Sunday, July 18, 2010

Using the ANTI's context for Illegal: America is Comprised of "Illegals"

I often read the comments of sb1070 supporters. They always say the same thing. "What is it about illegal that you don't understand?" Every time I read that sentence it makes me take a pause. Why? Because it is probably the lamest and stupidest argument anyone can make, yet they all say it.

My response to them: "Oh I understand the word very well, do you? Illegal. An adjective meaning forbidden by law or statute. Many people misunderstand the term and misuse it often. Sometime they use it as a noun, calling human beings "Illeegal." It is an adjective. An adjective is a part of speech that modifies a noun or a pronoun. Do you want to combine this adjective with a noun? Do you want to use alien with it? Alien, the noun meaning non-citizen? Well the correct term may be non-citizen. However, if you use the adjective "illegal" for everyone who commits a civil violation or misdemeanor or felony, whether they have been charged or not, then everyone in America, having committed some sort of civil violation or misdemeanor or felony is an illegal citizen or non-citizen."

"So you see, I do understand every part of the term "illegal." If you choose to use "illegal" in your context, then we have a Country full of illegals, including YOU!"

7 comments:

Megaan said...

Hi,

We are running a non-profit site; only for the sake of information sharing.

We visit your web site regularly. Recently we came across the "Favorite Blogs" section in your site. Since our site is also based on regular news updates, we believe it would surely help us to be more effective if we get your site’s link. We have placed your site’s link in our site and we request you to place us in the "Favorite Blogs" section.

URL: http://news-updations.blogspot.com/
Title: Current news updates
Email ID: megaanaustin@gmail.com

We would be pleased with your positive response. Looking forward for your reply...

Thank You!!

Admin
Megaan Austin
http://news-updations.blogspot.com/

Dee said...

Bad Anon said:
"You are mixing apples with oranges here. The word illegal in the term illegal alien is an adjective. The word alien is a noun. Therefore the term illegal alien is correct. Illegal being a descriptive term for a certain type of alien."

Actually Bad Anon, you proved my point. Replace Alien with its synonym "non-citizen." Now let's use the antonym. Citizen.

You keep trying to use an adjective improperly. A citizen is not illegal because they commit a civil violation anymore than a non citizen is illegal for committing a civil violation.

The term "illegal" as a noun and the term "illegal alien" as an adjective with a noun are both incorrect and improper terms.

The most you CAN say is "non-citizen who entered the country without legal Visa or Passport."

Are you finally getting it??

Dee said...

And as I said, the ANTIs are trying to change our grammar context, and if we change the context the way the ANTIs are intending, then ALL people in America are "Illeegals" because everyone has, at one time or another, committed, at a minimum, a civil violation, whether they have been prosecuted or not. (just as I said in this blog)

ultima said...

That is rather tortured reasoning. Why not just accept Wiki's definition:

"An alien who is present in a country (which is foreign to him/her) unlawfully or without the country's authorization is known as an illegal alien of that country. An illegal alien commonly refers to a foreign national who resides in another country unlawfully, either by entering that country at a place other than a designated port-of-entry or as result of the expiration of a non-immigrant visa.

The use of the term "illegals" is easily understood then as an abbreviation of "illegal aliens". This is like "criminal" vs "criminal element" or "criminal intent" where the word criminal or criminals is used as both a nown and an adjective. Nice try but no cigar.

Dee said...

Ultima,

You say why not just accept a blatant misuse of the language which is based on a xenophobic, racist attitude as occurred during the Jim Crow era?

I think the question provides the answer.

We SHOULD NOT and CANNOT allow this blatant misuse of the language to CONTINUE merely because no one has stood up and, as Sarah Palin said, "REFUDIATED it!"

Vicente Duque said...

Prescott Arizona Daily Courier : State Insurance Pool files Lawsuit against Arizona SB1070 : Self-insurance pool for dozens of smaller Arizona cities and towns want to put provisions of SB1070 on hold, pending a final Federal Ruling


Arizonan Officials filing lawsuits against Arizona - This shows the Improvisation, Recklessness, Carelessness and Irresponsibility of the Arizona Legislature.


Prescott Arizona Daily Courier
Editorial: SB 1070 law must be enforced consistently
July 20, 2010


Editorial: SB 1070 law must be enforced consistently

http://prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=73&ArticleID=83447&TM=48141.97



Some excerpts :

The Arizona Municipal Risk Retention Pool on Monday asked for permission to file a brief explaining that municipalities could face costly lawsuits over a provision that prohibits release of an arrested person until the person's immigration status is determined, according to The Associated Press.

The self-insurance pool for dozens of smaller Arizona cities and towns wants a federal judge to put that provision of the state's new immigration enforcement law on hold, pending a final ruling on its legality.

Raciality.com

Vicente Duque

Vicente Duque said...

Examiner.com : Federal Judge Susan Bolton seems to disagree with Arizona Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain on the Constitutionality of SB1070 - The Senators support this New Law


Examiner.com
Judge appears to disagree with sponsoring senator on Arizona immigration law
By AMDC Homeland Security Examiner Mickey McCarter
July 23, 2010

http://www.examiner.com/x-59281-DC-Homeland-Security-Examiner%7Ey2010m7d23-Judge-Appears-to-Disagree-with-Sponsoring-Senator-on-Arizona-Immigration-Law


Some excerpts :

A federal judge in Arizona questioned the constitutionality of the state's immigration registration law Thursday afternoon, sharply contrasting with the view of the US senator who recommended her to the federal bench.

Judge Susan Bolton of the US District Court of Arizona noted in the hearing that the US Supreme Court consistently has ruled against states that have attempted to make it illegal not to carry documentation of immigration status.

The Arizona law in question (SB 1070) requires police to check the legal identification of any individual stopped legally for another law enforcement inquiry.

But Bolton expressed skepticism over the Arizona law in the first hearings over a US lawsuit against it Thursday, as the US Justice Department sought an injunction to keep the law from going into effect starting July 29.

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl (R), who recommended Bolton to her current job in 2000, has supported the Arizona law. He has argued that Arizona was forced to pass the strict identification check law in response to a federal failure to secure the US southwest border.

Kyl and his fellow senator from Arizona, John McCain, have protested the Obama administration's lawsuit against Arizona.

Youth, Minorities, Demography and Politics :

Milenials.com

Vicente Duque

Page Hits