8
0

Press continues to destroy its own credibility with euphemisms for ILLEGAL immigrants


 invite response                
2017 Feb 18, 11:22pm   16,805 views  132 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (55)   💰tip   ignore  

http://tomnichols.net/blog/2012/06/16/immigration-euphemisms-reuters-ups-ante/

Just two days ago, I went on a rip about TIME Magazine‘s blatant shilling for illegal immigrants in a cover story that featured a multi-ethnic group of illegals led by a Pulitzer prize winning journalist (who also is in the United States illegally).

TIME, like so many other politically correct bastions in mainstream journalism, referred to people breaking the law as “undocumented,” a mangled euphemism that is accurate only insofar as it describes the lack of a document, and misleading insofar as it implies that somewhere a document exists.

Technically I suppose that the virtue-signalling phrase that "No people are illegal" is correct. So should we admit that's right and be even more accurate, calling them what they really are: criminal immigrants?

#criminal #immigrants

Comments 1 - 40 of 132       Last »     Search these comments

1   Patrick   2017 Feb 18, 11:32pm  

Our own state government is doing the same thing:

This bill would require the department to issue an original driver’s license to a person who is unable to submit satisfactory proof that the applicant’s presence in the United States is authorized under federal law if he or she meets all other qualifications for licensure and provides satisfactory proof to the department of his or her identity and California residency.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB60

Is that longest euphemism for "illegal immigrant" ever?

"person who is unable to submit satisfactory proof that the applicant’s presence in the United States is authorized under federal law" my ass.

And this automatically registers them to vote:

California citizens who are identified as eligible voters when visiting the DMV to apply for, renew, or change their address on a driver’s license would be registered to vote by the Secretary of State’s office.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2015-news-releases-and-advisories/california-new-motor-voter-act-passed-legislature/

At least 600,000 illegal aliens were granted driver's licenses and automatically registered to vote unless they specifically opted out.

Why would California do such a thing? Because illegal immigrants are reliably Democratic voters.

Trump seems likely to have a case here.

2   BayArea   2017 Feb 19, 5:32am  

rando says

and automatically registered to vote unless they specifically opted out.

Patrick, do you have any sources confirming this?

3   Patrick   2017 Feb 19, 5:40am  

Sure:

“Citizens are currently required to opt-in to their fundamental right to vote through registration,” Padilla added. “We do not have to opt-in to other rights, such as free speech or due process. The right to vote should be no different.”

California citizens who are identified as eligible voters when visiting the DMV to apply for, renew, or change their address on a driver’s license would be registered to vote by the Secretary of State’s office.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2015-news-releases-and-advisories/california-new-motor-voter-act-passed-legislature/

4   Patrick   2017 Feb 19, 5:48am  

This is definitely an attempt to register mass numbers of illegals to vote:

http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?i=1201

In general, registering the unregistered population involves bringing a very different group of people into the electorate: one that is younger, more diverse, more mobile, poorer, and less educated. Figure 1 shows some of the demographic groups that will see significant changes in registration under a successful New Motor Voter program. Those without a college education would constitute 6.3 percentage points more of the registered population, the children of foreign-born parents 4.5 points more, and Latinos 4.0 points more.

Elections are decided on the margins, and these numbers suggest that a New Motor Voter electorate could shift those margins.6

5   Patrick   2017 Feb 19, 5:49am  

rando says

citizens who are identified as eligible voters when visiting the DMV

That would be all breathing humans who do not specifically opt out.

Please prove me wrong.

I want to believe California is not so corrupt that it is deliberately and illegally giving the mass vote to illegal immigrants.

6   BayArea   2017 Feb 19, 6:29am  

Similar to how you won't see Obama or Hillary use the term "Radical Islam"

7   lostand confused   2017 Feb 19, 8:33am  

I guess to all the illegal immigrant supporters, they would be fine with "guests" coming into their houses, sleeping in there and eating their food and wearing their clothes ??

8   missing   2017 Feb 19, 8:54am  

Patrick says

criminal immigrants?

That's pushing it too far. Overstaying your visa (which can happen for many reasons) is not a criminal act.

In any case, all country borders are established by conquer and violence; a group of people grabbing a piece of land, often from others, and calling it theirs. So while for egoistical reasons I am for border control, I understand those who are trying to immigrate here at any cost and do not view them as criminals. I even empathize with them.

9   missing   2017 Feb 19, 8:59am  

lostand confused says

I guess to all the illegal immigrant supporters, they would be fine with "guests" coming into their houses, sleeping in there and eating their food and wearing their clothes ??

