“That’s sweet. They’re illegal aliens.”
—-Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts, “torn between two morons,” as Mary MacGregor might sing, on an MSNBC segment when informed that “we don’t use the term ‘illegal’ for undocumented individuals.”
No weenie he! If only every thinking person confronted with this standard “it isn’t what it is” dodge by open borders advocates responded with similar force. Unfortunately the best part, “That’s sweet!” was muffled by the cross-talk.
Symone Sanders-Townsend is trying hard to catch up to Joy Reid as MSNBC’s most repulsive ideologue. Imagine: Bernie Sanders actually employed this woman as his spokesperson! While discussing an illegal immigrant’s rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl, what Sanders-Townsend is most concerned about is describing him in a manner that hides the criminal’s actual status. How can anyone of sound mind and ethical orientation respect people like this, much less vote for the party they are working for?
The whole debate put me in mind of Jean Kerr’s observation that it is impossible to argue with a 6-year-old without sounding like one. Both Sanders-Townsend and the always dim-bulbed Michael Steele were making the absurd argument that because (they claimed, using dubious “surveys”) a small percentage of illegals commit horrific crimes, that means that illegals shouldn’t be deported. Infected with the fog of stupidity around, him, Roberts apparently couldn’t muster the obvious rebuttal: “A single murder or rape by an illegal immigrants who doesn’t belong here is too many. If they weren’t allowed in the country and after that to stay here, there would be no Americans harmed by illegal immigrants. You’re saying, ‘But gee, it isn’t THAT many young girls who are raped and murdered by illegals, so what’s the big deal?’ How can you live with yourself? No illegal immigrants means no Americans victimized by illegal immigrants. That’s a fact.”
Meanwhile, listen to the steele-trap mind of Michael Steele, the most incompetent RNC chair of all time, at work: “What is the difference between an illegal immigrant who, unfortunately, engages in that activity?” Difference between…. what???? And the criminal “unfortunately” rapes and murders a little girl…yup, just bad luck, the rapist was just was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Steele didn’t even have the decency to name the crime, calling it “that activity.” I’m assuming he meant, “What is the difference between an illegal immigrant who rapes and murders a child and a citizen who does the same thing?”
Ooooh, tough one: let me think…
Oh, I’ve got it! The difference is that one of the criminals is a citizen who has a right to be here, and the other isn’t, meaning that his crime was completely avoidable.
Ethics Alarms 
“…a small percentage of illegals commit horrific crimes, that means that illegals shouldn’t be deported. “
An argument that completely misses the point. The debate isn’t what percentage of people in our country illegally commit further crimes after entering it or even what percentage of illegal immigrants commit crimes as opposed to people who are legal residents. The point is, as you have spelled out clearly, that murder victims wouldn’t be dead, rape victims wouldn’t be traumatized and anyone else targeted by such a person wouldn’t be a victim at all if the perpetrator were not in the United States.
It’s not a hard statement to grasp, but they continue to play word games.
My favorite one is the argument about those who commit no further crimes once they get here. Great! So everyone gets one free crime, I guess? It’s only fair, right. If people are allowed to commit the crime of sneaking into the country and stay here without doing anything else wrong, what crime am I allowed to get away with just once?
Not directly on point but an attorney recently argued in one of cases that he is immune from scrutiny for anything he does in the course of representing his client, whether legal or illegal, ethical or unethical.
To which I responded, “Oh. Cool. I am going offer contract killing as a side benefit of my legal services. I will tell my clients, ‘hey, if you need someone rubbed out, I can do it for an extra fee. According to my opposing counsel, both of us will be immune from prosecution for murdering your obnoxious neighbor.'” The judge chuckled and sanctioned the bozo $7000.00 for filing frivolous motions.
jvb
An attorney I tried a case against is in jail for life for repeatedly telling the gangsters he represented that “no witness, no case,” among other things.
So far you’re allowed to get away with the crime of being a conservative or a Republican. It is a crime, right?
What’s the difference, Mr. Steele? I believe in the court of law there’s a difference, at least at sentencing, between someone with no criminal record and someone who has committed prior offenses. The willingness to break the law weakens the ability to avoid further lawbreaking. Yes, there is an enormous difference between rape and illegal immigration, and I’m not about to imply that illegal immigration makes one more prone to rape. (But does rape make one more prone to illegal immigration?) The problem, though, is an illegal alien has already demonstrated that when push comes to shove, he’ll neglect the laws of the land in favor of what he wants. Any sort of claim that “once here, they are model citizens” suffers from that basic analysis. They are model citizens only until. Until what? That remains to be seen for each individual.
Well, I do object to using “illegals” as a noun.
