CNN reporter on issue of driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants: "It literally drives some off the deep end, like Lou Dobbs"
SUMMARY: Discussing driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, CNN correspondent Carol Costello remarked on The Situation Room that the issue "literally drives some off the deep end, like Lou Dobbs."
On the January 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, correspondent Carol Costello reported that the issue of "driver's licenses for illegal immigrants ... literally drives some off the deep end, like Lou Dobbs," referring to her CNN colleague, who hosts Lou Dobbs Tonight. Costello then aired a video clip from that program in which Dobbs stated: "[Y]ou have illegal aliens in this country demanding the rights and privileges of citizenship. It is the most, to me, arrogant thing they could possibly do."
From the January 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
WOLF BLITZER (host): Latino voters could make the difference for Democratic presidential candidates on Super Tuesday. Hillary Clinton has the advantage, at least right now, but Barack Obama could gain some important ground on one controversial issue.
Let's go to Carol Costello. She's watching this story for us. What's going on, Carol?
COSTELLO: Well, that controversial issue is really controversial. That would be the driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. Obama's stand on the issue could certainly catch much-needed attention in the Hispanic community. The only problem? It could hurt him, too.
[begin video clip]
COSTELLO: Talk about your hot-button issues: driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. It literally drives some off the deep end, like Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: I mean, you have illegal aliens in this country demanding the rights and privileges of citizenship. It is the most, to me, arrogant thing they could possibly do.
COSTELLO: And most Americans agree. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll in October, a whopping 76 percent do not think undocumented immigrants ought to have driver's licenses.
Uhm...I don't know what to make of this. Are they saying Lou Dobbs is right? if so, wouldn't that be liberal misinformation?
Personally, illegal immigrants need drivers licenses IMO, because I wanna make sure they know what they're doing before they get on my roads.
DB,
What other legal documents and priveledges are you in favor of granting those who broke the law and are living here illegally?
I don't know, I haven't really thought about it that much. It just seems to me that this is more of a safety issue than anything. I mean, they're already here. They are driving on our roads already.
There is going to have to be some middle ground on this debate. Illegal immigrants are already here, about 12 million of them. There is no viable way to deport all of them, so putting them on the path to citizenship is the most logical route. However, we should also strengthen our borders to prevent more from coming in. Yet we already spend A LOT on border security, so I don't know what more we can really do.
I can't believe it when people say we can't deport 12 million people. As Jay Leno said 'Why not, Mexico did'. Each community, business, police department, prison and border patrol all do there part. It's not as if Salinas, California has to deport 12 million all by itself. Just the one's in it's community. We CAN do it. The only thing missing is the will.
Re: driver's licenses for illegals. If it looks like a standard driver's license, that's a problem as it can be used for other purposes that require you to be a citizen. If it's distinguished as a driver's license for an illegal alien and the person is stopped for a traffic violation, shouldn't they then be deported. It's absurd not to. Don't they think these things through?
The big problem left is an illegal alien that has a child born here that is a citizen. They really should have to take the child with them back to the home country or don't other countries accept U.S. citizen minor children of their own citizens. Children go with their parents. What's the problem. We're deporting the parent and the children go along just as well as illegal aliens bringing their children, not born here, from another country. They don't mind going in that direction.
What other legal documents and privileges are you in favor of granting those who broke the law and are living here illegally?
Oh... habeas corpus, right to an attorney, no cruel or unusual punishment, and maybe some others that we say we believe all should have. Why do you ask?
MIDDLELEFT:
You make a great point.
Our Declaration of Independence states, "... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
The Creator, according to our founders, created ALL, not just those born in the United States.
As to the Rights we specifically expect in these United States are "LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." How do we typically PURSUE happiness in America? ON OUR ROADS! And we have the unalienable RIGHT to LIFE on those roads.
Which brings us to the government's RESPONSIBILITY. Licensing ALL drivers on our roads is indeed a SAFETY issue. Licensed drivers gives us our best assurance that the driver is trained, tested, registered and insured. Our life, liberty, AND pursuit of happiness is greatly enhanced by not having our roads crowded up with unlicensed, uninsured, untrained drivers.
It's not like our driver's licenses are hors d'eourves which party crashers are gobbling up. It's a pain in the ass to get one, and you have to give all sorts of information and assurances, and take tests. And you gotta pay a FEE for the damned things. Once you GET one, you're "on file" for address and vital stats, along with a photo (in most states), which is great in a nation that would really like to know who's here.
So, our government OWES it to us to license everyone who's going to be on our roads. It's a frikkin' driver's license, it ain't a Nobel Prize of the Keys to City Hall fer God's sake.
Personally, illegal immigrants need drivers licenses IMO, because I wanna make sure they know what they're doing before they get on my roads.
Personally I don't believe ILLEGAL aliens belong on my roads in the first place. But hey that's just me believing that laws should be followed...
what are you gonna do, deport all of them?
Yes.
But first I'd seal the border. Wall it, fence it, more border guards. Whatever it takes. And before someone [not necessarily you] squeals what about the northern border? My answer: Seal that one up too.
Then yes I'd deport those that weren't here LEGALLY. Of course rounding up 12,000,000 or who knows how many more sounds like a daunting task. But what do we do? Just shrug & say it's impossible. Or do we begin the job? And of course I would fine or even imprison those hiring ILLEGALS. The jobs dry up, many would leave on their own.
Then if some wanted to come back they can get in line like all the other immigrants that enter this country legally.
Jeter, deporting all illegal immigrants is not only not feasible, it's impossible. For one, we don't know how many illegal immigrants are in our country. 12 million is an estimate.
dbeden,
So are you saying we should just throw up our hands & say oh the hell with it? How about we start deporting all that we can find, & make sure the borders are buttoned up tight so as we're removing ILLEGALS more aren't pouring in to replace them.
And this isn't something that has a time-table, we keep finding ILLEGALS & we keep deporting them. Eventually their numbers will dwindle considerably.
Now, now. To legalize 12 million people is impossible. Think of all the bureaucracy involved. We can't do it. How does that sound?
Imagine your in a long line somewhere; the airport, a concert, Disneyland and someone crowds in front of you. You complain to the security guard and the person crowding in pays $5 and gets to stay put. How does that work for you?