Poor analogy. The "guest" you describe is a parasite who takes stuff from you and affects your life negatively. The illegal immigrants who do hard work for little pay contribute positively to the economy.

10   FortWayne   2017 Feb 19, 9:01am  

They are fighting really hard for cheap labor these days. No different from southern states that wanted negroes picking cotton for free in 1800's.

There is financial incentive to have cheap labor and depress wages. Evil bastards they are!

11   Patrick   2017 Feb 19, 9:13am  

FP says

That's pushing it too far. Overstaying your visa (which can happen for many reasons) is not a criminal act.

Are many Mexican illegal immigrants here on a visa? Most of them did commit a crime by sneaking over the border. Overstaying a visa is illegal as well.

So "criminal immigrants" does seem technically correct. And it does seem like an appropriate term to use in reaction the press's obfuscation. And it has a nice flow or rhyme to it.

FP says

In any case, all country borders are established by conquer and violence

Seems irrelevant. The Spanish conquistadores were incredible assholes. The fact that Anglo assholes later saw a chance to expropriate California from the remains of the Spanish empire doesn't change anything about the existence of our border or laws.

FP says

I understand those who are trying to immigrate here at any cost and do not view them as criminals. I even empathize with them.

Me too. I see them as just like the Irish from 1850, and feel a lot of empathy for their situation. But that does not mean they should be able to simply break the law to come here.

FP says

The illegal immigrants who do hard work for little pay contribute positively to the economy.

They're not actually "contributing". They are here for themselves alone. Sure, they're willing to work for very little because of the shitty situation in Mexico, and that benefits lots of legal Americans, but at the end of the day they broke the law to get here, depressed US wages, and do consume government resources.

12   lostand confused   2017 Feb 19, 9:23am  

FP says

Poor analogy. The "guest" you describe is

Nope-both are uninvited and came in without permission.

13   missing   2017 Feb 19, 9:48am  

rando says

Most of them did commit a crime

Depends on what you understand by crime - simply breaking the law, or also doing harm to others. I think most people think of the second. And obviously I do not think that a Mexican crossing the border to pick veggies on CA harms others.

14   missing   2017 Feb 19, 9:58am  

rando says

FP says

In any case, all country borders are established by conquer and violence

Seems irrelevant.

If we admit that the land on which we live was taken by force by others, then excluding others from coming to live here does not seem that that justified, does it? Why should you have the right to claim a piece of the earth for yourself? You only have that right because you can enforce it. But there's nothing moral or just about it. In fact, by claiming a large piece of land for yourself (the US, Russia, Canada, Australia), you are harming the rest, those excluded. Shouldn't establishing borders be a crime then?

15   Patrick   2017 Feb 19, 10:30am  

Who would declare borders to be a crime then? Laws come from governments of specific countries.

One world government sounds like a horrible idea. So we have borders.

16   Patrick   2017 Feb 19, 10:38am  

If you're claiming that America has a moral obligation to provide jobs for foreigners, I disagree.

17   missing   2017 Feb 19, 10:49am  

rando says

If you're claiming that America has a moral obligation to provide jobs for foreigners, I disagree.

Of course I don't. I only claim that equating to criminals those who cross the border illegally in search for livelihood for their families is not appropriate. We aren't better than them just because our ancestors conquered this land for us, or came here at a time when it was easy to do. Let's be honest, we got (not earned!) a nice chunk of the planet for ourselves and want to keep it for ourselves.

18   Patrick   2017 Feb 19, 11:41am  

Didn't say we are better than they are, only that they do not have the right to break our laws and we have no moral obligation to provide them jobs.

The reason they want to cross the border has nothing to do with the nature of the land itself. It is entirely because their own government has failed them so completely.

So it's not that we "want to keep this land to ourselves" but rather that we want to keep our functional system going.

19   missing   2017 Feb 19, 12:50pm  

I think it has a lot to do with the land and who their former colonial masters were.

20   marcus   2017 Feb 19, 1:11pm  

Patrick says

Technically I suppose that the virtue-signalling phrase that "No people are illegal" is correct. So should we admit that's right and be even more accurate, calling them what they really are: criminal immigrants?

IT's not virtue signalling. Unless we call your point of view shame signaling. .

You don't agree with the unstated policy of our country which has been to be somewhat supportive of whatever you want to call illegal immigrants. Those people who call them undocumented are only guilty of going along with or taking advantage of that policy.

You want to change that policy, and fanning the flames of hate against these people who are guilty of trying to get a better life for themselves, in a way that might be technically illegal, but for which the government has been looking the other way for decades.

