Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Please don’t call undocumented people “illegal immigrants”


Recommended Posts

Undocumented people makes it sound like they should be here or came here through the proper channels, they're just waiting for their documents.  They are not supposed to be here. 

I'm in favor of a pathway to citizenship for all that are here, I have no desire to keep them "illegal" and unnecessarily suffer.  In this case they would become legal citizens.

In the meantime I'd prefer we'd make it clear to those that are trying to entire illegally...that they will be considered illegal and we will enforce our laws.

I'm sure we'll get the former but not the latter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, timschochet said:

Depends on the job. Sometimes it probably works out to under minimum wage; sometimes over. The whole point of independent contractor work is that you don’t worry about it. I pay for convenience and availability. 

lol.  This might be what a lot of people would do, but it certainly is not principled.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

It is.  

I don't have a problem with illegal immigrants, and I'm happy to defend that position without trying to define the other side out of existence, which is what this thread is really about.

Yep. This is where a lexical change indicates a nullification of the other side of the debate. It's a disingenuous act. It's a way to use language and manipulate it to skip contentious premises of the debate. Instead of being able to say, "they're breaking the law by being here, and that's illegal," we're now asked to only refer to their immigration status, which is not the whole of their existence vís a vís the law. 

It's like Twitter banning deadnaming. It seeks to impose an ideology through the use or non-use of terms. Twitter decided you couldn't refer to trans people by their given name and called it inherent bullying, skipping the whole debate about whether or not people who knew the person formerly could use their former name, when it was appropriate to do so, etc. It just blitzkrieged a whole bunch of issues pertaining to that. 

Thus it is with this. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, woodstock said:

Yep. This is where a lexical change indicates a nullification of the other side of the debate. It's a disingenuous act. It's a way to use language and manipulate it to skip contentious premises of the debate. Instead of being able to say, "they're breaking the law by being here, and that's illegal," we're now asked to only refer to their immigration status, which is not the whole of their existence vís a vís the law. 

It's like Twitter banning deadnaming. It seeks to impose an ideology through the use or non-use of terms. Twitter decided you couldn't refer to trans people by their given name and called it inherent bullying, skipping the whole debate about whether or not people who knew the person formerly could use their former name, when it was appropriate to do so, etc. It just blitzkrieged a whole bunch of issues pertaining to that. 

Thus it is with this. 

None of this is true. First off I’m not trying to impose anything- I’m suggesting a change. I made it clear in the first post that I don’t condemn anyone who used the term “illegals”. I would like to change that term, cancel it out. That’s my proposal but I can’t force anyone to do it. 
As to why I’m suggesting this, I explained my exact motivation in the first post as well: because I believe the term to be dehumanizing. I’m not trying to impose any kind of ideology here. There is no plot. There is only exactly what I wrote, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is word games.

If you come here without documentation, you have entered here illegally.  You are thereby an illegal immigrant.

By saying “don’t say it,” you’re trying to pretend it’s something it isn’t.  “They’re just undocumented.”

Well, yes, and thereby they are here illegally.

Don’t want them being called illegal? Make them come legally.

I support legal immigration.  That’s what we should be advocating for.  Not your word games.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

None of this is true. First off I’m not trying to impose anything- I’m suggesting a change. I made it clear in the first post that I don’t condemn anyone who used the term “illegals”. I would like to change that term, cancel it out. That’s my proposal but I can’t force anyone to do it. 
As to why I’m suggesting this, I explained my exact motivation in the first post as well: because I believe the term to be dehumanizing. I’m not trying to impose any kind of ideology here. There is no plot. There is only exactly what I wrote, 

The reason there is a movement to call them ""undocumented" is to presume their eventual citizenship in the United States. It skips the whole tricky element of legality and deportation. The term whitewashes the whole mess of that away. He's simply "undocumented," which means he has no proof of citizenship, not "here illegally," which means he's committing a crime by the status of his location. Words mean things, as the left around here is fond of saying.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, timschochet said:

Depends on the job. Sometimes it probably works out to under minimum wage; sometimes over. The whole point of independent contractor work is that you don’t worry about it. I pay for convenience and availability. 

 

8 hours ago, timschochet said:

Some of the posts here about unions and wages crack me up. The guys I hire occasionally that hang around the Home Depot parking lot have a far greater intuitive understanding of capitalism than do many of the so-called “conservatives” in this forum and elsewhere. 

At least you honest about being pro-criminal immigrant to suit you're own needs and avoid paying a living wage.  

