Please don’t call undocumented people “illegal immigrants”

[bigbottom 11,739]

11 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. 

I agree with the bolded. But that shouldn’t be the standard, right?  Because “illegal” in “illegal immigrant” is not a noun. 

[IvanKaramazov 23,671]

26 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. 

So what?  That's a perfectly legitimate policy position that I happen to disagree with.  

[quick-hands 697]

30 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. 

This doesnt mean that

[timschochet 35,767]

2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

So what?  That's a perfectly legitimate policy position that I happen to disagree with.  

I attempted to respond to your challenge. 

[timschochet 35,767]

Well in any case- so far, not a single person here agrees with me. Not liberals, conservatives, moderates, nobody. Lol! 

Thats fine. We’re not ready for this. Maybe someday we will be. 

[jm192 2,302]

20 minutes ago, timschochet said:

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. 

But I don’t agree with you.

You’re telling me when I say words xyz, it’s dehumanizing.  You want to give a definition to my words.  A definition I am actively saying that I do not mean when I say the phrase.  But you’re saying I’m wrong and I do mean what you say.  C’mon dude.

[Ramblin Wreck 14,692]

43 minutes ago, 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. 

The entire point of the damn thread is you telling everyone what their motivations are.  Zero self-awareness and nobody really gives a damn what you want your illegal workers called

[McBokonon 4,322]

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Well in any case- so far, not a single person here agrees with me. Not liberals, conservatives, moderates, nobody. Lol! 

Thats fine. We’re not ready for this. Maybe someday we will be. 

I do, but I also know there’s no convincing people who don’t want to be convinced. 

But I also work with and on behalf with undocumented immigrants and they tell me how being called an illegal immigrant makes them feel. A lot of people don’t so they don’t realize, or care, that they feel dehumanized.

[AAABatteries 26,618]

33 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. 

I'd suggest there's a better approach to getting folks to change language but I at least get your point with this example. 

[identikit 2,285]

7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Well in any case- so far, not a single person here agrees with me. Not liberals, conservatives, moderates, nobody. Lol! 

Thats fine. We’re not ready for this. Maybe someday we will be. 

Yeah, you're so ahead of the times, Tim.

[timschochet 35,767]

3 minutes ago, McBokonon said:

I do, but I also know there’s no convincing people who don’t want to be convinced. 

But I also work with and on behalf with undocumented immigrants and they tell me how being called an illegal immigrant makes them feel. A lot of people don’t so they don’t realize, or care, that they feel dehumanized.

Hey thanks. That’s what I meant earlier. I think the only response to that particular post was that someone laughed. 
 

Appreciate this response. 

[timschochet 35,767]

6 minutes ago, jm192 said:

But I don’t agree with you.

You’re telling me when I say words xyz, it’s dehumanizing.  You want to give a definition to my words.  A definition I am actively saying that I do not mean when I say the phrase.  But you’re saying I’m wrong and I do mean what you say.  C’mon dude.

I believe you when you say what you mean. I want to convince you that your words have unintended, negative consequences. 

[bigbottom 11,739]

12 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Well in any case- so far, not a single person here agrees with me. Not liberals, conservatives, moderates, nobody. Lol! 

Thats fine. We’re not ready for this. Maybe someday we will be. 

And now I’m questioning your reading comprehension. 

[Opie 2,212]

10 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. 

So....you want to change the terminology so they don't sound "sub-human".....
...but you eagerly pay them a "sub-human" wage for their labor??

I'm pretty sure that there's a couple of words for someone who says one thing but displays totally contrary behavior.
Yes, "Democrat" is one of them...but I'm thinking of a synonym for that.

Edited April 30 by Opie

[AAABatteries 26,618]

3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I believe you when you say what you mean. I want to convince you that your words have unintended, negative consequences. 

Just doing a quick Google search it seems like we may need to start with the media.  "Illegal immigrants" is used quite a bit in just about all media channels - left/right/libertarian.  Not saying it's not a worthwhile endeavor but with how common it is used I think it's fair to say that the vast, vast majority of people are not using the term to be dehumanizing - even if someone feels that ways.

[timschochet 35,767]

1 minute ago, bigbottom said:

And now I’m questioning your reading comprehension. 

One person just posted they agreed with me. Do you as well? I’d be grateful, and sorry I missed that. 

[timschochet 35,767]

Just now, AAABatteries said:

Just doing a quick Google search it seems like we may need to start with the media.  "Illegal immigrants" is used quite a bit in just about all media channels - left/right/libertarian.  Not saying it's not a worthwhile endeavor but with how common it is used I think it's fair to say that the vast, vast majority of people are not using the term to be dehumanizing - even if someone feels that ways.

I agree. 