Then yes I'd deport those that weren't here LEGALLY
Where will you deport them to?
Well, yes and no. Not trying to butt heads here, but an alternative that has to be considered is that they could also take to robbing liquor stores or banksor whatever to make ends meet.
And like it or not, undocumented workers are a consumer base just like you and I. Given this race to prime (stimulate) the economy in order to push the recession back for another year or so, when is an appropriate time to start eliminating jobs and deporting people?
It seems a bit too politically motivated.
The people who were all "letter of the law" over Bill Clinton and his lies about sex.
were all mum about Rush's drug deals , and Scooter Libby's little issue about revealing the names of secret agents during what has been described as _the_ most important conflict of humanity's existance...seems to me there is an abundance of double standard going around.
um, here is another one:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Seems to me that "well regulated" gives the Constitutional go-ahead for stringent gun control...let the debates continue...
- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]
"....the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."
- John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846)
I see no discernible proof here that Gun Control is prohibited by the constitution.
But back closer to the point: The letter of the law seems not really absolute (as history has probably always shown)
...one might reasonably argue that health and safety of individuals and society (i.e. driver's licenses, or perhaps good quality health care for field hands) trumps the technicalities of "legal status"
Uhm...I don't know what to make of this. Are they saying Lou Dobbs is right? if so, wouldn't that be liberal misinformation?
No. MMFA is reporting that a CNN reporter made a correct claim about Dobbs which the reporter then backed up with a supporting clip. Dobbs promotes a conservative agenda by claiming that a state issued driver license is a right of U.S. citizenship AND that asking for one is "arrogant".
"literally drives some off the deep end" .... is not the misinformation.
I agree Dobbs is over the edge on the issue of illegal immigrants. But that's not what's mentioned in the headline, nor is it put in bold in the transcript, so they're not doing a good job explaining their point.
As for pushing a conservative agenda, by that standard any opinion pushes an agenda of some sort. We're wandering into MRC's "bias" territory here, where anything that doesn't follow right-wing spin is evidence of bias, whether it's true or a valid opinion or anything else. Personally, I think if it's just a reminder of what Dobbs' position is, it's an incredibly weak item because they're citing an example where his position is shared by 76% of the population. That's not evidence of any radical stand on Dobbs part.
I think you're on to something there, Brab.
I have a theory as to why the 76% feel as they do: they feel as though undocumented immigrants are actually getting "something for nothing" and they feel that if they're breaking the law, why should they get something? I understand that, but it's not the point. Giving driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants is for OUR knowledge, safety and protection, not for the undocumented immigrants. The undocumented immigrants are going to drive anyway. At least let's try to keep track, eh?
I'd have to contend that the term 'illegal immigration' is itself the conservative misinformation. Do we really believe 76% of the population would not favor drivers licenses for economic refugees?
I mean if MMFA is a Progressive site than they more than likely support the Progressive view that undocumented workers are indeed economic refugees, fleeing the free trade inflicted bonds of slave labor and unsafe workplaces.
Not bein' contrary, I'm just sayin' that could be the rationale.
That may be, but it doesn't change what I said. The advantage of this site over sites like MRC is that it works more objectively. Basing "misinformation" on a subjective definition like that may be arguable, but it doesn't make for a very credible criticism. That's just pointing out contrary opinions, as if a different viewpoint is somehow wrong. This site can and should do better.
Whether 76% of the people should view it one way or another, it's still a controversial issue. I personally don't have a problem with the term "illegal immigration", which is certainly a justifiable way of describing the act of entering the country illegally.
Costello specifically says "illegal immigrants", but MMFA puts "undocumented" in their headline, why?
One can easily conclude they must obviously feel their pro-illegal immigration position is weakened if they correctly call it what it is.
Can we start fining people who make their living talking every time they say "literally" when they don't mean literally?
If Dobbs was actually taken away by those nice young men in their clean white coats, I apologize.
Oh come on...
"Undocumented" gets to the heart of why they're illegal. I don't doubt, however, that MMFA does avoid the "I" word on purpose.
actually Tommy, both statements are true, but I can understand the subtext.
Question for you: What should we do about all the illegal immigrants?
DB,
I am of the mindset that there should be no talk of what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants in this country UNTIL our government has demonstrated satisfactorily that our borders, ports and airports are secure and the flow of illegal immigration is under control and every possible and serious effort has been to made to stop it. Along with that, crackdown on employers who hire illegal immigrants is to be made priority - for if you stop the access to work, the carrot that brings many here will be eliminated.
The current administration is not serious about it, so any "comprehensive reform" is off the table, for me. No, I am not for rounding them and deporting them, it is not feasible or practical.
When the borders are enforced, then the next steps should be evaluated and taken.....we were fooled in the 80's, no more.
"if you stop the access to work, the carrot that brings many here will be eliminated"
It's a noble crusade that I favor, but it only takes care of half the problem. The illegal employers have a carrot dangling in front of them as well. If a neighboring country continues to be a two-class society where the majority have no money and no opportunity, there will continue to be desperate people wanting to leave and work for employers who have already chosen to hire illegally regardless of the risk.
If we're pretty much powerless to change the situation on the other side, we're screwed.
I understand that Tommy, but what do we do in the meantime? Just leave them in limbo? I think, if we had an effective government, they could tackle both the problem of people trying to come in this country, and the illegal immigrants that are already here.
As far as border security is concerned, report after report comes out of testers sneaking bombs, drugs, and anything else they can find through airport and port security. It's a travesty, and scary on a fundamental level.
It's fine to say we shouldn't address the issue until we are secure at home, but one of the potential candidates feels we might need troops in Iraq for another hundred years. Are we going to have to wait a hundred (OK, not a hundred, 92 years until the next century) years to secure our borders ?
So we might not be able to address the illegal and or undocumented drivers problems until 2108.
Not sure about you Tom, I plan on being dead.
Kinda looking forward to it if it means not having to read these dreadful threads every day.
We have a several TEMPLATES for this problem. One is the Berlin Wall, another Gitmo, another the "demilitarized zone" in Korea.