Bllaming the immigrants and branding them worthy of hate for doing something that our policies have supported doesn't make sense. It's not virtue signalling, it's just going along with the policies. And when you get down to it, the cheap labor aspect of it is very complicated. IT's not a black and white situation, as much as I know you would like everything to be.

21   mell   2017 Feb 19, 1:14pm  

FP says

Shouldn't establishing borders be a crime then

Absolutely not, it should be encouraged. Like-minded people form a community, and those who like what they see in this community can apply to get in and if accepted become a part of it. Otherwise they can form their own.

FP says

think it has a lot to do with the land and who their former colonial masters were.

No, it has nothing to do with that at all. History is written by the winners, always have and always will be. If the Nazis had conquered the world you would likely be living in a totally different value system. Thankfully (and for the sacrifice of many American soldiers) they didn't. And the western countries, those that won and those that were allowed to rebuild are amongst the most welcoming countries on the earth, without them immigration wouldn't even exist. Mexico is much stricter in that respect (also with owning property, land etc.) and so are most other countries. You could go back indefinitely and always "return" the land to those before, it would solve nothing and instead cripple a mostly functioning world. Don't come here illegally, period.

22   mell   2017 Feb 19, 1:16pm  

marcus says

Bllaming the immigrants and branding them worthy of hate

Bullshit, enforcing the law has nothing to do with hate. Stop emotionalizing everything like a 2 year old. Countries around the world have much stricter immigration standards. Try immigrating into Japan or many other Asian countries (esp. without money), and good luck with that.

23   mell   2017 Feb 19, 1:24pm  

Patrick says

calling them what they really are: criminal immigrants?

I think illegal is the most accurate/acceptable term as long as they haven't committed any crimes (besides crossing the border illegally).

24   marcus   2017 Feb 19, 1:29pm  

FortWayne says

There is financial incentive to have cheap labor and depress wages. Evil bastards they are!

Agreed except about the evil bastards part. Most of the labor being done by immigrants pays for things like landscaping, elderly care, child care, some construction, etc. EVen the crop picking example is one that simply raises prices to the rest of us, if it wasn't done by migrant workers.

25   marcus   2017 Feb 19, 1:38pm  

mell says

Bullshit, enforcing the law has nothing to do with hate. Stop emotionalizing everything like a 2 year old.

I was trying to say it in a way you would understand. Allow me to elaborate. First understand, that I meant my overall point to be about policy. Policies often reflect what's popular, and what the people think.

Supporting(or at least not suppressing it more than we have) illegal immigration has been the policy for three main reasons. Because of people want those jobs done cheaply, becasue people empathize with immigrants and importantly becasue a lot of people understand the demographic benefit of having a lot of young people (relative to the future functioning of our economy). There has been a lot written about this, and frankly we are lucky we don't have to look to Islamic hellholes to get most of our our immigrants, as they do in France.

So since we have so many people supportive of immigrants, even illegal ones in some cases, it's going to take fanning the flames of hate among the idiots and the authoritarians, if you're going to get the policy changed. You need talk radio talking up the hate 24/7 if you're going to counter the objective reality that we should want those people here.

26   mell   2017 Feb 19, 1:47pm  

marcus says

Because of people want those jobs done cheaply, becasue people empathize with immigrants and importantly becasue a lot of people understand the demographic benefit of having a lot of young people. There has been a lot written about this, and frankly we are lucky we don't have to look to Islamic hellholes to get our immigrants.

Sure. But the US is not very dependent on youth at this point, even without immigrants and their higher birth-rates, let alone the fact that promoting more young people to pay for the old is nothing but promoting a ponzi scheme (you cannot grow the population forever). Look at the Japanese who are hardly letting anybody into their aging population, yet they are doing alright.

marcus says

So since we have so many people supporting of immigrants, even illegal ones in some cases, it's going to take fanning the flames of hate among the idiots and the authoritarians, if you're going to get the policy changed. You need talk radio talking up the hate 24/7 if you're going to counter the objective reality that we should want those people here.

Policy change is not necessary, just enforcement of existing laws (plus executive orders) as usual and different administrations have enforced differently. Hate talk radio is not necessary either, just a rational/logical conversation about this and the conclusion that the laws must be enforced and legal immigration become the only way to immigrate as it clearly works best and has never been questioned by anybody (aside from debating what the right number of total immigrants per year would be, an obviously fluctuating target).

27   Entitlemented   2017 Feb 19, 2:27pm  

mell says

enforcing the law has nothing to do with hate.