1 hour ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Illegal Immigrants is fine.  Illegal Cheap Labor Immigrants is too long to type out.

Excuse me, he asked you to call them criminal immigrants.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, woodstock said:

Yep. This is where a lexical change indicates a nullification of the other side of the debate. It's a disingenuous act. It's a way to use language and manipulate it to skip contentious premises of the debate. Instead of being able to say, "they're breaking the law by being here, and that's illegal," we're now asked to only refer to their immigration status, which is not the whole of their existence vís a vís the law. 

It's like Twitter banning deadnaming. It seeks to impose an ideology through the use or non-use of terms. Twitter decided you couldn't refer to trans people by their given name and called it inherent bullying, skipping the whole debate about whether or not people who knew the person formerly could use their former name, when it was appropriate to do so, etc. It just blitzkrieged a whole bunch of issues pertaining to that. 

Thus it is with this. 

This says it as good as any.  
 

The left wants to redefine it to take away debate. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bigbottom said:

The whole point is you don’t worry about it?You don’t worry about paying workers less than minimum wage for manual labor?  I find this statement repugnant if I’m being honest. Also, I’m not certain your practices are 100% legal under California and federal law.

 

I think people are either misunderstanding independent contractor laws or misunderstanding me. Let’s be clear: 

1. As a property manager of several shopping centers, from time to time I need temporary manual labor. A couple of hours work max. So I go to Home Depot, describe the work, and pay whatever these guys want to charge me. I assume some of them are undocumented. I don’t know. I hire them because, frankly, there is nobody else to do it. 
2. I don’t pay any “non-temporary” employees under the table. Never have. What I do is perfectly legal under the laws of California, and, IMO, perfectly ethical. 
3. That said, I don’t judge those who hire these people full time and pay them under the table. I wouldn’t do it but I get it- it’s a minor crime, like jaywalking or coming across the border. I classify this sort of crime, like any black market, as the result of too many restrictions on capitalism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

None of this is true. First off I’m not trying to impose anything- I’m suggesting a change. I made it clear in the first post that I don’t condemn anyone who used the term “illegals”. I would like to change that term, cancel it out. That’s my proposal but I can’t force anyone to do it. 
As to why I’m suggesting this, I explained my exact motivation in the first post as well: because I believe the term to be dehumanizing. I’m not trying to impose any kind of ideology here. There is no plot. There is only exactly what I wrote, 

There's nothing dehumanizing about it -- illegal immigrants are called that because they're a) immigrants who b) are here illegally.  That's important because their immigration status creates all sorts of barriers and uncertainty that naturalized immigrants don't have to deal with.  How we deal with illegal immigration is also an important policy issue.  I think we should go easy on illegal immigrants and make it relatively easy for them to convert to legal citizenship -- it's hard to even make that argument if I can't say forthrightly that I'm talking about illegal immigrants specifically and not immigrants as a group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, woodstock said:

The reason there is a movement to call them ""undocumented" is to presume their eventual citizenship in the United States. It skips the whole tricky element of legality and deportation. The term whitewashes the whole mess of that away. He's simply "undocumented," which means he has no proof of citizenship, not "here illegally," which means he's committing a crime by the status of his location. Words mean things, as the left around here is fond of saying.

This is kind of amusing. I tell you that you’re incorrect about what my motivation is, and explain it exactly (for the second time because you can find it in the OP), and your response is again to dismiss my explanation and tell me exactly what I REALLY want. 
Tell you what, why don’t you start the thread next time? You can title it “Tim says:” and then explain my ideas and why I want them. Then I won’t have to bother. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I think people are either misunderstanding independent contractor laws or misunderstanding me. Let’s be clear: 

1. As a property manager of several shopping centers, from time to time I need temporary manual labor. A couple of hours work max. So I go to Home Depot, describe the work, and pay whatever these guys want to charge me. I assume some of them are undocumented. I don’t know. I hire them because, frankly, there is nobody else to do it. 
2. I don’t pay any “non-temporary” employees under the table. Never have. What I do is perfectly legal under the laws of California, and, IMO, perfectly ethical. 
3. That said, I don’t judge those who hire these people full time and pay them under the table. I wouldn’t do it but I get it- it’s a minor crime, like jaywalking or coming across the border. I classify this sort of crime, like any black market, as the result of too many restrictions on capitalism. 

It's interesting the things you decide to judge people for and not judge them for...and do yourself.

