It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Bush to Militarize Border?

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Ok. I'll give you that
but they are still Illegal (criminals)
They are still aliens

I do not see the reason to liberalize the name illegal alien. That has been in use WAY before undocumented. That was a Harry Reidism wasn't it?

I call crack dealers crack dealers and Thieves thieves etc.

Illegal Aliens break the law coming here. So they are Illegal Aliens or Criminals.

It is a HUGE liberal ploy to "rename" something to attempt to induce a more favorable reaction from the general public. I've personally never met a liberal that would admit to being a liberal. They always tell me that they are moderates. Another ploy.

You can argue about there being "other" aliens illegally here and I wont dispute you. YET the fact is that the Illegal Migration of Mexicans across the border is the SINGLE LARGEST MIGRATION in the history of the world. Thats correct, it beats the American Bison, Elks and even the lemmings.

Check my previous posting for some numbers
It has to stop




posted on May, 22 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Can you define for me what is liberal about using a different term? What is the "liberal" notion behind it?

Are you saying that being more respectful of someone instead of applying a stigma is "liberalizing" the term?



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
No, what I am saying is that Illegal is not disrespectful any more than calling me an American. That is what I am.

What I am saying is that you are using "softer" more "gentle" and less accurate terms when the original works better.

They are Illegal, They know they are, that is why the run when the Border Patrol come after them. It's not like it is a big surprise to them. They are not accidentally breaking the law.

Using terms like Undocumented, Migrants (which they are not by the way)(Migrants migrate from one country to another, they want to stay Mexican and send their money back there) is an obvious attempt to garner sympathy from a generally non accepting public. Look at the polls for what the country wants. Overwhelming support for sending them back.

It is out of control and current the greatest threat to this country and our way of life.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
That's fair. Because you are saying that you are calling it as you are seeing it.

But what's wrong with "softer", "gentler", "finer" things? Is it wrong to be considerate or respectful of people from all walks of life?

What about alien? Doesn't that define stigmatize someone who is "otherworldly", not of this place? Does it not make a person feel as if they don't even belong on Earth? And by the word itself, does it not make the person "sub-human"?



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I can truly see your point. I am at times a little too harsh in some areas, but I feel this is a situation that has been let go for so long now that harsh measures are unavoidable.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
TheBorg, are you suggesting we shoot mexicans coming across the border? Those same Mexicans trying to escape the harsh realities of their lives in Mexico in search of a better one in the United States?

Theborg, your post is extremely one sided, but I don't think you seem to care. Doesn't really matter anyways because the use of deadly force will never be authorized unless(and I do stress this), unless the use of deadly force is the last option, short of nuking mexico. Using deadly force at this stage is not only politically incorrect, but other nations would certainly step in to do something, then we have a whole global fiasco in our hands. Of course with the whole Iraq situation(and the growing Iranian situation), another global problem is the last thing the U.S. needs.

So I don't think that the use of Deadly force would be the wisest choise at the moment.

They're only trying to escape the hardships in their country, I'm not sure you put yourself in their position.

Shattered OUT...


No I'm not suggesting we shoot on sight. It was a radical statement meant to break the regular train of thought that what's going on should just be allowed to take place. We cannot sit idly by and just allow laws to be broken right under our noses. For anyone to suggest that we do so is no longer thinking logically. If I witness a bank robbery and tell no one about what I saw, I become complicit in said activity. Same goes with the border issue. If we don't make an example out of some people on this, then nothing will change, and we'll have made ourselves into the very thing we're trying to stop.

And as far as their trying to escape the hardships in their country, since when did people not try and make change? Why do they think that running will help them? I know why. It's because there's no one on the border telling them they can't, that's why.

I'm merely suggesting that people with a bit more common sense use said common sense to bring some order back to the society that they all live in.

TheBorg

(edited for P.S.)

P.S. I don't think the wide majority seem to understand the reasons why this is such a big issue. People need to know that when something is illegal, it's illegal. To tell someone that there are laws here, and when they break them they get no punishment doesn't help the lawmakers any.

All that does is engenders a new generation of lawbreakers. These people grow up in a world where they think they can get away with anything, and they will, because no one will stop them. Since when did embracing Anarchy become the modicum of American Idealism?