[timschochet 35,767]

I’m still confused about something: about twice a year I drive up to a Home Depot, approach some day laborers and say “I’ve got a shopping center a mile from here. Somebody dumped an old couch in the alley. I want you to follow me in your truck and remove the couch.” Guy says “$100.” I say OK; or I might say “that’s too much; I’ll give you $75.” 
 

What exactly is immoral or unethical about this transaction? Some people here seem to think it makes me a bad person, or a hypocrite, or both. I’m not seeing that; what am I’m missing? 

[FairWarning 1,350]

12 minutes ago, McBokonon said:

I do, but I also know there’s no convincing people who don’t want to be convinced. 

But I also work with and on behalf with undocumented immigrants and they tell me how being called an illegal immigrant makes them feel. A lot of people don’t so they don’t realize, or care, that they feel dehumanized.

How many of the people you deal with want to get a green card or citizenship and can’t?

[identikit 2,285]

17 minutes ago, Opie said:

So....you want to change the terminology so they don't sound "sub-human".....
...but you eagerly pay them a "sub-human" wage for their labor??

I'm pretty sure that there's a couple of words for someone who says one thing but displays totally contrary behavior.
Yes, "Democrat" is one of them...but I'm thinking of a synonym for that.

 

'But it's only a couple times a year'

Edited April 30 by identikit

[jm192 2,302]

16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I believe you when you say what you mean. I want to convince you that your words have unintended, negative consequences. 

And changing what we call illegal immigrants has intended consequences.

[bigbottom 11,739]

5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m still confused about something: about twice a year I drive up to a Home Depot, approach some day laborers and say “I’ve got a shopping center a mile from here. Somebody dumped an old couch in the alley. I want you to follow me in your truck and remove the couch.” Guy says “$100.” I say OK; or I might say “that’s too much; I’ll give you $75.” 
 

What exactly is immoral or unethical about this transaction? Some people here seem to think it makes me a bad person, or a hypocrite, or both. I’m not seeing that; what am I’m missing? 

I’ve explained my position on this very clearly. But obviously you’re not reading my posts - including the two posts where I expressly agreed with you on the topic of this thread.

[McBokonon 4,322]

Just now, FairWarning said:

How many of the people you deal with want to get a green card or citizenship and can’t?

Most have gone through the necessary steps but depending on the type it can take years to process and they are vulnerable in the meantime. Of course these logjams are part of the problem. We have an aging population and younger people here aren't having kids like we need to in order keep our economy humming long-term, so streamlining the process to allow more immigrants is important.

[rustycolts 1,866]

 

9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m still confused about something: about twice a year I drive up to a Home Depot, approach some day laborers and say “I’ve got a shopping center a mile from here. Somebody dumped an old couch in the alley. I want you to follow me in your truck and remove the couch.” Guy says “$100.” I say OK; or I might say “that’s too much; I’ll give you $75.” 
 

What exactly is immoral or unethical about this transaction? Some people here seem to think it makes me a bad person, or a hypocrite, or both. I’m not seeing that; what am I’m missing? 

Maybe you should try paying them a living wage instead of taking advantage of someone desperate for work. I think it's more ethical and moral to pay higher even if they would do it for less.

Edited April 30 by rustycolts

[BassNBrew 12,153]

50 minutes 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. 

Not if you crack open your check book and pay a living wage.  

Also by doing what you're doing, you are putting legitimate businesses that pay income taxes at a disadvantage.  I don't send out 1099's for anyone making less than $600, but I insist on a tax id number for anyone receiving a payment.

[HellToupee 16,063]

12 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

The guy that is insulted that they are called illegal aliens appears to be the same guy who uses them for cheap labor because he doesn't want to pay REAL American citizens a decent wage.  

Or do I have him confused with someone else?

[bigbottom 11,739]

11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m still confused about something: about twice a year I drive up to a Home Depot, approach some day laborers and say “I’ve got a shopping center a mile from here. Somebody dumped an old couch in the alley. I want you to follow me in your truck and remove the couch.” Guy says “$100.” I say OK; or I might say “that’s too much; I’ll give you $75.” 
 

What exactly is immoral or unethical about this transaction? Some people here seem to think it makes me a bad person, or a hypocrite, or both. I’m not seeing that; what am I’m missing? 

Also, as an aside, does your insurance company know your business is engaging workers to operate a motor vehicle without obtaining identification or proof of insurance?

[HellToupee 16,063]

11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m still confused about something: about twice a year I drive up to a Home Depot, approach some day laborers and say “I’ve got a shopping center a mile from here. Somebody dumped an old couch in the alley. I want you to follow me in your truck and remove the couch.” Guy says “$100.” I say OK; or I might say “that’s too much; I’ll give you $75.” 
 

What exactly is immoral or unethical about this transaction? Some people here seem to think it makes me a bad person, or a hypocrite, or both. I’m not seeing that; what am I’m missing? 

an instant classic

[dgreen 3,355]

47 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. 

