, then anchor babies would be disallowed.

Based upon English common law, as ruled by the Supreme Court in the landmark decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, there are only two types of people born in the U.S. who cannot be natural born citizens: those born to foreign diplomats and those born to hostile invaders.

According to the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment, those born in the U.S. must be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. to be considered natural born. Since diplomats are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction (having immunity) and should the U.S. be invaded, we would be in no position to enforce our laws upon an invasion force, they are not "under the jurisdiction. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly (a more recent decision is 1982's Plyler v. Doe), that if they are subject to U.S. law, they are "subject to the jurisdiction;" therefore, even an illegal alien can be arrested, ticketed, fined, etc., meaning their kids born in this country are "natural born citizens."

I have an Alien Resident Card where I am. Does that mean I am from outer space. Alien can be defined as a being from another planet. In this sense no, I am defined as a person who is foreign. Yet still my feelings are hurt a little when I see my ID with "Alien". I am not alien, I am a human being." I demand it be changed.

What about illegal left turn or an illegal U-turn. Since those are traffic related and not criminal laws. Thus maybe they should be renamed or avoid being used.

This is a fallacy of definition. I think actual it might be further defined as "The Dictionary Fallacy".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Ln0vagw_o

Really, this is just picking at things and button holing things. Not everything should and can be defined specifically.

Is a smart phone really that smart?

Thus by downloading mp3s I am a pirate. So I am a person who also rapes, steals, and break maritime laws. As a pirate I should be strung up from the yardarm.

An African American is considered a person who descended from Africans who lives in America. Yet can my friend who is white and South African marry an American (Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, No African in this case) woman and have a child. That child by that previous definition would be African American. Yet his child would be African American because he does meet the standard given definition NOW and accepted by most people

This journalist is starting to get into some lazy thinking. Well, I forgot many journalists like to consider themselves wordsmiths. My advice to him is use the language that most people aka your audience will understand. Keep it relevant (no $5 dollar words) and up to date (avoid Shakespearian talk or defunct language like negro).

Wow Give me a Break!

I am a liberal (I guess, I'd prefer liberal realist), but it seems obvious to me that if you don't believe in enforcing immigration laws, that is a defacto belief in open borders. Most liberals on this issue will give you some weird untennable hybrid belief that somehow involves enforcing immigration law, but not once people have successfully gotten in the country and established themselves. That seems to me a defacto open borders belief. Now if people believe in open borders, that is a position and they should argue for it (as the ultra-libertarian pro-business community does), but they shouldn't pretend their "soft" view is something else. There are plenty of liberalish reasons to believe in limited legal immigration. Most of the countries we liberals admire sure don't allow millions of people from poor countries in their borders (and they do so at their cultural peril, from a liberal perspective).

"illegal immigrant" is NOT the correct term in my book. I prefer the term "illegal alien."

The "illegal" part is correct because they have broken the law to get here.

However, the "immigrant" part sort of implies that they wish to become a part of this country(or whatever country they are "sneaking" into).

For many this is NOT the case, they have no desire to adapt to the "host" country's culture, language, etc. They prefer to sent their money back to their native country without giving anything back to the host country. By definition (and by the word used in the US constitution) they are "alien". period.

If the term "illegal alien" bothers someone - that's their problem, not mine. They can go back to where ever they came from if they don't like it!

if you do something against the law, it is ILLEGAL... doesn't matter if that law is civil or criminal.

And serious, WHY DO WE CARE IF THEIR FEELINGS ARE HURT!?!

This illegal alien complains that he's labeled an illegal alien, and that's the problem?

Wow. Talk about playing with words.

"And tell the court, Mister Dahmer: how did you find your young male victims?".

"Delicious!".

"Milton Friedman said it, I believe: We can't have open borders in a welfare state. California is being bled by illegal immigrants."

Amy, if you have the time, I'd love you to find that citation -- I really would, because Paul Krugman has said something very very similar.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/the-curious-politics-of-immigration/

"On the other side, however, open immigration can’t coexist with a strong social safety net; if you’re going to assure health care and a decent income to everyone, you can’t make that offer global."

My very brief googling of this doesn't find anyone except commenters at blogs saying Friedman really did say this.

But I would absolutely love to find that Friedman and Krugman both agree on this need for closed borders if you want a welfare state, and yes I realize Friedman probably wouldn't have wanted a welfare state (and neither does Krugman.)