[edit on 23-5-2006 by TheBorg]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Now, I show sympathy for them, because I myself am an immigrant and I can understand why they would want to leave, however I do believe the law is law, and what they are doing is breaking the law. I just don't think "making and example" of them is the wisest choice. There's always another way.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
But what's wrong with "softer", "gentler", "finer" things?


Because it sugarcoats a bad thing.
You can't polish a turd. Give it up!



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Don't forget about those illegals who come to take advantage of our social programs. Yes they do take jobs Americans want. Yes they fill up our prisons and jail facilities. Yes they bring diseases to our population. Yes they support there own governments with money earned within our borders. Yes they export there way of life to our land. Yes they drive around as uninsured motorist.
What benefit are these people to our nation? The only Americans who benefit are business owners, politicians and the Federal Government.
I and millions like me want these invaders out of our land.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
flycatcher, the people you mentioned who these immigrants benefit, really it's all about them. They have to be at risk in order for action to be taken. Federal government, politicians, buisness owners, that's what make sup America. The buisness of America is Buisness.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006


Do you have proof about the true orgins of the word, "illegals"?


To everyone else:

It's an issue of seeing people's true feelings. That's what I'm curious about. Race is out of the equation. If people were truly fair in their pursuit of all "illegals" then they would be as equally mad about the European "illegals" as the undocumented workers from South of the Border.

And, they would have the courage and fortitude to say "illegals" in the same breath as "Europeans". And, they would form a chapter to "drive those European illegals" out. ouldn't they?

After all, you would easily help the INS or ICE detain those "European illegals" as you would South American undocumented workers, would you?

[edit on 16-5-2006 by ceci2006]


What is the origins of the word illegal?


Main Entry: 1il•le•gal Pronunciation: (")i(l)-'lE-g&l Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French illegal, from Medieval Latin illegalis, from Latin in- + legalis legal : not according to or authorized by law : UNLAWFUL, ILLICIT; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)
Link to source

I find it ironic that the word illegal is from Latin.

Using the definition of the word "illegal", as some sort of argument, is sophomoric. Try to avoid straw man arguments in this debate, while you are at it. Attack the logic of the problem in stead of appealing to emotions.
BTW German, Irish, Jewish, Italian legal immigrants all faced intolerance from the native-born Americans. That those who were already here looked down on and exploited new immigrants is nothing new. In fact because of the nature of American possession of the SW, Hispanic persons have in fact had a far easier time integrating into American society than other ethnic groups (i.e. Africans & American Indians).

/you can dooooo-it



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
It may be a sophomoric argument, but did you read what the NAHJ and NABJ said about the word "illegal" in my post to WyrdeOne?

I suppose the word "illegal" was also sophomoric to them as well, so much so that they (along with the Native American Journalists Association and the National Association of Asian Journalists) issued a PR statement regarding its use in the media. I suppose you also didn't read theorist George Lakoff's statement about the word "illegal" in the NABJ PR statement in my post. I guessed as such.

But that's okay. I'm beginning to learn that there is only one way to think about certain issues on this board. Lesson duly noted.



[edit on 23-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
flycatcher, the people you mentioned who these immigrants benefit, really it's all about them. They have to be at risk in order for action to be taken. Federal government, politicians, buisness owners, that's what make sup America. The buisness of America is Buisness.

Shattered OUT...


No argument with that.

Very well put



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
It may be a sophomoric argument, but did you read what the NAHJ and NABJ said about the word "illegal" in my post to WyrdeOne?

I suppose the word "illegal" was also sophomoric to them as well, so much so that they (along with the Native American Journalists Association and the National Association of Asian Journalists) issued a PR statement regarding its use in the media. I suppose you also didn't read theorist George Lakoff's statement about the word "illegal" in the NABJ PR statement in my post. I guessed as such.

But that's okay. I'm beginning to learn that there is only one way to think about certain issues on this board. Lesson duly noted.



[edit on 23-5-2006 by ceci2006]


Yes Ceci there is truly only one way to think on ATS....and that is Critical Thinking. The whole usage the word "Illegal" is correct, grammatically speaking. If one side wants the debate's vocabulary changed to suit their motives so be it. But you & I both know, even if you do not want to admit it out loud, that arguing the meaning of a commonly accepted word is silly. There have been great points made by BOTH sides in this argument, but you harping on and on about the origin of the word “illegals” is not one of them.