It reminds me of the deputy Karens in my neighborhood that look at me with the fire of a thousand suns when I drive 35 in our 25mph streets....but then I see them treat Stop Signs like Roll Signs as they truck along at the obviously acceptable speed of 29.

Also reminds me of all the studies done where the majority of people today would say they would have been against slavery if they lived in 1800's.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

This is kind of amusing. I tell you that you’re incorrect about what my motivation is, and explain it exactly (for the second time because you can find it in the OP), and your response is again to dismiss my explanation and tell me exactly what I REALLY want. 
Tell you what, why don’t you start the thread next time? You can title it “Tim says:” and then explain my ideas and why I want them. Then I won’t have to bother. 

Tim, you’re taking a stance of the left and making it your own.

You may be noble and only care about how ugly calling them illegal sounds and how it may hurt their feelings.  (I question how much debate immigrants read on the PSF and other message boards and how much sleep they lose over being called illegal).  

But the rest of the Left is trying to minimize the problem and redefine the conversation.

 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

There's nothing dehumanizing about it -- illegal immigrants are called that because they're a) immigrants who b) are here illegally.  That's important because their immigration status creates all sorts of barriers and uncertainty that naturalized immigrants don't have to deal with.  How we deal with illegal immigration is also an important policy issue.  I think we should go easy on illegal immigrants and make it relatively easy for them to convert to legal citizenship -- it's hard to even make that argument if I can't say forthrightly that I'm talking about illegal immigrants specifically and not immigrants as a group.

It’s absolutely dehumanizing. Here is an opinion piece that explains why far more eloquently than I’ve been able to express here: 

https://bordercrossinglaw.com/nohumanbeingisillegal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jm192 said:

Tim, you’re taking a stance of the left and making it your own.

You may be noble and only care about how ugly calling them illegal sounds and how it may hurt their feelings.  (I question how much debate immigrants read on the PSF and other message boards and how much sleep they lose over being called illegal).  

But the rest of the Left is trying to minimize the problem and redefine the conversation.

 

I reject that this issue, or any of my views on this subject, have anything to do with the left. As far as I’m concerned, this has always been a libertarian matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It’s absolutely dehumanizing. Here is an opinion piece that explains why far more eloquently than I’ve been able to express here: 

https://bordercrossinglaw.com/nohumanbeingisillegal

From your article:

Quote

When one refers to an immigrant as an "illegal alien," they are using the term as a noun.  They are effectively saying that the individual, as opposed to any actions that the individual has taken, is illegal.

Nobody who uses the term "illegal immigrant" thinks that the individual in question is illegal, and the author is perfectly aware of that.  This type of argument is 100% made in bad faith.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jm192 said:

Tim, you’re taking a stance of the left and making it your own.

You may be noble and only care about how ugly calling them illegal sounds and how it may hurt their feelings.  (I question how much debate immigrants read on the PSF and other message boards and how much sleep they lose over being called illegal).  

But the rest of the Left is trying to minimize the problem and redefine the conversation.

 

Yes.  Tim heart is good.

While we are at it though, can we call racists...pigment unenlightened people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

From your article:

Nobody who uses the term "illegal immigrant" thinks that the individual in question is illegal, and the author is perfectly aware of that.  This type of argument is 100% made in bad faith.

 

Thats not true. Some actually DO think this. But more importantly, the stigma created (sometimes unintentionally) affects the undocumented people in many ways. It’s not bad faith at all. 

People have got to stop attempting to interpret the motivations of others. It’s absolutely poisoning all of our discussions in this forum. And yes I do it too, and it’s really bad form. We need to stick to offering our own opinions and not tell folks what the other guy really wants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

Thats not true. Some actually DO think this. But more importantly, the stigma created (sometimes unintentionally) affects the undocumented people in many ways. It’s not bad faith at all. 

People have got to stop attempting to interpret the motivations of others. It’s absolutely poisoning all of our discussions in this forum. And yes I do it too, and it’s really bad form. We need to stick to offering our own opinions and not tell folks what the other guy really wants. 

OMG

 

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This is kind of amusing. I tell you that you’re incorrect about what my motivation is, and explain it exactly (for the second time because you can find it in the OP), and your response is again to dismiss my explanation and tell me exactly what I REALLY want. 
Tell you what, why don’t you start the thread next time? You can title it “Tim says:” and then explain my ideas and why I want them. Then I won’t have to bother. 

It's really not amusing what the left is doing to language in order to stifle the premises of the illegal immigration debate from being discussed. It's trying to lexically replace part of the debate by replacing the term with another assumptive one. It's Newspeak.