Montesquie spent significant effort describing having laws, and what happens when special interest groups try to "end run" the existing laws- he noted the consequences can be so significant?:

“...when the laws have ceased to be executed, as this can only come from the corruption of the republic, the state is already lost.”
― Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws

28   missing   2017 Feb 19, 2:34pm  

I think the day when a superior alien civilization arrives on earth, exterminates most of the human race, quarantines the survivors in several pockets of land ("countries"), and establishes their laws, will be a bright day in the history of the Universe.

29   Patrick   2017 Feb 19, 4:36pm  

marcus says

Bllaming the immigrants and branding them worthy of hate for doing something that our policies have supported doesn't make sense. It's not virtue signalling, it's just going along with the policies. And when you get down to it, the cheap labor aspect of it is very complicated. IT's not a black and white situation, as much as I know you would like everything to be.

Where did I brand them worthy of hate? I compared them to the Irish.

The cheap labor aspect of it is very simple. Not complicated in the least.

It is a black and white situation. They are here illegally. They should go back because they broke the law.

30   Matt   2017 Feb 19, 5:05pm  

rando says

This is definitely an attempt to register mass numbers of illegals to vote:

Your comments are alarming - enough that I did a quick google search for more information. I'm no longer concerned, it seems like you're mistaken.

1st, your own links refer to 'eligable' voters being registered to vote when they get their license. That's different than saying everyone is registered to vote.

2nd, additional sources seem to suggest that there are measures in place already to prevent people from registering to vote if they're not citizens. This seems obvious, but your comments indicate that you are worried that this new registration process would bypass these safety measures, but that seems to not be the case.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-ca-motor-voter-law-20151016-html-htmlstory.html
http://www.snopes.com/california-motor-voter-act/

The only thing we can 'definitely' say is that there is a huge amount of misinformation being spread on all fronts. It feels like it's worse than ever before, but I don't have any evidence.

31   FuckTheMainstreamMedia   2017 Feb 19, 5:09pm  

rando says

marcus says

Bllaming the immigrants and branding them worthy of hate for doing something that our policies have supported doesn't make sense. It's not virtue signalling, it's just going along with the policies. And when you get down to it, the cheap labor aspect of it is very complicated. IT's not a black and white situation, as much as I know you would like everything to be.

Where did I brand them worthy of hate? I compared them to the Irish.

The cheap labor aspect of it is very simple. Not complicated in the least.

It is a black and white situation. They are here illegally. They should go back because they broke the law.

This. If we get rid of all illegals, and first purge the welfare and disability roles of people who are more than capable of doing work(and in the process eliminate the minimum wage laws and let the market set wages while also ending all homeless support and laws creating homeless comfort), then we very well can consider a guest worker programs.

32   curious2   2017 Feb 19, 5:17pm  

rando says

Please prove me wrong.

I want to believe California is not so corrupt that it is deliberately and illegally giving the mass vote to illegal immigrants.

This should help, from the DMV page:

"California Voter Registration Eligibility

In order to be eligible to vote in the state of California, you must be:

A citizen of the United States.
***
You'll be asked to answer a series of questions and enter your personal information, including:

Your CA driver's license or ID number.
Your Social Security number.
Your birth date."

Motor Voter may encourage eligible voters to register who might not otherwise go through the local registration process, but I haven't seen examples or other evidence suggesting the state might deliberately register illegal immigrants to vote. There may be some few examples of ID theft, but from the POV of a prospective voter, it's a big risk for a tiny reward. 40% of eligible voters don't even bother to vote. Democrats might expect that simplifying registration might register more Democrats, but even Republican Meg Whitman admitted while running for Governor that she "failed to register and vote on numerous occasions..."

33   Patrick   2017 Feb 19, 5:33pm  

curious2 says

You'll be asked to answer a series of questions and enter your personal information, including:

Your CA driver's license or ID number.

Your Social Security number.

Your birth date."

They just granted the driver's license, lol! So that one proves nothing.

Birth date also proves nothing.

SSNs are routinely stolen by illegal immigrants and not even the IRS checks that the name even matches the number:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/agency-encourages-illegal-immigrant-theft-of-ssns-irs-chief/article/2588288

34   curious2   2017 Feb 19, 6:39pm  

rando says

Birth date also proves nothing.

SSNs are routinely stolen by illegal immigrants and not even the IRS checks that the name even matches the number:

You're right that significant numbers of illegal immigrants have used someone else's SSN for the purpose of working and getting paid, but their motive to do that is obvious: getting paid. TPTB have tended to look the other way in order to get cheap labor and exert downward pressure on wages. That doesn't add up to evidence of illegal voting though, much less a deliberate state plan to register illegal voters. Birth date and SSN enable exact matches to catch duplicates, and an illegal voter would face significant penalties with no clear reward.