Curmie, maybe think of it as a filter. We can bend ourselves into all sorts of contortions around word choice, but fundamentally what we’re trying to accomplish is narrowing down the subjects of our discussions. In common parlance, “illegals” means the same thing as “persons who have chosen to enter the United States without following the proper immigration procedures and in defiance of immigration law.” Moreover, using the word “illegal” captures the intent, as opposed to “undocumented immigrant” or even just “immigrant”. “Undocumented” is more nebulous than “illegal” and its usage is meant to obscure, not clarify. Using just the term “immigrant” conflates those who came here illegally, those who have recently come here legally, and those whose ancestors came here just a couple of generations ago. In other words, these terms are bad filters, because they don’t filter out everyone we would wish to exclude from discussion.
That being said, do you happen to have in mind a different single term that equally (or even better) captures the concept we’re after by using the word “illegals”?
Ryan asked, “That being said, do you happen to have in mind a different single term that equally (or even better) captures the concept we’re after by using the word ‘illegals’?”
Yes. Model citizens.
jvb
…do you happen to have in mind a different single term that equally (or even better) captures the concept we’re after by using the word “illegals”?
No, I don’t. That’s why we have adjectives… like “illegal,” for example.
Illegal immigrants?
There are also a lot of words I object to being used as verbs, and I try to catch myself before doing so.
Out of curiosity, what are the reasons you have for your objection, and what examples are you thinking of in particular? I can think of, as reasons: sloppiness, imprecision, a barrier to communication, and the like.
One thing I will concede to both you and Curmie is that if what we’re interested in is precision, then using the adjective alone, in a noun format, can lose precision, depending on the context. If we had more than one group where the term “illegals” could apply, that would create, not reduce, confusion.
Well, perhaps ugliness? For example, writing I memo’d you rather than I sent you a memo. I’ll grant that the meaning is fairly clear, but I dislike the practice.
I probably need to read some bureaucratese to get a better sampling, which tend to be less transparent. Taking a perfectly good noun and torturing it into a cowering verb should be classed with other crimes against humanity.
Of course, when I say this, the best examples stridently avoid my mind, but maybe one or two will present themselves.
My late wife, a language scholar, always said I was insufficiently tolerant of the evolution of our communications. I am particularly revolted by the trend of turning nouns into verbs, as in “Let’s —-!” Let’s Target, as in let’s go shopping at Target. I heard someone use “umbrella” as a verb” “I umbrella’ed my mother in that storm.” It’s called “Verbing.”
or unalived in lieu of killing
“I heard someone use “umbrella” as a verb” “I umbrella’ed my mother in that storm.””
Would this use of umbrella’ed be similar to;
1. “I knifed my mother in that storm” as in the deliberate attack on the mother, or
2. “I spiked another runner in the running race” as in the (usually) accidental contact of a runner’s shoe’s spikes with another runner, or
3. could it even possibly even be that he carried the umbrella for his mother so his mother wouldn’t get wet.
If the person speaking was a Bulgarian spy then number one is most likely with a poison dart in the umbrella, but otherwise seeing how many people are so careless with umbrellas, then number two seems most likely.
Reminds me of a Boy Meets World episode where Cory admits to his best friend Shawn that he’s been dreaming about killing him and he doesn’t know why.
“I shoved and umbrella down your throat, and I opened it. I Mary Poppin-ed ya!”
Another nice example is given by Charlie Puth in his song called “Marvin Gaye”when he sings:
“Let’s Marvin Gaye and get it on.”
From a grammatical perspective? I feel a bit of a twinge using it myself, but since it’s completely clear what it refers to, and, I confess, it has a bit of a sting attached, I will use it for short on occasion, because I don’t feel like jumping through any etiquette hoops in referring to those who willfully violate our laws, and worse, are self-righteous about it. Is that wrong? Is it different from referring to chocolate candy as “chocolates”? Left-handed pitchers as “Lefties”? Unlike “undocumented, it is not a deliberately misleading or vague term.
Isn’t the use of the word professional an equivalent situation?
Good comp, I’d say.
I’ll buy that, up to a point. But “professional” refers to anyone employed in a profession. “Illegal” as a noun is not used to describe all people engaged in illegality. Home-grown murderers, thieves, rapists, et al., are not called “illegals.” I find that intriguing, but as Ryan pointed out earlier, there’s not a one-word term for those whose very presence in this place at this time is unlawful. We’re left with either a two-word description or an imprecise nominalized adjective. I prefer the former construction.
Really, I was just somewhat flippantly letting my inner Grammar Nazi out for a stroll around the neighborhood.
“Criminals” as a noun works for me.
Should I assume that “wetback” is out of bounds, even if it was the name of a government operation in the 1950s?
“Professional: is also appropriate for someone who is paid for what they do, in opposition to an “amateur” who is not.
And “undocumented” could confuse since those detained at the border are given some paperwork to establish their future court date, thus they are turned loose on use with official government documents… so undocumented would strictly apply to the “gotaways”.
You phone someone, using your phone….