Sort of gobsmacked you're falling for it as an issue of decency. It's a debate tactic, through and through, by coding in assumptions to the terminology. It's, as IK said, 100% bad faith. 

And I generally support immigration. Not this gerrymandered meaning of language, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IvanKaramazov said:

Name a person who thinks that anybody's existence is against the law.

In real life I talked to many people who have said “they’re illegal, they shouldn’t be here.” In this thread, @tonydead posted the hashtag “send them back”, a call for mass deportation. 
 

Do these folks believe that undocumented immigrants existence should be against the law? I can’t answer that, can’t get into their minds. But they certainly don’t seem to want them around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, timschochet said:

None of this is true. First off I’m not trying to impose anything- I’m suggesting a change. I made it clear in the first post that I don’t condemn anyone who used the term “illegals”. I would like to change that term, cancel it out. That’s my proposal but I can’t force anyone to do it. 
As to why I’m suggesting this, I explained my exact motivation in the first post as well: because I believe the term to be dehumanizing. I’m not trying to impose any kind of ideology here. There is no plot. There is only exactly what I wrote, 

You know that I normally agree with some of your positions or at least could defend them - how can you possibly say you don’t condemn someone but then you call it dehumanizing language?  You are basically contradicting yourself in one paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It’s absolutely dehumanizing. Here is an opinion piece that explains why far more eloquently than I’ve been able to express here: 

https://bordercrossinglaw.com/nohumanbeingisillegal

This was too funny for words. You're posting an op-ed as some sort of fact entered into evidence in favor of your contention? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

You're the one embarking on a mind-reading exercise about the motivations of people who use a perfectly accurate term.

No I’m not. Please read my OP again. I don’t question anyone’s use the term on this issue. I’m trying to convince people not to use the term. I want you to change your mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I think people are either misunderstanding independent contractor laws or misunderstanding me. Let’s be clear: 

1. As a property manager of several shopping centers, from time to time I need temporary manual labor. A couple of hours work max. So I go to Home Depot, describe the work, and pay whatever these guys want to charge me. I assume some of them are undocumented. I don’t know. I hire them because, frankly, there is nobody else to do it. 
2. I don’t pay any “non-temporary” employees under the table. Never have. What I do is perfectly legal under the laws of California, and, IMO, perfectly ethical. 
3. That said, I don’t judge those who hire these people full time and pay them under the table. I wouldn’t do it but I get it- it’s a minor crime, like jaywalking or coming across the border. I classify this sort of crime, like any black market, as the result of too many restrictions on capitalism. 

I can assure you that I am not misunderstanding independent contractor laws. What I am saying is that just calling them independent contractors or engaging them on a temporary basis doesn’t make them so. It is a fact-intensive inquiry that requires the application and analysis of a myriad of factors, under both state and federal laws (including IRS regs). What I am saying is that you should not be as certain as you are that what you are doing is “perfectly legal.”  Based on the limited information you have provided in this thread, I know where I’m leaning. Out of respect for you and your business, I will leave it at that and say no more.

As for the last point, when a business hires undocumented workers and pays them under the table, it’s not a minor crime like jaywalking. I’ve known people who have faced federal investigation and lost million dollar businesses as a result. Penalties include civil fines and possible jail time.  Your assertion in number three makes me question your certainty as to the other legal points in your post even more. 

And legal matters aside, I think hiring temporary workers at Home Depot and paying them below minimum wage is a pretty despicable way to take advantage of a marginalized population. While that may be consistent with your ethics as you assert, it is not consistent with mine. Frankly, I’m really disappointed. 

Indeed, the number one reason I want to see undocumented workers brought out of the shadows and legitimized is so that they will no longer be taken advantage of by employers who don’t want to pay minimum wage or overtime. 

Edited by bigbottom
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

No I’m not. Please read my OP again. I don’t question anyone’s use the term on this issue. I’m trying to convince people not to use the term. I want you to change your mind. 

Like almost everybody has caught on to, this isn't about decency, tim. It's about debate. That you've accepted the debate premises is one thing. Other people haven't. 

This is like White Lion's song "When The Children Cry." It's sort of a spectacle of overwrought sentiment about illegal immigration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bigbottom said:

I can assure you that I am not misunderstanding independent contractor laws. What I am saying is that just calling them independent contractors or engaging them on a temporary basis doesn’t make them so. It is a fact-intensive inquiry that requires the application and analysis of a myriad of factors, under both state and federal laws (including IRS regs). What I am saying is that you should not be as certain as you are that what you are doing is “perfectly legal.”  Based on the limited information you have provided in this thread, I know where I’m leaning. Out of respect for you and your business, I will leave it at that and say no more.