But I don't think that language changed because there's something necessarily wrong with "mentally ######". I think it changed because people then shortened it to "#######" and used it as an insult/joke. We took a legit label for a group of people and turned it into slang which was also regularly used in an ugly way.

Apparently kids now say SPED (for special education). My daughter and her friend were looking at a college course catalog and they were shocked that the catalog has classes labeled SPED 101, 102, etc. I asked what was wrong with SPED and they were like "Shh! Don't say that so loud." I had no idea. So, maybe down the road we will no longer call it special education and SPED won't appear in a school course catalog. I mean, when I hear "sped", I think "Moroney = sped". Sometimes I intentionally mispronounce "speed" and say "sped" because of that thread.

Just know that whatever label you want to change it to, that label will one day be bad too. We understandably like to shorten language so that we can use less words. So, "Undocumented People" will one day be "Undocumenteds" or "Undocies" or "Undocs" or something, just like "Illegal Immigrants" became "Illegals". And then "Undocumented People" will be frowned upon.

I honestly have no problem with language changing. I can see where "Illegals" can be problematic. But, I think we're seeing language fatigue in society. I could be totally wrong about this, but language seems to be changing faster than it ever has. Once you start to even consider adopting a new label, that new label is now the old horrible label and there's yet again something else. I honestly don't know how those who are for more progressive language expect the masses to keep up.

[bigbottom 11,739]

8 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

Not if you crack open your check book and pay a living wage.  

Also by doing what you're doing, you are putting legitimate businesses that pay income taxes at a disadvantage.  I don't send out 1099's for anyone making less than $600, but I insist on a tax id number for anyone receiving a payment.

He said up thread if he pays more than $600 he issues a 1099. He said it’s rare, but that means it happens, albeit rarely.  In order to prove you have not exceeded the $600 cap which triggers both state and federal reporting requirements (its more than just a 1099, Tim), you need to know the identity of the person you are engaging for shorter stints because the $600 amount is in the aggregate over time. 

Edited April 30 by bigbottom

[bigbottom 11,739]

Tim:  Good buddy, given that you are a business owner, I think you should consider deleting this thread.

[timschochet 35,767]

2 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

Tim:  Good buddy, given that you are a business owner, I think you should consider deleting this thread.

I don’t think so. But I appreciate the advice. 

[timschochet 35,767]

Your comments, BB, which I have no doubt are correct (though I might challenge their applicability to my situation) only convince me that we live in a society far too litigious for my tastes. I suppose this is one of the things that prevents me from being a leftist. 
But I’m still not convinced that I am doing anything morally, ethically wrong in my transactions with day laborers. Quite the opposite. 

[djmich 1,477]

Question for folks, if people are willing to work in sweatshops because they don't have any alternatives...aren't sweatshops a good thing?

[bigbottom 11,739]

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Your comments, BB, which I have no doubt are correct (though I might challenge their applicability to my situation) only convince me that we live in a society far too litigious for my tastes. I suppose this is one of the things that prevents me from being a leftist. 
But I’m still not convinced that I am doing anything morally, ethically wrong in my transactions with day laborers. Quite the opposite. 

Most of the issues raised have to do with government regulation, not so much that we live in a litigious society. The insurance question does however.  And if a driver was hit by the workers while moving your couch and the worker was an uninsured motorist, the injured driver’s insurance company may come after your business. Which is why I asked if your insurance company was aware you were engaging workers to operate motor vehicles without obtaining identification or proof of insurance. Because they might try to deny your claim. But I’m not a coverage specialist so I’m not sure what position your carrier would take. 

[tonydead 8,499]

. Guy spends the entire time during the draft pounding the keys and making threads, sleeps for a couple hours then wakes up and gets right after it. It's his whole life. 

[BassNBrew 12,153]

26 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

He said up thread if he pays more than $600 he issues a 1099. He said it’s rare, but that means it happens, albeit rarely.  In order to prove you have not exceeded the $600 cap which triggers both state and federal reporting requirements (its more than just a 1099, Tim), you need to know the identity of the person you are engaging for shorter stints because the $600 amount is in the aggregate over time. 

When you say aggregate over time do you mean more than a calendar year?

[supermike80 1,907]

4 minutes ago, tonydead said:

. Guy spends the entire time during the draft pounding the keys and making threads, sleeps for a couple hours then wakes up and gets right after it. It's his whole life. 

And comes to a place where he is generally not liked.  

Oh wait..I do that too

[timschochet 35,767]

6 minutes ago, tonydead said:

. Guy spends the entire time during the draft pounding the keys and making threads, sleeps for a couple hours then wakes up and gets right after it. It's his whole life. 

Keeping  precise track again, are we, Creepy? 

[bigbottom 11,739]

8 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

When you say aggregate over time do you mean more than a calendar year?

It’s a calendar year for both CA and federal. 