A more grammatically correct term would be “illegally present alien/immigrant”. It’s unambiguous without the “no person is illegal” stupid argument being possible. The natural shortened version is of course illegal alien. All the alternative options are worse. Undocumented implies that it’s just some sort of minor paperwork rather than the fact that they aren’t supposed to be present at all. Most of them do actually have documents, fraudulent ones. Migrant is worse by ignoring the issue entirely. My usual suggestion when people complain about a person being illegal is to suggest criminal immigrants, which could also indicate legitimate immigrants who commit a crime. Being here illegally is a crime, unless you want to hang tight to the legalistic difference between civil and criminal violations. Argubably, every day they stay present should be a different count…
I should have read Phlinn’s comment before jumping in. I’ll show myself out.
If I were to cross the border of Symone Sanders-Townsend’s home at 11pm and enter it without her permission, would she consider me merely an “undocumented individual?”
Even the trolls that occasionally show up here won’t publicly try to explain their support for the O’Biden open borders policy. No doubt they’re scared of being embarrassed and verbally nuked by the EA meanies but they’ll still advocate for dementia-jo because, welp, just because.
Have a nice day…😎
Too late.
I’m one to always play the euphemism game. How about “Foreign Nationals Unlawfully Present in the U.S. and without Criminal History Screening”?
If we don’t get our borders under control, I can foresee a time when many of those making illegal entry into our country will be referred to as “targets,” particularly when they are caught red-handed commuting violent crimes against citizens.
Jack posted a comment about the rape and murder of a 12-year-old by two people who entered the US illegally and the discussion on MSNBC devolved into what the proper label should be for the two men accused of the crime. This dodge consumed airtime and diverted the conversation away from the heinous crimes of rape and murder. Was the diversion purposeful to avoid discussing the problem? Hard to say. It is difficult to know what is in one’s heart. As the Shadow postulated “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?”
Now the commentary in Ethics Alarms, concerning the rape and murder and the apparent deliberate obfuscation of the problem by the television panelist, diverted by Curmie posting, “Well, I do object to using “illegals” as a noun.” The Ethics Alarms community conversation then devolved into grammar and semantics discussions. I would have preferred people to say to Curmie, “You are entitled to your opinion and beliefs “and move back to discussions of the real problem. Overall, for this reader, it’s very disappointing.
Tom
I was under the impression that the point of the essay was to address the MSNBC host’s behavior during an interview with the conservative guest. It was an obvious attempt to divert attention away from the actual issue so she and Steele tag teamed to make the issue about terminology. So it makes sense that the commentary focused on language.
Chris, my take on Jack’s Post was that he addressed multiple issues. One was that the panelists used obfuscating language to divert attention away from the problem of rape and murder. A second was that he went on about them using questionable studies to lessen the severity of the threat illegal aliens pose to the country. Third, he further suggested that if illegal aliens were deported, they couldn’t victimize our citizens. Fourth and fifth he questioned the competency of Kevin Roberts and RNC chair Michael Steele. In my mind, there were multiple topics worthy of commentary beyond discussing the precision of language.
I am not familiar with any of the individuals Jack mentioned. As such, I do not know if the panelist’s comments were deliberate stalling, deliberately misleading, or delusional thinking. The EA commentators focusing on individual words diverts attention away from the problems highlighted by Jack in his post. That was the gist of my commentary.
Fair enough. I agree that several points were made. From my perspective Jack was not trying to address those points, he was evaluating the exchanges by Steele a Sanders and the poor rebuttals by Robert’s. I do agree that the discussion devolved into the linguistic usage of verbs as nouns. I will say that language or the misuse of language to mislead such as calling all foreign nationals immigrants even if they enter illegally an ethics issue. That is like calling an embezzler a customer of the bank because he makes withdrawals. By conflating the two groups legal or illegal, documented or undocumented the goal is to confuse the public while minimizing the actual harm allowing millions of persons unauthorized to be here and impose costs on the authorized population.
I agree, as you point out, that purposely calling both legal and illegal immigrants just immigrants to minimize the extent of unrestricted illegal immigration is unethical and wrong.
Additionally, the more time people spend debating what to call something or someone the less time there is for addressing the problem. The debate itself can become a sport and the original problem that spawned the debate is forgotten.
Figuring out how to label something – in this case, some group of people – can be very important to solving the problem. If the group of people are “illegal” and should not be here, then agreeing on a label of “illegal” is one step up the ladder to preventing them from coming here illegally and/or evicting them when they’re found. This will help at least reduce the horrific crimes in question: the rape and murder of twelve-year-old girls by illegals who should not be in this country, but are here because our government cares more about illegals who shouldn’t be here than it does twelve-year-girls who should be here, but now aren’t.
The blight of illegal immigration highlights our government’s failure to uphold even the Preamble to the Constitution, to say nothing of the specifics in the document itself.