On another note, whenever I read in comments anything like "alinksyites", "the leftists", "conservatards", "Koch brothers", "Soros", "PAULLITES", "SOCIALISTS", etc., I just skip over it -- it's clearly a content free comment and a waste of everyone's time. I wish blogs had some ways to automatically filter out the derp comments.

"On the other side, however, open immigration can’t coexist with a strong social safety net; if you’re going to assure health care and a decent income to everyone, you can’t make that offer global."

This is so close to the alleged Milton Friedman statement I admit I would probably die of laughter if I found that this quote of Krugman's had been misattributed Friedman and used frequently on the right.

Googling more, it's amusing how many people cite Friedman saying that and put it in quotes, but what is in the quotes is often clearly not an exact quotation.

However, I don't have a WSJ subscription, someone cites this quote here:

www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008690

[quoting Mr. Friedman:] "In principle, you ought to have completely open immigration. But with the welfare state it’s really not possible to do that. . . ."

And Heritage quotes him here:

www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2007/06/look-to-milton-open-borders-and-the-welfare-state

"A decade ago, Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman admonished the Wall Street Journal for its idée fixe on open-border immigration policy. "It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state," he warned. This remark adds insight to the current debate over immigration in the U.S. Senate."

What's also interesting is how many people think he said this, but then say he said it somewhere else. (Some are pointing to an ISIL.org interview that they do not link to.)

And what I find even more interesting is that at Reason and econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/06/milton_friedman_10.html are these two guys that say that Friedman was an incomparable genius but just wrong about this. I always admire the guys that see genius in others than tell us they are smarter. (Maybe they are!?) Anyway, what Friedman missed is we could do like Germany I think and have open borders but not give welfare subsidies (health care, social security, medicare, etc.) to some immigrants who will only come for the jobs.

I think the consensus is that's worked surprisingly horribly for Germany that now has large populations of disaffected Turks working there, disaffected because they have no real interest in the state since they derive little from it.

Anyway. It all does remind me intriguingly of how many Keynesian economists have amazingly fond things to say of Milton Friedman as person and intellectual even if they disagree with his economics. Friedman must have been quite the person.

@jerry
http://openborders.info/friedman-immigration-welfare-state/

Has a video of MF discussing this, in it he does not specifically mention California, but the main jist is there about 1:50 in.
As to people say he said it elsewhere, of course the guy gave hundreds of lectures and interviews interviews. With variations on exact words he probably said it a hundred times.

Aha! Thank you Joe J!

"As to people say he said it elsewhere, of course the guy gave hundreds of lectures and interviews interviews. With variations on exact words he probably said it a hundred times."

Oh, I was sure he did, I think it's sort of funny though, or maybe a google fail of sorts, that so many people have now quoted him as saying that that it is somewhat difficult to find him saying that.

Jerry: "I think it's sort of funny though, or maybe a Google fail of sorts... that it is somewhat difficult to find him saying that."

Here's Milton Friedman on the subject of free immigration and the welfare state:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfU9Fqah-f4

Here is an actual quote from Friedman:

"There’s a sense in which free immigration, in the same sense as we had it before 1914 is not possible today. Why not? Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promised a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not, then it really is an impossible thing."

But don't take this quote out of context. He goes on to explain some very interesting things about illegal immigration, i.e. why it is a good thing.

It took me less than 15 seconds to find that plus tons more via Google. You must be doing it wrong.

What Milton Friedman really said about illegal immigration:

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-milton-friedman-really-said.html

Jerry, not to rain on your parade but I live in Germany and if you are working legally here you are paying into the system. Its automatic and you can do nothing about it and you are automatically covered by the National Healthcare program. Its the law, or one of the "Grundrechte". If you are in the country legally you are covered, that simple. The fact that a large group of people do not feel at home in Germany is another story. It has to do with latent prejudices and other repressed feelings, but also the fact that many immigrants dont try to integrate with the home country. I could write for an hour about how stupid some of the things people say and do here, but why bother its not going to change anytime soon.

@jerry. It may help if instead of looking for quote, which will usually just have people saying 'he said X' you look for video. Sure it may not give exact date or location of speech, but it is easy to find that way.

This kind of PC BS contributes to me being dragged, kicking and screaming, from having been a flaming liberal, through the middle of the road where i now sit, towards agreeing more and more with Republicans. Just as with the underaged driver and drunk driver, if you're breaking the law, your conduct and you are ILLEGAL. WTF is "undocumented?" "Oopsie, I left my green card in my other purse / wallet!"