As for the last point, when a business hires undocumented workers and pays them under the table, it’s not a minor crime like jaywalking. I’ve known people who have faced federal investigation and lost million dollar businesses as a result. Penalties include civil fines and possible jail time.  Your assertion in number three makes me question your certainty as to the other legal points in your post even more. 

This was sort of an "oof," tim. Might want to heed this. I say that with all well-wishes. Something about hiring illegals under the table to do day jobs, and to do that consistently, sounds very wrong. That's not to harp on you, tim. That's to say...wow, do you ever sound way too flippantly casual and wrong about this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

You know that I normally agree with some of your positions or at least could defend them - how can you possibly say you don’t condemn someone but then you call it dehumanizing language?  You are basically contradicting yourself in one paragraph.

When I was a kid most people used the phrase “mentally ######” to describe mental challenged individuals. Most people had no bad intentions by using the term. Still, we don’t use it anymore. I’d like to reach a point when we don’t use “illegal” as a noun. But I’m not condemning anyone who does it now because we’re not at that point or close to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

I can assure you that I am not misunderstanding independent contractor laws. What I am saying is that just calling them independent contractors or engaging them on a temporary basis doesn’t make them so. It is a fact-intensive inquiry that requires the application and analysis of a myriad of factors, under both state and federal laws (including IRS regs). What I am saying is that you should not be as certain as you are that what you are doing is “perfectly legal.”  Based on the limited information you have provided in this thread, I know where I’m leaning. Out of respect for you and your business, I will leave it at that and say no more.

As for the last point, when a business hires undocumented workers and pays them under the table, it’s not a minor crime like jaywalking. I’ve known people who have faced federal investigation and lost million dollar businesses as a result. Penalties include civil fines and possible jail time.  Your assertion in number three makes me question your certainty as to the other legal points in your post even more. 

I should clarify that my third point was my opinion only: it should be a minor crime. I do recognize that in many instances it isn’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

You're the one embarking on a mind-reading exercise about the motivations of people who use a perfectly accurate term.

Exactly.  Tim is telling us we mean something hateful by calling people illegal and we need to change our ways.

In debating him, Tim is telling us we’re bad for trying to interpret what he means.  Gaslight much, Tim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, woodstock said:

This was sort of an "oof," tim. Might want to heed this. I say that with all well-wishes. Something about hiring illegals under the table to do day jobs, and to do that consistently, sounds very wrong. That's not to harp on you, tim. That's to say...wow, do you ever sound way too flippantly casual and wrong about this. 

“consistently”? It’s about once or twice a year. 
If I needed this work on a more percent basis I’d probably rethink it. But honestly I wouldn’t know where to start. It’s very difficult to even find people to do this sort of work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

“consistently”? It’s about once or twice a year. 
If I needed this work on a more percent basis I’d probably rethink it. But honestly I wouldn’t know where to start. It’s very difficult to even find people to do this sort of work. 

How much does it have to be before it's wrong?

 

-- Serpico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

When I was a kid most people used the phrase “mentally ######” to describe mental challenged individuals. Most people had no bad intentions by using the term. Still, we don’t use it anymore. I’d like to reach a point when we don’t use “illegal” as a noun. But I’m not condemning anyone who does it now because we’re not at that point or close to it. 

They are illegal until they are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jm192 said:

Exactly.  Tim is telling us we mean something hateful by calling people illegal and we need to change our ways.

In debating him, Tim is telling us we’re bad for trying to interpret what he means.  Gaslight much, Tim?

Not at all if I can help it. 
For the last time I’m not trying to tell you what you mean. And I’m not saying it’s hateful either. I think it’s a dehumanizing term. That’s what I wrote, that’s what I meant, nothing else. I would like to reach a point in which most people agreed with me that it’s a dehumanizing term. Right now they do not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

In real life I talked to many people who have said “they’re illegal, they shouldn’t be here.” In this thread, @tonydead posted the hashtag “send them back”, a call for mass deportation. 
 

Do these folks believe that undocumented immigrants existence should be against the law? I can’t answer that, can’t get into their minds. But they certainly don’t seem to want them around. 

When you are legally employed and paying taxes, yes people get upset.  I would bet many of those people wouldn’t have a problem if they were legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...