The walls, fences, barbed wire, landmines, dogs, guard towers, pits, searchlights, and more modern motion detectors, night vision, radar, and surveilance cameras are all DOABLE. On BOTH borders, Mexico and Canada. Every foot needs to be "buttoned up".
Yes, it will be a big task. 5000 miles of Canadian border, 1900 miles of border with Mexico, that's 6900 miles of dry land to shut down. Let's leave aside 95,000 miles of shoreline, infrastructure costs, etc., and concentrate on the guard towers. Any business can tell you LABOR is the biggest ongoing expense. So let's do some figuring.
6900 miles is just over 12 million yards. A guard tower every 200 yards would require 67,000 guard towers. Two guards per tower is standard, so that would be about 135,000 guards times three shifts, 400,000 guards.
That's about HALF the number of our active duty military, so we can figure roughly half the Pentagon budget to keep them on station. That's half of about 440 billion, call it 220 billion round figures, new expense to "do it right".
That's DOABLE, people. Add a few thousand more in "response" teams in trucks and choppers to chase down those the tower spots, and you've got a sealed border!
We can also figure the costs of apprehending 12 million illegals, processing them, and bussing them to the nearest border ejection point. Plus, we will have to greatly increase our PRISON space, to accept those employers who illegally hired illegals. (prisons average $50,000 expense per prisoner to keep 'em locked up.)
Sure, we could find some cost-cutting along the way. For example, instead of buses, we could just MARCH the offenders to the border.
But it's all DOABLE, folks. Let's get busy! Oh, and CUT OUR TAXES while you're at it.
>>No, they're not illegal because they don't have documents, they don't have documents because they are here illegally.
Your logic is false. Both parts of the statement are true. They are illegal because they don't have documents (if they had gotten the documents, they would be legal); and they don't have documents because they are here illegally.
By the way, Tommy, when you speed, are you a speeder or are you an illegal driver? Should the news start talking about "illegal drivers" rather than "speeders?" Should it say that "illegal driving" causes most accidents instead of "speeding causes most accidents?"
If you stay and work in this country illegally, you broke the law and are an illegal immigrant. You do not have documents because you broke the law.
You can parse your words all day long, it changes nothing.
Tommy, do you realize how absurd you are being? Who started parsing words? You did! You said that illegal immigrants were not illegal because they didn't have documents. That is flat out wrong.
Now you are simply compounding your error:
>>You do not have documents because you broke the law.
No! Now you are putting the cart before the horse. Your sentence implies that breaking the law makes you lose documents you once had. Or it implies that first you gain legal status, then you get documents. In fact, you get the documents at the same time as you get the legal status. The documents are your legal status. When you cross the border for the first time, you need documents. It is not like you can come into the country legally, and then get the documents.
I am done with your idiotic word parsing games, you can call them anything you want too, I could care less. If you can't call them illegal immigrants it's because you want to reframe the debate by softening their illegal acts into them being "undocumented" instead, it sounds less offensive and more sympathetic - do you honestly think we don't get that? Because we do, sorry to disappoint you.
Also, it just shows the weakness of your position when it comes to defending those that have broken our immigration laws if you are so unwilling to call them exactly what they are, how sad for you.....but if you must, knock your lights out.
Just don't expect that reasonable people will fall for it, because we haven't.....but thanks anyway.
>>I am done with your idiotic word parsing games,
Yet, Tommy, it is *you* who started the word parsing game! You wrote originally:
>>No, they're not illegal because they don't have documents, they don't have documents because they are here illegally.
Are you serious? You start by trying to make an unnecesary logical distinction that is false to begin with. You are the one who tried to make an artificial distinction by playing with words.
When I point out your distinction is false, you cry foul! Boo hoo hoo! If you don't want to parse words, then don't start a thread that does just that and become indignant when you are shown to be wrong.
And no, I want to call undocumented workers what they are: undocumented. Yes, they are also here illegally. I don't have a problem with either term. I have a problem with you claiming that undocumented means something it doesn't. But as I pointed out above, "undocumented" is actually a better term because it is more specific, because it tells exactly why the immigrants are illegal, in the same way that speeding is a better term than illegal driving because it explains why the driving was illegal.
"undocumented" is actually a better term because it is more specific, because it tells exactly why the immigrants are illegal, in the same way that speeding is a better term than illegal driving because it explains why the driving was illegal.
EXACTLY !! Thank you for making such a clear statement.
>>the reality is that you don't come here, hang out, and then get documents. A legal immigrant should have the correct documents before leaving the port of entry at the border.
No. Your point backs up what I have said, not the other way around. This is exactly what I have been saying, even using the same concept that you don't come here, hang out, and then get documents. You are illegal precisely because you *don't* have documents, exactly as I have been saying.
I was responding to your response to Thomp.Ste?? in which it appeared that you were indicating that immigrants were given documents at the border. I meant also to say that Thomp.Ste was right not Tommy. Of course that was before I was able to read the rest of this thread. Sorry.
BTW, I know we continue to go round and round on this but I responded to your post on Monday concerning the 1956 elections in Vietnam. If you so choose you can look and see and decide for yourself if North Vietnam did in fact play a pivotal role in the failure of those elections. It was common knowledge years ago which has unfortunately has been lost through the fog of liberal revisionism. Anyway, take a look if you are so inclined.
I just read it, and let me say that you willfully mislead. This comes as no surprise, since I explicitly stated that I over-stated my case. Yet you accuse me of believing that Kennedy pulled the trigger. No. Read carefully, please.
It might be true that Diem favored elections in theory, but he supressed them in practice, did he not? And it may be true that the US did not directly supress elections, but they supported Diem miitarily, who in turn did supress elections. So yes, they did supress them, as is the judgment of all histories I have read. You did a good job putting in bold the part that high lighted your argument, but you completely ignored what came after; that the US supported Diem's position of not holding elections, and even started using propaganda to support Diem, falsely interpreting the Geneva accords.
You might want to read more about the Geneva accords. Dulles of course would claim that the South Vietnam government was subject to the accords; but that doesn't mean they really weren't. Look at what legal scholars say: the winning parties are the ones who are bound by the accords. Diem, who came to power by brutality and rigging his elections, cannot unilaterally decide that he doesn't want to follow accords because they don't favor him.
Are you seriously saying Dulles is objective on this matter? And you are taking Diem's word at face value, given is corruption? You seem to state as historical fact that because Diem beleived elections woldn't be fair (of course they wouldn't--he was going to lose!) the elections were not in fact fair.
You claim that the North did not set up the machinery for elections; yet you provide no link for this.
I claimed that Ho Chi Minh would have won 80% of the vote; your counterclaim is that he would have won less. That is a very weak argument. He still would have won the vote; the US still supressesd elections.
Yes, again, Kennedy is guilty. My links back up exactly what I say: that Kennedy didn't care what happened during the Coup. Your argument that Kennedy is innocent is like saying I am innocent if I want to drive a car through a crowd completely drunk, do so, and then kill people. Kennedy backed the Coup; he lied to Diem about his backing. And you then you think Kennedy deserves no blame? What do you think happens in a coup?
I'll try to list the case as briefly as possible here.
The US did not support for 1954 accords, which called for elections:
==
A month before they were signed, Walter Bedell Smith, the US delegate for the accords, telegraphed Washington with his "contempt" for any agreement that included the DRV; (Walter Bedell Smith, telegram June 17, 1954); and Secretary Dulles (the one you quoted earlier) was still considering invading Vietnam (John Foster Duilles telegram, June 14, 1954).
Walter Biddell Smith stated that any agreement with the DRV would be a "fool's bargain" (*Vietminh Vioations of the Geneva Accord).
==
Who would have won the election:
In 1954, the Chief Joins of Staff stated that the "free elections would be attended by almost certain loss of the Associated States of Indochina to a Communist control."
==
On whether the North blocked elections:
On July 19, 1955, Ho Chi Minh issued a formal declaration urged all "countries responsible for the guarantee of the implementation of the Geneva Agreements...are anxious to see that the consultative conference will be held and yield good results and that the reunifications of our country will be achieved." Diem flatly refused.
The US government issued a White Paper in October of 1961, stating that "It was the Communists' calculations that the nationwide elections scheduled in the accords for 1956 would turn all Vien-Nam over to them...The refusal to hold elections came as *a sharp disappointment to Hanoi."
[funnymanpants note] Did you get that last quote? According to the US government, Hanoi wanted elections really badly; and according to the US, the communists would have won. So I don't see how it is possible that Hanoi blocked them.
==
On the Coup:
A cablegram from McGeorge Bundy to Ambassador Lodge on Oct 30 1963, "But once the coup ... has begun, and within these restrictions, it is in the interest of teh U.S. government that it should succeed..." Earlier in the same document, Bundy states that the US will give sanction to those involved if the coup fails.
Lodge's last conversation with Diem:
Lodge: "I don't feel well enough informed to be able to tell you [if there is a coup against you]. [Which is an outright lie.]
Lodge: I have a report that those in charge of the current activity offer you and your brother safe conduct out of the country if you resigned. Had you heard of this?
Diem: No. You have my number?
Lodge: Yes. If I can do anything for your physical safety, please call me.
[funnymanpants note] Of course he could do something for his safety! He could have told him to get the hell out of Viet Nam; he could have used US forces to help him out; they could have not planned the Coup to begin with. Lodge knew damn well that Diem's safety was at stake.
==
But it seems silly to argue about the safety of one man. Are you going to argue that Kennedy didn't illegally escalate the war from his presidency's start, including hand picking Diem, grooming him, installing him, aiding him, and supressing elections? 4-5 million lives were lost in the Vietnam war, 4-5 million that would not have been lost if the US had not supported Diem, and if the US had not supported Diem when he choose not to hold elections.
>>You do not have documents because you broke the law.
Wrong, Tommy, as I have pointed out again and again. And that is why you didn't respond to my long substatative post, instead just repeat the same argument. I must conclude that you *can't* respond to my long post.
Here you are simply wrong. There are many Mexicans who are here legally with documents. They do something illegal, and they get deported and they get their papers taken away. These people fit your argument; they have no documents because they broke the law.
But undocumented workers do not fit in the category. They did not break a law and then not get documents; they are breaking the law because they don't have documents. That is why they are undocumented workers. In the same way, take someone who gets arrested because he never bothered to get a license. In your logic, he does not have a license because he has broken the law. Rather, he broke the law because he has no license.
I didn't say it was an illegal car, and I didn't say it was an illegal driver. What it is, is driving a car illegally, and illegally violating a traffic law.
I have no clue what you're driving at, but you have my answer. If you don't like it, tough.
Yes, Tommy, typical. When you can't answer an argument, become belligerant and hope no one notices.
You haven't answer the question at all. It is simple. You take MMFA to task for using "undocumented" rather than "illegal." But then why not take newspapers to task for using the word "speeding" rather than "illegal?"
Isn't the answer obvious? Everyone knows that regarding traffic laws speeding is illegal, it's a natural progression of thought, it's stating the obvious.
However, undocumented doesn't automatically mean illegal - which is exactly the vague impression you want to leave.
There's the difference.
>>However, undocumented doesn't automatically mean illegal - which is exactly the vague impression you want to leave.
I disagree. And undocumented worker absolutely means illegal, in the same way as an unregistered car does.. But it is a better term than illegal because it explains why they are here illegally.
No, it does not. How ridiculous. You are essentially saying they are here illegally because, for whatever reason, they have no documents, as if it's really not their fault or some such nonsense. You can play that semantic silliness if you'd like, but it's absurd.
Can you comprehend, the reason they are here illegally is because they have broken the law and are not entitled to documents for that very reason - it's not some oversight or paperwork snafu.
>>No, it does not. How ridiculous. You are essentially saying they are here illegally because, for whatever reason, they have no documents, as if it's really not their fault or some such nonsense. You can play that semantic silliness if you'd like, but it's absurd.
Sorry, Tommy, but you are wrong. I am not playing semantic games. It is you who are doing so. Where do I imply that it is not their fault? Show me that, please. I even brought up an analogy to an unregistered car. Since when does saying a car is unregistered imply that the owner is not guilty?
>>Can you comprehend, the reason they are here illegally is because they have broken the law and are not entitled to documents for that very reason - it's not some oversight or paperwork snafu.
Can you comprehend that you are wrong here, and already twice have gotten in a huff and said you will not respond to me, and now you are bringing up the same silly argument? You become legal by getting documents. When you cross the border from Mexico to the US, you have to present documents. The documents are what makes you legal; nothing else does.
That is why undocumented means illegal, the same way that if you drive without a license, you are also driving illegally. In both cases, no one would say that the illegality results because of a "paperword snafu." That is you term. When you read in the paper that someone has been arrested for driving without a license, you don't think "Oh, he was not doing anything illegal. There was just a document he failed to have." In the same manner, an illegal alien is illegal precisely because he does not have a document--and for no other reason. That is why undocumented is more specific than illegal, though both terms are correct.
"an illegal alien is illegal precisely because he does not have a document--and for no other reason."
To be more precise, an illegal alien is illegal because he disregarded our laws by crossing the border without proper documentation, then continues his/her criminal act each day he/she is here.
"There's two circumstancees necessary to break our immigration laws. 1. you need to cross our border, 2. without proper authority (documents)."
I have absolutely no idea where you think anyone is disagreeing with that. FMP has said that it's illegal several times.
Not true. Many "undocumented/illegal workers/aliens crossed the border legally with temporary visas. When the visas expire, they stay in the country.
Let's keep in mind why this debate is going round and round, because Tommy made an unnecessary and false distinction. Rather than concede the point, he has dragged the argument out, make torturous arguments along the way.
What you state is true, but it ads nothing to the debate. It is still the documents that make an act illegal or legal. That is why we call them undocumented workers; that is why it is correct to do so, yes or no? If you say yes, then there is no sense in debating the issue any more, because we are in agreement. If you say no, please explain why.
It is true that two acts are involved in making an illegal alien illegal, but that doesn't mean both acts are illegal. A murderer can kill someone with a gun. It involves two acts: owing the gun; and pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger. Just because two acts are involved, it doesn't mean both are illegal, and in fact says nothing about the legality of each act. You can own a gun without breaking the law.
Likewise, you can cross the border and live in work and live in the US. If you could not, then why would there be the term "legal alien?" The primary act that makes the crossing of the border illegal is not obtaining documentation.
To be honest, I don't really care whether they're called 'undocumented'. For most illegal aliens, I really do have sympathy. I don't want to kick out the 12 mil that are here either. Nonetheless, there are so many reasons that I don't even want to get started on regarding why I want the borders secured. So, for now, I'm just leaving it at that. I was playing along anyway in this thread . . .
If we're gonna refer to their status as a result of committing the illegal act, then should we call them "criminal aliens."
Actually, you are driving a car illegally, you are not driving an undocumented car.- tommy
So is it legal when it's parked?
OK, I'll stop, you're just too much fun, Tommy.
The term 'illegal immigration' is the conservative misinformation.
Lesson for MMfA:pace yourselves. When you post a dozen threads a day, you might be stuck scraping the bottom of the barrel soon after. As far as I can tell, neither the Scarborough thread nor this one contains any misinformation, radical commentary or anything that lowers the discourse.
There is a connection, just not spelled out.
Hispanic voters---> Dems
Hispanic voters-----> Hispanic
Illegal aliens--------> Hispanic
Most Americans----> no Illegal imigrant licenses
Dems ---> not most Americans
above formula--->. verified by guy who works with reporter
>>correspondent Carol Costello reported that the issue of "driver's licenses for illegal immigrants ... literally drives some off the deep end, like Lou Dobbs
Will people please learn how to use "literally" correctly? It is used to mean that you are *not* using a figure of speech, that you mean exactly what you say.
For example, if you say "My pack was so heavy after 3 days of hiking, that I literally cut my toothbrush in half," then I should expect to see a shortened toothbrush. My sister actually wrote this sentence in a letter. What she meant was that she "figuartively" cut the toothbrush in half.
Here, I don't think that Lou Dobbs drove his car off a cliff.
If use use "literally" to mean "figuraratively," how are we to know which is which? Using "literally" is a way to signal that this sentence is not a figure of speech. As in, my husband's yelling so upset me in the car, that I literally drove over a cliff. Luckily, the cliff was only 3 feet high, and no one sustained serious injuries."
I hypotosize that "literally" will eventually take on an opposite meaning, just like let has done. ( "Let" once meant to "hinder.") Maybe in 2 hundred years people will usu literal to mean figurative. And I mean that literally.
There is a site that reports on the worst phrases every year. This year it noted that "word smiths" are people who write stuff that no one wants to read, or something to that effect. I laughed, because every time some windbag gets on here and uses unnecessarily big words, and uses language in a vague way that misleads (see "Politics and the English Language" by Orwell), they are called a wordsmith.
Regarding spelling, it has nothing to do with how well you use language. Keats was a poor speller. Shakespeare didn't even bother, because spelling wasn't regularized back then, and he spelled his name several different ways. It is unfortunate for the English language that the orthography has not been updated in 1000 years, so that spelling is even an issue. For example, Germany has regular spelling reform, and the words are spelled like they sound, so it would be impossible to have a spelling bee.
But yes, I'm a very, very poor speller! Guilty as charged!
Hey FunnyManPants, you can join our whiny schoolmarm club. Our last meeting was here.
its vs it's? Nah. Even when I taught English I might wink at this one (unless the paper was so good overall that I felt I could start paying attention to such detail). But the misuse of literal has always kind of bugged me, because it is used the exact *opposite* way, and you literally (ha!) can't tell what is meant sometimes.
Like I say, In a few decades "literal" will have lost its original meaning.
Bumped the Enter key outside the comment box. Trying again.
Like I say, In a few decades "literal" will have lost its original meaning.
Shouldn't that be "As I say..."?
I can be a jerk about grammar. Just ask my kids.
>>Shouldn't that be "As I say..."?
No! I don't know where you got this rule from, but it is not a rule. I know, because I taught English at a college level. You might want to be careful in trying to proscribe rules to others; grammar is a lot more tricky than you think, and rules that you feel smug about might not be rules at all.
No! I don't know where you got this rule from, but it is not a rule. I know, because I taught English at a college level.
Numerous sources disagree with you. This one points out that "like" should be used as a preposition, not to start a clause as your use of it does. Rutgers University (about 4/5 of the way down the page) agrees. They state "there should be no verb in the phrase right after like." Several other sources (American Heritage, other universities) state the same thing.
Those many sources agree with me, so I don't expect to change my perspective on the rule until I see something to the contrary from an authoritative source.
I don't plan to get into a long discussion of the topic. I meant for my comment to be thrown out as humor, not criticism.
Like I said, you might want to be careful when you talk about grammar. Do you understand the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar? Do you understand how grammar rules are formed, and how many are outright bogus?
As the author of "Grammar Snobs are Great big Meanies* grammar snobs are "jerks," exactly like you explain yourself. They know they are being unreasonable, but they can't help themselves. Unfortunately, they rarely know what they are talking about, and only succeed in making the other person feel that their grammar is inferior, which it hardly ever is.
First all native speakers speak perfect grammar. If you don't believe me, just look at any linguistic book. That is the first rule of linguistics. By the time we are five, we master an amazing set of complicated rules that are very difficult to explain. A 1970s textbook described how an author was compiling all the rules for English; the book was four volumes long and he wasn't finished.
These rules allow us to use our ear to form rules. Our ear is very, very good, and only snobs make people start doubting their ear. (This is another linguistic truism; again, check any linguistics text book. For example, a native English speaker without any formal education will say "the car has four doors," but it is a "four-door car." Foreigners won't.)
I have a masters in English. So I think my ear is pretty well developed. So when I say the phrase "Like I say," I know it to be grammatically correct. Certainly in a linguistic sense, it is.
But of course, there is also another standard of grammar, that of formal use. Many formal rules, such as not putting a preposition at the end of sentences, are false. They derive from nincompoops who tried to impost a Latin grammar on a German language. The rule you cited is one such rule. Don't believe me?
Okay, check here:
link
You'll notice that some of these grammar manuals give torturous rules for like vs as. But you will also humorously notice how wrong these manuals are; if you look further down the page, you'll notice that Jane Austen breaks this very rule.
As far as not using a verb after like, my actual phrase was "Like I say." You notice the one letter word after the verb "like?" that is called a personal pronoun, not a verb. Also, note this line from Henry VI from Shakespeare:
(Like one that stands" (Shakespeare, Henry VI) (This has the same construction as my phase: like + doer + verb)
And further, notice how this is a non rule, how it is not followed in good writing:
Like doth quit like, (Shakespeare)
"I like to be in America" (Broadway--what are we supposed to say here, "I as to be in America?")
Why this matters is becase grammar snobs instill a sense of inferiority in people, that they are always going to say the wrong thing. By the time that person gets to a Freshman English class, where people actually do know something about grammar, the instructor has to unteach all the bad grammar rules that have been instilled in them. We have to try to get them to listen to their ear, to rely on their inherent grammar, to get them to stop thinking that good writing is a set of formal rules which have no connection to how they speak. So your snobbery, apart from being completely wrong, actually does a great disservice.
Further:
link
Tell it like it is. It’s like I said. I remember it like it was yesterday. As these familiar examples show, like is often used as a conjunction meaning “as” or “as if.” In fact, writers since Chaucer’s time have used like as a conjunction. But language critics and writing handbooks have condemned this use of like for more than a century, and a writer who uses it in formal style risks being tarred with their brush.
[This is what I mean by a bogus rule. Great writers use "like" like I did, but some grammar handbook tells them it is wrong! By the way, is a blog a formal format?]
link
Richard Klein (Op-Ed, March 18) ... says we should do "like the French do," apparently innocent of the fact that "like" can be a verb, an adjective, a noun or even a preposition but not a conjunction. Well, like, I don't want to make a big deal of it. EDWARD MC CAMY Alfred, N.Y., March 19, 1996
[Wow! the grammar snobs hit! The rule you cite must be so important, and its non-compliance must be so grating that it slipped past both Klein and the editor of the *Times.*]
Maybe I'm a lazy writer but I never have given two spits about grammer.
As I said before, I wasn't trying to belittle. It was meant as humor in what I thought was a light-hearted discussion of word use and spelling. For what it's worth, my kids have also heard me yell at the television when I've heard the misuse of "literally."
The gist of your first link seems to be that its use in informal speech makes its use proper. This doesn't seem to be far from the Jesse Ventura attitude of "People understand what I mean so it don't matter how I say it." [paraphrase, but very close] I also will occasionally use "like" as you did in conversation and even in discussion forums, but for more formal compositions I'm going to follow the stricter rules advocated by the sources you disdain.
"I like to be in America" (Broadway--what are we supposed to say here, "I as to be in America?") - Come on, now. That's use of "like" under a completely different definition. It's a completely bogus comparison. I hope you were making a joke.
I'm still going to cringe a little when I hear a sportscaster state that "He pitched good today." However, it made me yell at the television when one of the worst offenders of that rule (Bert Blyleven) actually said "The weather was well today."
The problem, is, Bill, that you have no basis for any of your rules. That is the gist of my links. You claim that you can't use "like" in a certain way--and yet Shakespeare, Austin, and Chaucer do just that! That is why I disdain those resources. They have no basis, as my links pointed out. They simply asserted a rule. It would be like me asserting that blue is the only color you can wear on Sunday's. There is absolutely no reason to use "like" exactly as I did. In fact, in many cases using "like" as you proscribe leads to unnatural sounding phrases--bad grammar.
>>I'm still going to cringe a little when I hear a sportscaster state that "He pitched good today." However, it made me yell at the television when one of the worst offenders of that rule (Bert Blyleven) actually said "The weather was well today."
This is the problem with prescriptive grammar. It has no basis to begin with. Look up the what prescriptive grammar is and see how it distinguishes itself from descriptive grammar. Prescriptive grammar is bogus. Descriptive grammar is based on how people speak--the patterns of language that are so complicated that it takes more than 4 volumes to document. Prescriptive grammarians want to force people to internalize rules that are not natural, and your example above is the result.