[Ditkaless Wonders 16,260]

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I’m still confused about something: about twice a year I drive up to a Home Depot, approach some day laborers and say “I’ve got a shopping center a mile from here. Somebody dumped an old couch in the alley. I want you to follow me in your truck and remove the couch.” Guy says “$100.” I say OK; or I might say “that’s too much; I’ll give you $75.” 
 

What exactly is immoral or unethical about this transaction? Some people here seem to think it makes me a bad person, or a hypocrite, or both. I’m not seeing that; what am I’m missing? 

Where, do you suppose, that couch ends up?  At a licensed disposal site or at someone else's shopping center or alleyway?  You are paying folks you know to be in the country illegally to perform work which will result in a crime being committed, illegal dumping.  Yes, I get that you can hide behind semantics and say you don't know these things for sure, but you know it, you just refuse to admit what you know in your heart to be so.

Edited April 30 by Ditkaless Wonders

[BassNBrew 12,153]

1 minute ago, bigbottom said:

It’s a calendar year for both CA and federal. 

Thank you for clarifying.

[tonydead 8,499]

8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Keeping  precise track again, are we, Creepy? 

More like noticing when someone farts and it stinks up the whole room.  

[BassNBrew 12,153]

1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Where, do you suppose, that couch ends up?  At a licensed disposal site or at someone else's shopiing center or alleyway?  You are paying folks you know to be in the country illegally to perform work which will result in a crime being committed, illegal dumping.  Yes, I get thattyou can hide behind senatics and say you don't know these things for sure, but you know it, you just refuse to admit what you know in yur heart to be so.

I'm pretty sure criminal immigrants are going to honor the state/local ordinances and go to a state regulated dump site and fill out the paperwork and pay the fee to dump the couch and then deduct that fee from the money they receive from Tim when they report their income the following year.

[Ditkaless Wonders 16,260]

3 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

I'm pretty sure criminal immigrants are going to honor the state/local ordinances and go to a state regulated dump site and fill out the paperwork and pay the fee to dump the couch and then deduct that fee from the money they receive from Tim when they report their income the following year.

If they are smart they would drive that couch around for a day or two, then dump it back at the original shopping center, and then wait for Tim to return to ask them to remove it again.  These entreprenial souls need to create their oportunities.

Edited April 30 by Ditkaless Wonders

[FairWarning 1,350]

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I’m still confused about something: about twice a year I drive up to a Home Depot, approach some day laborers and say “I’ve got a shopping center a mile from here. Somebody dumped an old couch in the alley. I want you to follow me in your truck and remove the couch.” Guy says “$100.” I say OK; or I might say “that’s too much; I’ll give you $75.” 
 

What exactly is immoral or unethical about this transaction? Some people here seem to think it makes me a bad person, or a hypocrite, or both. I’m not seeing that; what am I’m missing? 

That isn’t a big deal at all.  The ones I hate are hiring a crew to roof or something similar for $15/hour.

[FairWarning 1,350]

57 minutes ago, McBokonon said:

Most have gone through the necessary steps but depending on the type it can take years to process and they are vulnerable in the meantime. Of course these logjams are part of the problem. We have an aging population and younger people here aren't having kids like we need to in order keep our economy humming long-term, so streamlining the process to allow more immigrants is important.

I know someone who is an advocate for these people also.  Hard but rewarding work I’m sure.  They are easy marks in building trades, all they want is to provide.

[identikit 2,285]

13 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

If they are smart they would drive that couch around for a day or two, then dump it back at the original shopping center, and then wait for Tim to return to ask them to remove it again.  These entreprenial souls need to create their oportunities.

Success for any enterprise is repeat business.

[timschochet 35,767]

18 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

If they are smart they would drive that couch around for a day or two, then dump it back at the original shopping center, and then wait for Tim to return to ask them to remove it again.  These entreprenial souls need to create their oportunities.

Now THIS did not occur to me. Hmm. 

[timschochet 35,767]

31 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Where, do you suppose, that couch ends up?  At a licensed disposal site or at someone else's shopping center or alleyway?  You are paying folks you know to be in the country illegally to perform work which will result in a crime being committed, illegal dumping.  Yes, I get that you can hide behind semantics and say you don't know these things for sure, but you know it, you just refuse to admit what you know in your heart to be so.

Actually your post goes to the original point of my thread. I hold that staying in this country without papers is not a serious crime. It IS, however, a crime. But as you correctly point out, most of us break some sort of law several times a year. You may not hire undocumented people (that you’re aware of,) but you probably drive over the speed limit and do hundreds of things that are technically against some law or too. Should I therefore refer to you, and myself, and everyone reading this as “illegal”? 
Now I’m sure someone will respond that the term specifically refers to immigration. But I would counter, ask a Native American. He or she might respond, with great legitimacy, that we are ALL illegal immigrants.