BTW Yes I did...and it was utter crap. The term has been around well before you were even aware of this issue. If Illegal is to be a foul word, it is only because some seek to warp a debate’s terminology. We can call them "Kings & Queens" till we are blue in the face, it still does not change the fact that they are in violation of US laws (be it civil or criminal or both).

Either way the points, you have made, about race and definition of a single word are the two weakest arguments you have going for you. Come on there are some really good points out use them, you will persuade more people I promise.

In summation

Legal=word
Illegal=word
Legal alien= singular word
Illegal alien= plural word
Illegals- Is not a word


[edit on 24-5-2006 by Imperium Americana]

[edit on 24-5-2006 by Imperium Americana]



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Then, in your mind such a word is a weak argument. And like I said before, I better get with the program on this board. I have to learn that calling undocumented workers "illegals" is good. To show sympathy for the downtrodden is bad. To not understand what a stigma represents is good. And to express any empathy for others outside your own country is bad. And to be blind to the harsh inequities of the nation is good.

I won't harshly criticize what you just posted. But, thank you for enlightening me to your definition of "critical thinking". Obviously, your skills are finely tuned and well-heeled for the arena of debate.

Yes, once again, I am learning about this board a little each and every day.

[edit on 24-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Then, in your mind such a word is a weak argument.

No, to anyone with even a shred of logic, it is a weak argument


And like I said before, I better get with the program on this board. I have to learn that calling undocumented workers "illegals" is good.

I think you are not referring to me here, since I said that "Illegals" is not a word. NABJ went farther than you. They TOLD their member not to use the term "Illegal Alien". That is stupid. I can understand the "Illegals" argument, but ordering journalist not to using correct grammar, smacks of an attempt to control the verbiage of a debate. Look the whole "Illegals" portion of this thread is a red herring. Focus on the real issues.


To show sympathy for the downtrodden is bad. To not understand what a stigma represents is good. And to express any empathy for others outside your own country is bad. And to be blind to the harsh inequities of the nation is good.


What? You are talking about other right. Even disregarding you fallacious appeal to emotion, I never advocated any such thing. See this is what I am talking about. That is bad debating. You do not serve your belief with drivel such as this. If no one cares persuade them with rational, well research, & logical opinions.


I won't harshly criticize what you just posted. But, thank you for enlightening me to your definition of "critical thinking". Obviously, your skills are finely tuned and well-heeled for the arena of debate.

Yes, once again, I am learning about this board a little each and every day.

[edit on 24-5-2006 by ceci2006]


Oh please do not do me any favors!

Patronizing me does not endear you either!



[edit on 24-5-2006 by Imperium Americana]



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I'm not doing you any favors. Nor do I wish to. I just wanted to say that now I know how the way this board works. What is considered a "weak" argument and "what isn't". What is derived as "applicable" to the subject matter. And "what" isn't.

I distinctly am learning from this topic to be lauded is not to have a shred of humanity. And to be praised, one has to be nationalist and unfeeling--all in the manner of self-preservation. And it's this way or the highway.

Yep. That's what critical thinking is all about. Thank you for your lesson.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
I'm not doing you any favors. Nor do I wish to. I just wanted to say that now I know how the way this board works. What is considered a "weak" argument and "what isn't". What is derived as "applicable" to the subject matter. And "what" isn't.

I distinctly am learning from this topic to be lauded is not to have a shred of humanity. And to be praised, one has to be nationalist and unfeeling--all in the manner of self-preservation. And it's this way or the highway.

Yep. That's what critical thinking is all about. Thank you for your lesson.



Ceci you dolt! I agree with you! It is just your argument sux. Stop trying to characterize me as something I am not. Stop with "Woe is Me!!". You are better than that!



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Enough of this bickering. The next insult will result in warns. This is the News Network, give it the respect it deserves.

Now, back to the topic.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Enough of this bickering. The next insult will result in warns. This is the News Network, give it the respect it deserves.

Now, back to the topic.


You are right: Dolt was a bit much! Sorry Ceci!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join