Let's look at your example. In the first instance, the speaker uses "good" as an adverb. The English language has a rather weak structure for distinguishing adjectives from adverbs. This is probably so because we don't need to distinguish adjectives from adverbs. (German, a cousin of English, doesn't distinguish them at all.) We know that English doesn't distinguish between adjectives and adverbs very well because we can take a random group of people and ask them when to use an adverb, and when to use an adjective. (I run quick or I run quickly? Most people will have no idea.)
That means the language is shifting away from the distinction between adjective and adverb. Looking at language this way, in a descriptive way, the way linguists look at it, helps us understand it better. We can talk about how language *ought* to be spoken, but such distinctions are arbritrary. If we want to say that language must be spoken a certain way, then let us go back and speak it as they did in Old English, when it had inflected endings. Back then it would be incorrect to not put an ending on a noun depending on what type of speech it belonged to. For example, the nominative of "name" was "nama" but the dative was "namum." I'm sure if there were prescriptive grammarians back 14th century, they would have told people to that "You must use the dative 'namum.'" The problem would have been that by the 14th century, English had ceased to become an inflected language. Prescriptive grammarians would have tried to make people use language in a way that it was not used, in a way that no one could have understood it. At what point does prescriptive grammarians become absolutely silly? Are we still supposed to put a "um" at the end of nouns in the dative?
In other words, prescriptive grammarians tell us how language *was* used, not how it is used now. (In the case of rules like "as" vs "like" they *never* got it right.) They can tell us not to use words like "blizzard" (yes, this word was once looked down on).
So back to "good" vs. "well." The reality of the language is that we don't really distinguish adjectives from adverbs anymore. Maybe we never really did. So when people say "I ran quick," they are not perfectly understood, but the construction would be perceived as grammatical by most native speakers. Only those with formal training who were told this is incorrect with think otherwise.
When people say "He pitched good," they are reflecting how the language is used. They are reflecting the reality of the English language. There is nothing ungrammatical about that construction. If we had never been taught it is bad, we wouldn't even blink.
But prescriptive grammarians come along and do exactly what I accused them of doing in my last thread, of making people self-conscious of their own natural grammar, of making them second guess themselves. This leads to your second example: the weather is well. Now that is awful grammar, precisely because that is not the way English speakers speak. No one who was speaking naturally at a party would use well this way. Why did the newscaster? Because he was second guessing himself. He didn't want to get it wrong, so he tried to remember some stupid rule, and got it wrong anyway. That is why these stupid arcane rules are stupid.
">>correspondent Carol Costello reported that the issue of 'driver's licenses for illegal immigrants ... literally drives some off the deep end, like Lou Dobbs
Will people please learn how to use 'literally' correctly? It is used to mean that you are *not* using a figure of speech, that you mean exactly what you say." - Funnymanpants
Wait, wait. There's a serious issue here, and it figuratively may not be the one you think it is! Let's talk "off the deep end" for a bit, shall we?
Is it "drives off the deep end" (as was certainly quoted), "dives off the deep end"? (more google hits) Is "the deep end" a cliff (???) or a pool? Does a cliff have a "deep end"? A pool does...though one might dive "into" it, not "off" it. If figuratively makes no sense to me. None of it.
There's this definition: http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/gooffthedeep.html - but I'm not sure that saying "go" is much better. "The deep end" itself, where it is situated, where it leads to, how one departs from it...as much a mystery as ever.
Ah, it's probably "the exception that proves the rule" or something. Language, what pita bread.
>>Is it "drives off the deep end" (as was certainly quoted), "dives off the deep end"? (more google hits) Is "the deep end" a cliff (???) or a pool? Does a cliff have a "deep end"? A pool does...though one might dive "into" it, not "off" it. If figuratively makes no sense to me. None of it.
That's a good point. I don't know where the figure of speech came from. Maybe it is a bad mixture of "throwing someone in the deep end" and "driving off a cliff?" But I can't pin down the concrete image, either! Good find.
"I can't pin down the concrete image, either! Good find." - Funnymanpants
And "proves" once meant "disproves"--as seen somewhere above.
Ah, deasil I turn: once, twice, thrice...
I have been away for a while. The reason was, that somebody tore me a knew one, because I had the nerv to question MMFA. My point was that MMFA has dropped the ball and are posting anything that makes the right look bad. As time goes by it has less to do with conservative misinformation and more becoming some sort of republican funnypages, where we can come together and make fun of the pundits, journalists...whatever. So, in order to hinder the impending demise to insignificance I propose the following:
Take Action! Contact information:
Media Matters For America
Contact: http://mediamatters.org/contact_us
When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.
Thanks. Just a little joke to lighten up the mood. These discussions can become unnecessarily heated from time to time.
My point still is: why does MMFA then post things that doesn`t constitute misinformation. I mean, there are a lot of racist comments, sexistst comments and people making stupid comments posted here. Worst of all, some times people expressining an opinion, somehow becomes misinformation. MMFA doesent have to like the opinion but that doesn`t make it misinformation.
Do we need to post up the mission statement? Again? Really?
MMFA wouldn't have anything to post up, if people didn't say, or do stupid things in the media as it pertains to conservative misinformation and or just plain old outright lies.
Contact them if you want, even the most ardent supporters (at least in the comment section here) I have seen criticize MMFA before, and I'm sure it'll happen again. As I made this point in another thread, I'll do it here. This is a logical difference between some democrats and some republicans. When republicans do something wrong, and someone calls them out on it, all of the other republicans defend that person who did something wrong. Sometimes when democrats do something wrong, we don't defend them because they did something wrong, and we call them out on it.
I have no doubt that illegal aliens desire rights and privileges and perhaps some are even “demanding” it, but are they really in a position to make demands? If they say, “I demand a driver’s license,” what consequence can they inflict if the state says, “or else what?”
I surmise that the consequence would be illegal aliens driving anyway because they have already risked their lives by breaking immigration laws and the risk of driving without a license is one they’re willing to take if it means not going back home where there’s no opportunity at all. I don’t consider that to be arrogance, I think it’s desperation.
Borders in the generic sense mean something whether it's real estate property lines (try building a fence 1 foot on your neighbor's side), city, county and state borders. Try gambling next door to Nevada in Utah. How about congressional districts and such.
To have a porous U.S. border is unacceptable for many reasons. Our politicians are insane and should be DEPORTED.
Our politicians are insane and should be DEPORTED.
Maybe, but who could we find who would take them?
The immigration issue requires a 2-pronged approach, with each prong making one side of the aisle mad and the other happy.
First, get much better control of the borders. Wall, parking troops there instead of in Iraq or one of the other billion bases we have around the world, whatever.
Second, require proof of US citizenship to drive, vote, get healthcare, get welfare/SS, etc.
Third, at least temporarily, expedite and expand the institutions in place to let immigrants become US citizens. Make becoming a US citizen not the hardest thing in the world, but ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO FUNCTION in the US.
That should keep down the illegal entries (yeah there are Canadians and Europeans here illegally too), border crossings, and make the decision of whether to go home when your visa is up or apply for citizenship that much easier.
Physical barrier? In areas where they exist, tunnels have been built under them.
I also understand that a good chunk of the undocumented come in on a valid Visa but then overstay the length of their Visa. A wal will do nothing to address this.
Until the root causes are addressed, this will continue.
I think perhaps the "MISINFORMATION" here is the blatant ADVOCACY of policy positions by our "news commentators".
There are many, many factors of the immigration issue, and ALL are debatable. The public deserves to hear ALL SIDES, and as equally as they can be presented by objective moderators.
Having a howling advocate for ONE POSITION ONLY as an "anchor" for an information show on a news channel ... that's not the best way for Americans to get their information.
One-sided, biased, unobjective, ALL these are basic violations of "journalistic" standards.
[Yes, I know, there ARE no more journalistic standards ... they have been cast out in favor of advocacy and partisanship. That's the point of this thread ... it's "WHY THIS IS HERE".]
About a year and a half ago, I was minding my own business, waiting to make a left-hand turn into a parking lot. Suddenly, I was hit from behind. The guy who hit me wasn't paying attention and didn't hit the brakes - so I felt the brunt of a full-force collision.
The gentleman who hit me was from Mexico. He had no driver's license, no insurance and the truck he drove wasn't registered to him. The police arrested him on the scene. He was illegal.
My car was totaled. And because this gentleman didn't have a driver's license and didn't have insurance, - and no one could track him down, I had to pay my deductible - and fight with my insurance company about my evening in the hospital. Does this seem fair to anyone? (And saying "well, if he hadn't have been here in the first place..." - that argument doesn't wash so don't even try.)
If only this guy had a driver's license and insurance. I might not have been out so much money - and my insurance company wouldn't have had to eat the cost of replacing my car and payng for my hospital bills.
Giving illegals driver's licenses is not the same as giving them citizenship. As some have pointed out, driving is a privilege, not a right. People with VISA's are given licenses - why not illegals - if not for the simple reason as to be able to document "undocumented" workers.
And, for the basic reason that you just stated about having to have insurance. I don't think that there are any states left in the country where you don't have to have insurance to have a driver's license. At least where I live, when I moved here to NC, in order to get a license, I had to show them that I had proof of insurance for my vehicle before they would let me take the test to get my license. Same thing for registering the vehicle of course.
Just for the basic reason that I don't want ANYONE out there driving without insurance because of the reasons that you just stated. An accident with an uninsured driver can cost the other person a whole ton of money, time, and frustration.
What I find interesting is the number of Americans in Texas who don't have automobile insurance. If illegal is illegal, where is the outrage?
"Are they saying Lou Dobbs is right? if so, wouldn't that be liberal misinformation?"
Yes, so? MMFA is not about "liberal" vs. "conservative" it's about accuracy and fairness in the media. This case in point.
MMFA is strictly partisan left. They are not fair and balanced. They don't even pretend to be.
They don't even pretend to be...
DING! DING! DING! Give that man a cigar!
Arriving to the party late ...
But I saw the Great Wall comment is funny. It did not keep out the Huns and the Berlin Wall fell in less than 60 years. Punishing refugees from whatever war, poverty, or a government is foolish. If you want to end or at least hamper illegal immigration it is the people that hire undocumented workers (hey, I used both terms and did not burst into flames -- oww, hot, hot -- okay I am out). Then you need to get more work permits out, truthfully they want to work and there are segments of the economy that needs that workforce. This will punish those that should be punished, protect the country and the aliens, allow for taxation, and then we can discuss citizenship in an open manner without the spectre of "they are beaking the law" coming into the conversation every 2 minutes thereby ending the debate -- which only guarantees that the issue will never be handled wisely or compassionately.
I agree - and you must have been posting your post as I was writing mine....
Didn’t we just recently get over the “victory” of having a wall torn down in Germany? Yet now we want to build our own wall? Could you imagine the outcry if every country in the world decided they were going to build a wall or fence around their perimeters? Not to mention the cost of building and maintenance. I can almost guarantee that whatever cost estimate is given for such a project – the amount will double by the time of completion.
Wouldn’t a better solution be working with the Mexican government to help them build a nation whose citizens did not feel compelled to leave?
A wall or fence? Really? This is a “solution”??? (A typical Republican solution, maybe.) If this happens I can easily predict what the fastest growing small business would be, springing up all along the south side of the Mexican border – Underground Tunnels. The sandy soil of the southwest allows the capability to dig tunnels quickly and easily – and with minimal costs for the needed equipment.
A fence or wall would be a major waste of your tax dollars, buy hey – I suppose it will benefit some corporation in the hands of the Republican Party (and even create a few new jobs), so to them it makes total sense.
I think the issue for discussion here, or what they intended, is Carol Costello suggesting Lou Dobbs is off the deep end? It appears by this slip that she does. Is this indicative of the thinking at CNN?
In my opnion, Lou Dobbs, as good as he is, seems to be unreasonable in his attitude towards licenses for illegals. I would much rather have a way of tracking the illegals on the road than not. We have no idea of the number of the unlicensed majority driving now. At least this is a way of knowing who they are, where they live, their insurance status, and we know lthey could pass the driver's test before getting on the road. That's sigifcantly better than what it is now. Seems to me that we get too caught up on the technicalities (illegal status) that we leave common sense behind.