Last month, the administration said the U.S. will let up to 360,000 people per year enter the country from four countries. A lawsuit filed Tuesday claims the policy is illegal.
Illegals is just shortened illegal immigrant, just like temporary nonimigrant workers are called migrants.
They are migrants because they migrate. They aren’t “illegals” because irrespective of the status of their presence according to those that claim dominion of the land they are on they are not themselves illegal.
I can’t change how you feel about a group nor can I change the definition of a word. It’s a shame you only see a person’s immigration status there’s more to an illegal than how they entered the country.
there’s more to an illegal than how they entered the country.
You’re going to have to explain what the word means to me then, because the phrase by itself doesn’t even seem to refer to immigration status at all and I don’t know what you mean by it.
Nobody’s trying to say they aren’t illegal immigrants. But using derogatory terms is unnecessary and won’t bring a lot of people to your side.
Illegals is just shortened illegal immigrant, just like temporary nonimigrant workers are called migrants. The negative connotation is yours.
They are migrants because they migrate. They aren’t “illegals” because irrespective of the status of their presence according to those that claim dominion of the land they are on they are not themselves illegal.
They are illegal immigrants or illegal for short per the definition you were given but appear unable to comprehend.
But they aren’t illegal_s_ as that renders the phrase a reference to the people themselves and not their actions.
To refer to people as illegal is dehumanizing.
Just because you look down on a group of people doesn’t make the term to describe them dehumanizing.
Just because you can’t differenciate between a term for immigration status and the people with that status doesn’t change what the term means.
I don’t look down on the group. I look down on their actions. I don’t like criminal behavior.
You’re not a liberal so that makes sense.
Doesn’t make it not dehumanizing—since it is—and it certainly doesn’t help your arguments it isn’t.
I can’t change how you feel about a group nor can I change the definition of a word. It’s a shame you only see a person’s immigration status there’s more to an illegal than how they entered the country.
You’re going to have to explain what the word means to me then, because the phrase by itself doesn’t even seem to refer to immigration status at all and I don’t know what you mean by it.
They are in fact illegal.
No person is illegal. Regardless what their immigration status might be.
Thats the term for their group, isnt it? Isnt it tiring to type out illegal immigrant every time?
Humans can’t be illegal.
Only actions humans take can be illegal.
Thats really getting into pedantics, and its just name calling. I swear, yall cared more about the term illegals than the lawsuit
I question if that view of yours extends to all slurs.
It doesnt. I remove any uses of the n-word and r-word on sight.
Would you mind explaining your logic for differentiating those names people call people from these ones?
What issues do you take with the alluded to slurs you don’t find applicable to this one?