San Francisco allows parents to vote in local school board elections, even if the parents are not citizens. Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections.

35   curious2   2017 Feb 19, 6:40pm  

Patrick, you seem to have a shorter comment limit for editing comments than for posting them. So, I'm moving this into a new comment.

The big issues in this field are:
(a) eligible voters not bothering to vote (40% in Presidential elections, an outright majority in midterm elections);
(b) suppression of otherwise eligible voters, e.g. via drug "war" convictions or other barriers to registration and voting;
(c) NPVIC, which would enable easily hacked machines to overwhelm human voters.
There have indeed been some few anecdotes of individual illegal aliens voting, and that's a good argument to ensure citizenship requirements are enforced, and that the DOB and SSN are being cross-checked to prevent duplicates. After the 2000 Bush v Gore debacle, I wish the Democrats had taken the lead in 2009-11 to improve elections nationally, but I guess the Chicago Democrats weren't keen on cleaning up elections. There's never been evidence of enough illegal voters to change an election result, so it's hard to see a motive to try that.

36   bob2356   2017 Feb 19, 9:11pm  

rando says

At least 600,000 illegal aliens were granted driver's licenses and automatically registered to vote unless they specifically opted out.

Pretty definitive statement. You really want to stand on this hand?

Here is what DMV says about AB60 licenses. http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/ab-60-drivers-license.php :
This is a special driver's license that:
May NOT be used for identification purposes.
MAY be used to drive anywhere throughout the state of California.
Has a distinguishing feature and notice on the front of the license indicating that it is for driving purposes only, per the AB-60 law (i.e. “DP" instead of “DL").

DP licenses are NOT automatically registered to vote and can't be used to register to vote. Here is ab1461 (voter registration DMV) . http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_1451-1500/ab_1461_cfa_20150629_091820_sen_comm.html

Because the AB60 licensing process was specifically established for individuals who are unable to submit satisfactory proof of legal presence in the United States, this bill expressly prohibits the DMV from transmitting information to the SOS about individuals who applied for or received a driver's license pursuant to AB 60.

Expressly prohibits transmitting information to california's secretary of state, which would include voter registrations. Pretty clear to me. Do you have some other understanding of expressly prohibits? How come I can look this up from 3000 miles away and you can't.

Sorry, the right wing echo chamber flat out lied to you. But that isn't fake news, it's alternative facts.

This is the point where normal reasonable people say I fucked up and blind ideologues double down with more BS. Which will it be?

Can we move onto the next boogeyman now?

37   BayArea   2017 Feb 20, 6:45am  

So are we agreeing that there is no legal process in place that gives voter right to illegal immigrants?

And those illegal immigrants that do have the ability to vote must have committed identify fraud (SSN) first in some way?

This is a huge topic that people talk past eachother on all the time. I'd really like to get the truth in whether there are any loopholes in place that give illegal immigrants (who haven't committed identify fraud) the ability to vote in an election.

38   bob2356   2017 Feb 20, 7:04am  

BayArea says

I'd really like to get the truth in whether there are any loopholes in place that give illegal immigrants (who haven't committed identify fraud) the ability to vote in an election.

Look up the "truth". The laws of the federal government and states are available on line. The only place aliens (legal or illegal) can vote is in special state or local elections where they are specifically allowed to vote on a local issue in that election.

18 USC 611 chapter 29.

§611. Voting by aliens
(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless-
(1) the election is held partly for some other purpose;
(2) aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and
(3) voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices.
(b) Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to an alien if-
(1) each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization);
(2) the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16; and
(3) the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting in violation of such subsection that he or she was a citizen of the United States.

Clear enough?

39   BayArea   2017 Feb 20, 7:09am  

It looks like the law is clear, thanks for posting.

What's not clear is if there are any loopholes in place currently that would allow large numbers of illegal immigrants to vote for president of the United States without having commited identity fraud.

40   bob2356   2017 Feb 20, 7:20am  

BayArea says

It looks like the law is clear, thanks for posting.

What's not clear is if there are any loopholes in place currently that would allow large numbers of illegal immigrants to vote for president of the United States without having commited identity fraud.

How can it not be clear? This is the law of the land. IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY ALIEN TO VOTE ...... FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT. I really thought that was about as unambiguous as it possibly can be. The only exceptions are right there in subsection (c). There is only 1 USC, there isn't some shadow set of rules tucked away somewhere.

I am constantly stunned by the number of people, including a large number on patnet, who live their lives under a set of laws that they have no idea in the world how they are formulated, what they mean, or even what they say. Simply amazing.

Comments 1 - 40 of 132       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions