Despite reported "updates" to "style," Wash. Times repeatedly refers to "illegals" in headlines
SUMMARY: The Washington City Paper quoted from a 2008 "memo" from the "regime" of Washington Times executive editor John Solomon, which stated that as part of "recent updates to TWT style," "We will use illegal immigrants, not illegal aliens." Nonetheless, a Media Matters review indicates that in the past month alone, six Washington Times articles have referred to undocumented immigrants as "illegals" in their headline or subhead, while seven articles have been posted on the paper's website with "illegals" in their headline or subhead.
In a February 25, 2008, blog post, the Washington City Paper quoted from a "memo" from the "regime" of Washington Times executive editor John Solomon, which stated that as part of "recent updates to TWT style," "We will use illegal immigrants, not illegal aliens." Nonetheless, a Media Matters for America search of the Nexis news database indicates that in the past month alone, six Washington Times articles have referred to undocumented immigrants as "illegals" in their headline or subhead, while seven articles have been posted on the paper's website with "illegals" in their headline or subhead.
In a March 2006 press release, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) stated that it was "particularly troubled with the growing trend of the news media to use the word 'illegals' as a noun, shorthand for 'illegal aliens,' " adding: "Using the word in this way is grammatically incorrect and crosses the line by criminalizing the person, not the action they are purported to have committed. NAHJ calls on the media to never use 'illegals' in headlines." Similarly, in January 21, 2007, remarks at the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Unity Breakfast, National Council of La Raza President and CEO Janet Murguía called "illegals" "a term deftly used as a code word to hide prejudice."
In its press release, NAHJ wrote that "[i]llegal alien" and "[i]llegal" were terms to "[a]void." Additionally, NAHJ stated, "While many national news outlets use the term 'illegal immigrant,' this handbook calls for the discussion and re-evaluation of its use. Instead of using illegal immigrant, alternative labels recommended are 'undocumented worker' or 'undocumented immigrant.' " From the release:
Illegal alien
Avoid. Alternative terms are "undocumented worker," or "undocumented immigrant." The pertinent federal agencies use this term for individuals who do not have documents to show they can legally visit, work or live here. Many find the term offensive and dehumanizing because it criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering or residing in the United States. The term does not give an accurate description of a person's conditional U.S. status, but rather demeans an individual by describing them as an alien. At the 1994 Unity convention, the four minority journalism groups -- NAHJ, Asian American Journalists Association, Native American Journalists Association and National Association of Black Journalists -- issued the following statement on this term: "Except in direct quotations, do not use the phrase illegal alien or the word alien, in copy or in headlines, to refer to citizens of a foreign country who have come to the U.S. with no documents to show that they are legally entitled to visit, work or live here. Such terms are considered pejorative not only by those to whom they are applied but by many people of the same ethnic and national backgrounds who are in the U.S. legally."
Illegal immigrant
While many national news outlets use the term "illegal immigrant," this handbook calls for the discussion and re-evaluation of its use. Instead of using illegal immigrant, alternative labels recommended are "undocumented worker" or "undocumented immigrant." Illegal immigrant is a term used to describe the immigration status of people who do not have the federal documentation to show they are legally entitled to work, visit or live here. People who are undocumented according to federal authorities do not have the proper visas to be in the United States legally. Many enter the country illegally, but a large number of this group initially had valid visas, but did not return to their native countries when their visas expired. Some former students fall into the latter category. The term criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering or residing in the United States without federal documents. Terms such as illegal alien or illegal immigrant can often be used pejoratively in common parlance and can pack a powerful emotional wallop for those on the receiving end. Instead, use undocumented immigrant or undocumented worker, both of which are terms that convey the same descriptive information without carrying the psychological baggage. Avoid using illegal(s) as a noun.
Illegal
Avoid. Alternative terms are "undocumented immigrant" or "undocumented worker." This term has been used to describe the immigration status of people who do not have the federal documentation to show they are legally entitled to work, visit or live here. The term criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering, residing in the U.S. without documents.
In her January 2007 remarks, Murguía stated:
I want to stop for a moment and say that, for the most part, these are hard-working people who have risked much to provide for their families. Many hold down two or three jobs to make ends meet. They are church-goers, people of faith. They are parents who care for their children and children who respect their elders. Every one of them would choose to be here legally if they could. The fact is our immigration system is broken. For people wanting to come here there is a 20-year backlog to legal entry -- if they can get in at all.
But, to the voices of hate ... they are only "illegals," a term deftly used as a code word to hide prejudice. These hard-working men and women are not separate from the Hispanic community. They're part of its fabric. Many Latino families have U.S. citizens, legal residents, and undocumented under the same roof. And you can't tell just by looking at us who is a citizen and who is not.
But while The Washington Times has reportedly altered its stylebook to use the term "illegal immigrants" rather than "illegal aliens," the paper has continued to use "illegals" in its headlines and subheads to refer to undocumented immigrants. According to a search of the Nexis database, examples from the past month include:
- A March 5 article headlined "ICE program catches illegals on minor offenses"
- A March 1 article headlined "Illegal population down slightly in U.S."
- A February 26 article with the subhead "Rights groups see broken 'commitment' on illegals policy"
- A February 26 article headlined "Illegals targeted sheriff as part of gang initiation"
- A February 25 article with the subhead "Illegals' victims say cities liable"
- A February 13 article headlined "Deported for drugs, illegal still sued Arizona rancher"
Likewise, several of the paper's articles posted on its website have referred to undocumented immigrants as "illegals" in their headlines or sub-headlines, including:
- A March 5 article headlined "Minor offenses trip up illegals"
- A February 26 article headlined "Illegals raid dismays Obama backers"
- A February 26 article headlined "Illegals targeted sheriff as gang initiation"
- A February 25 article with the subhead "Illegals' victims say cities liable"
- A February 13 article headlined "Deported for drugs, illegal sues rancher"
- A February 9 article headlined "16 illegals sue Arizona rancher"
Additionally, a March 7 Associated Press article was posted at WashingtonTimes.com under the headline, "Detention center for illegals sparks anger." The article appears in the Nexis database under the headline "Groups object to immigration detention in Va. town."
The Washington City Paper's February 25, 2008, blog post:
John Solomon took over the Washington Times on Jan. 28.
But he arrived today, via a message from the paper's copy operation.
The news, in short: No more scare quotes.
Longtime Washington Times readers know well what this is all about: Under the regime of Wesley Pruden, the Times, unwilling to acknowledge anything so radical and immoral as gay marriage, treated the term in its pages as gay "marriage."
Likewise other terms. In the old Washington Times, there were no illegal immigrants, just "illegal aliens"; no gays, just "homosexuals."
Now comes the following memo from the Solomon regime, wiping out this legacy in one flick of the wrist:
All:
Here are some recent updates to TWT style.
1) Clinton will be the headline word for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
2) Gay is approved for copy and preferred over homosexual, except in clinical references or references to sexual activity.
3) The quotation marks will come off gay marriage (preferred over homosexual marriage).
4) Moderate is approved, but centrist is still allowed.
5) We will use illegal immigrants, not illegal aliens.
this is the most hysterical thread here in a long time. Oops, don't call them illegal even though they are breaking the law, it's pejorative and packs an emotional wallop, or some such phony politically correct baloney. it's the most inane word parsing crap imaginable. People know better, we aren't fools, so you can sit around and figure out the least offensive term you can dream up to call people who are breaking the law, but the facts remain unchanged.
The press: "We will use illegal immigrants, not illegal aliens."
JamesB: "Oops, don't call them illegal even though they are breaking the law"
Oops is right...
I think he was referring to the NAHJ press release:Instead of using illegal immigrant, alternative labels recommended are "undocumented worker" or "undocumented immigrant."
and we also know why liberals, most notably the powers that be in the Democratic party, push for these benign labels when referring to illegal immigrants - they are potential Democratic voters because most likely they will require government services. Once again, we aren't fooled.
"Require government services"? You mean, these people who risk their lives to cross the southern US border, hang out in the Home Depot parking lot waiting for someone in a pickup to load them up and pay them $2.00/hr for 16 hours/day to tear shingles off a roof in 110 degree weather, and live in a house with 15 other people so that they can feed their families? THESE are the people who will most likely "require government services"?
They sound like the kind of people which make up the history of the U.S. about which the righties so love to romanticize.
In this case, "services" means we paid them $2 an hour for 16 hours. They should have worked for a loaf of bread and water runoff from the concrete pourers.
Darn! That benign label "services" fooled me!
The history of the US is made up by immigrants who came to this country legally. Who forces them to risk their lives to get here? Who forces them to break our laws? They make that choice themselves, I wonder what you would do if they camped out in your back yard, I suspect your reaction would be different. And yes James, the Dems have a long history of "buying " votes with social programs. They are very good at giving away taxpayer money while they keep their own wealth to themselves.
Pay attention here:
JamesB was claiming that illegal immigrants use up gov't services. THAT was the topic. The self-sufficiency proven by those who illegally cross our border in order to find honest work are hardly the type to come here in search of "government services". And I know for a fact that they aren't. I also know that you, on the other hand, seem to feel that you are bestowed entitlement to a fair chance at a decent life, an education, drinkable water, safe food, fire and police protection, and every other benefit our society offers just because your mother happened to get lucky in the back seat of a '83 Dodge Aries in Dallas. You contributed nothing to the history that offers you that opportunity, but are proud to whine about it when someone else sacrifices to attain it.
So hop back up on your high horse, Paul Revere, and do something besides riding around screaming "The illegals are coming!". Contribute to future history. Ride off to Washington to convince YOUR senators and congressmen to vote against ALL spending bills. After all, you surely don't want to get any benefits in the form of government services for YOUR community. That might appear to be "buying" votes.
First, your whole premise is dead wrong. Most are not the type who come searching for Gov't services HOWEVER due to circumstances beyond their control most eventually do require services that they cannot pay for, primarily medical services. I live in a part of the country where there are many illegal immigrants and I have first hand experience with some of them. Most are good people who only want to make a living and feed their families. I know one such individual who was hit by a car and his hospital bill was $55,000. Who paid the bill? We all do . Was it his fault, no of course not. Is he still a "good person" in my eyes, he certainly is. Also for 5 years now I have been receiving bills from another individual who has hijacked my address to provide to the hospitals and doctors who have taken care of her and her daughter. When one hospital catches on she moves to the next, and so on. Do we as Americans have an obligation to pay for everyone? Why don't we just invite everyone in? Until the time comes when we are providing care for all Americans, we cannot provide for others. What other laws should we just ignore, larceny, assault, murder? Your post shows that you don't know what you are dealing with. And your insults on my family show you are a classless individual. Perhaps you are sensitive to the issue because that is how you entered the world, although your Mom did not get lucky, after all , she had you.
Well said...and here's a little more info on the out of control situation with illegal aliens.
-- Powerful and well-organized Mexican drug-trafficking groups have seized control of drug distribution throughout Ohio, flooded local markets with increasingly cheap heroin and are using Columbus and Dayton as distribution hubs for southwestern Ohio and parts of Indiana, local and federal U.S. drug-enforcement officials say.
The situation in Ohio reflects a larger national trend: U.S. officials say Mexican cartels operate in at least 195 U.S. cities --
-- “International drug trafficking organizations pose a sustained, serious threat to the safety and security of our communities,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said. “We can provide our communities the safety and the security that they deserve only by confronting these dangerous cartels head-on without reservation,” he said. -- chron.com
Isn't it strange that no one but you replied to that post of mine. I wonder why.
Hey, moron: illegal aliens / undocumented workers (whatever you want to call them) CANN'T VOTE! Only CITIZENS can vote! So... HOW are they a potential ANYTHING?
With Acorn in the hands of the dems, they all become voters.
Wha...? Are you being sarcastic or did you recently recieve a head wound?
Only citizens can vote. Period. And no one can change that. End of story, assuming you can actually read it.
Acorn registers people to vote. ANYONE can register, but it remains CITIZENS alone that survive the scrutiny of the process and actually get to vote. To think otherwise is to reveal your own idiocy.
And you don't have to have a PhD in political science to realize that if you HELP someone attain their goals, (citizenship, for example?), that they might be inclined to remember that and vote for you (or your party.) That's something that the Republicans forgot however. They don;t wnat to help anyone. They'd rather obstruct. They seem to think you can just keep urinating on people, and they'll keep voting for you. Well... some parts of the country are a little slower than others, but many of the red[neck] states are starting to learn how badly their elected officials have been (and still are) screwing them.
And how do you say "ACORN" in rebupli-speak? "MEGACHURCH". And the scary thing is: that operation delivers actual VOTES, as opposed to just a handful of new registrations along with a bunch of bogus ones that get thrown out.
And before anyone points out what wesley already has (below) - when I say that someone "can/can't do something" I am of course refering to the LAW. Legally speaking.
If you say someone CAN vote, simply because they DID and they WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO, then by that logic: I can KILL PEOPLE.
Well...Legally speaking, I can't kill people. And by the same logic, non-citizens CAN'T VOTE.
Let's be fair. You were responding to James' comment about "potential Democratic voters". Your point there wasn't about legality, quite clearly. If they vote illegally, they're still potential Democratic voters.
OK, that's fair.
But it's also misleading. Democrats don't buy into the Republican's vison of a Whiter America. (Yes, I'm white.) So they want to make immigration reform part of their platform. This would likely allow more citizens - and THAT would likely get them votes from the people they helped. (Nothing cynical going on there.) It would also allow otherwise law abiding aliens to stay and work. (And they DO work!) Now THAT shouldn't result in more votes directly. It probably DOES, but it's not supposed to, becuase... (wait for it...)... Only citizens can vote. The only votes they should get from this aspect of the issue are from people who support their platform (as McCain once did!) because they've come to reliaze that to have a sercure border, you need to know who's crossing it and have some idea of where they're going. You'll only ever have THAT if the alien complies, and they're NOT going to comply if it gets them arrested, thrown out, or denied entry. They're also not going to bother if it takes years and years to get approved. If we had a system that asked for no more than a gov't ID (from Mexico, for example) and required (for example) registration of the aliens' address in teh staes, but otherwise oput no limits on them? I'd agree with rounding up eveyone who's not complying. THOSE people must have something bad going on. But under our current system, there is no incentive for people to comply. It's unreasonable. It denies them what they want for NO GOOD REASON, and puts the country at risk becasue of it.
If you had say 100,000 people come into the US from Mexico, do you think we would be "more secure" if:
100 Registered and came in "legally" under our current system, while 99,900 snuck in illegally?
-OR-
90,000 registered under a "we'll let you in and let you stay, we just want to know who & where you are" system and 10,000 snuck in?
Which do YOU think would result in LESS voter fraud? LESS terrorists coming that we don't know about? FEWER forged documents, sicne they would be uneccessary? LESS crime - since they CAN stay if the obey the law, but they won't be let BACK IN if they break it? Why would they mess up a good thing?
My numbers may be off, but even if it's 50/50 you would still have far fewer UNKOWNS coming in. I'd rather let them in and KNOW WHO AND WHERE THEY ARE, then try to keep them out, only to have them come in anyway without my knowledge. (And defraud my systems.)
If they comply with the system, I can track them. THAT'S worth just about any concession to get them to comply.
so you are saying anyone who wants to come here should be allowed to? as long as they apply legally? any limits on that? doesn't sound like it. and if that gives us a population of say, half a billion people, that's ok?
Half a billion? That's it? We're 2/3 of the way there already! And you need SOMEONWE to buy all these foreclosed houses and the glut of auto inventory that's built up.
And where do you get that figure anyway? You know how many would come in? The exact same number as are already coming here! Do you really think we're detering anyone? (10%, maybe we deter 10%. I'll give the that much.) The only difference would be that we won't waste resources chasing people who's only crime is walking from point A to point B in order to improve their life.
If you're worried about drugs/gamgs/terrorists, imagine how much better off we'd be if (1) Every agent currently inforcing imigration was attacking those problems directly amd (2) we had a list of eveyonne who came here and where they were and anyone NOT on that list would stand out all the more as the exception. (Withmy system if you're NOT documented, you're probably a REAL criminal.)
As for a limit...? If one is needed, I say let "market forces" take care of it. (That's your lot's typical answer for everything lese, isn't it?) Eventually the cost of living (for them) will be too high relative to the scarity of available work. Why put an arbitratry limit on it that no one adheres too anyway? (That sound more like the "government intervention" that you guys always whine about.)
you make lots of assumptions based on nothing at all. "your lot's" and "you guys". that's considering you made a full apology to me about a week ago for making up things i never said. and where do you get your numbers? you're saying if we had an open border, that no more people would come than come now? you have got to be kidding. and for someone who seems to be such a liberal, you're buying the line that business adopts. labor on demand and they'll pay pennies. the wall street journal has called for an amendment saying "there shall be open borders". that's the "market forces" you're calling for. by the way, thom hartmann, the liberal radio talk host, agrees with me.
i also used the half a billion figure as a conservative estimate. i'm sure it would be far higher if we let people just come here on demand. and most would be the extremely poor, not arriving here with cash to buy up all those houses and cars.
if you don't think that number of people would severely impact our environment, you are dreaming. we already have no water to go around in many places in this country. we've already seen severe declines in fish and bird populations. i'm happy to discuss issues. what i do not like is people who think they are so right that their opinion renders everyone else an idiot. i'm not whining about anything.
-- Legally speaking, I can't kill people. And by the same logic, non-citizens CAN'T VOTE. -- eddie
Count me in as one supporting issuing you an honorary doctorate from the mmfa school of logic...with a minor emphasis in parsing.
Thank you. I'll hang it on my wall. LOL.
And why are the dems opposed to picture IDs for voting? pretty obvious to me. And your assertion that only citizens survive the scrutiny of the process is laughable.
Why are conservatives for cataloging every man, woman and child in America? I thought you were the party of personal privacy, yet you support every policy designed to do away with that.
One of our rights as citizens is the right to vote, shouldn't we be able to implement a system where we can be certain that our elections are actually decided by our citizens? Do you want your elected officials determined by non citizens?
why are you against individual freedoms? Do you want your elected officials determined by a select few landowners?
You've lost me on this one. Government has every right to keep track of people. You have a social security number, your address is registered to your name with the Post Office, etc. That's not taking away your privacy. And saying that only citizens should vote doesn't imply that landowners should be the only ones to vote.
I personally don't see the issue with states issuing picture identification (state I.D. or driver's license) and then requiring one of the two for voting purposes. It is consistent with the Constitution as far as I can see, and the expense surely isn't disproportionate to the worthiness of the project.
Landowners?
-- Only citizens can vote -- niceguyeddie
Now that's rich...and incorrect. Here's a little about that claim of yours:
-- the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that...30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens.
-- because of deficiencies in state law and the failure of federal agencies to comply with federal law, there are almost no procedures in place that allow election officials to detect, deter, and prevent non-citizens from registering and voting. Instead, officials are largely dependent on an "honor system" that expects aliens to follow the law.
-- The U.S. Attorney at the time estimated that there were at least 80,000 illegal aliens registered to vote in Chicago, and dozens were indicted and convicted for registering and voting.
-- Maryland's state election administrator has complained, "There is no way of checking…. We have no access to any information about who is in the United States legally or otherwise.
-- Rafael Velasquez, who not only voted, but even ran for the state legislature. Eight of the 19 September 11 hijackers were registered to vote in either Virginia or Florida
-- Paul Bettencourt, Voter Registrar for Harris County, Texas, testified before the U.S. Committee on House Administration...he cancelled the registration of a Brazilian citizen in 1996 after she acknowledged on a jury summons that she was not a U.S. citizen. Despite that cancellation, however, "She then reapplied in 1997, again claiming to be a U.S. citizen, and was again given a voter card, which was again cancelled. Records show she was able to vote at least four times in general and primary elections.
You're still claimig that someone breaking a law, constitutes them being able to do something. By that logic, I can kill people. The LAW does NOT allow non-citizens to vote. That regional systems are imperfect is obvious, but who's the party that always fighting having national election standards in favor of states being able to do it there own way? And the (republican) requirement of a driver's liscense would do nothing to stop illegals, while at the same time inconveniecing (and in some cases, disenfranchising) legal voters.
That illegal aliens sometimes cast votes they shouldn't is NOT a reason to KEEP THEM OUT, it's a reason to have a better voter registration system. It also a reason to have a better documentation process for aliens. But they won't comply with that until you stop deporting and arresting everyone in sight, and let them stay in exchange for us knowing WHO TEHY ARE and WHERE THE COME FROM. No immigration system will work if the goal is to keep people out. If you let them come in, and treat them reasonably, most people would comply with the system,a ssuming it was quick, and generally let them in (unless they were on a drug-lord/terrorist watch list) since they woudl have no incentive not to. Border security would be better, and our own systems would be harder to defraud.
-- Only citizens can vote. -- niceguyeddie
You made a claim about illegai aliens not voting...that was what I responded to.
If you want to move the discussion from the completely deflated claim that only citizens can vote...to the topic of illegal immigration...fine by me.
We can, but we don't need to. The Democrat's don't support immigration reform to get illegal votes (as stated in the post I was responding to.) That's a smear.
They are on the side of comprehensive immigration reform for many reasons - related to security, diversity and personal liberty njust to name a few. Will that get them some illegal votes? Well, yeah, but there's no reason it should.
What's more... If we HAD a good registration system that GUARENTEED that no non-citzens could vote, and at the same time guarenteed that all CITIZENS could, would the Democrats change their position? I doubt it.
And THAT'S why it's a smear.
comprehensive immigration reform is nothing but code for amensty. And I love your reasons, diversity, security and my favorite, personal liberty. just another example of liberals trying to hide their true agenda by flowering it up with useless non-offensive descriptors to try and fool people. Well, it doesn't work. Democrats in power want those people because of the votes they either cast themselves, or so they can become dependent on government programs to keep them in power. We don't need more poverty imported in this country in the name of personal liberty or diversity, we can't afford what we now have. Being granted citizenship in this country is a privelege, we need to secure our borders first.
-- comprehensive immigration reform is nothing but code for amensty -- jamesb
Darn skippy...just like substituting the word "undocumented" for "illegal".
or bring them out of the shadows, or another gem - splitting up families. to which I reply, that is up to them, the illegal mother or father is always free to take their family with them. I prefer calling things exactly what they are, not dressing them up with some focus group tested label to soften what is really meant.
-- splitting up families --
I believe you are correctamundo. It is not the fault of the U.S. that illegal aliens have chosen to run the risk of estrangement. Most of them are from Mexico...and the fault lies within their own country.
These puny arguments are classic strawmen...the plight of the illegal aliens sneaking into the US is the result of the Mexican govt.
Why are they in the shadows? Because they "chose" to break our laws...and that is not the fault of the US. That's calling things "exactly what they are"...nice job, james.
Ok... first of all: ALL politicians sevre a given constituency in order to get votes. That's common sense, and hardly just a sin (?) of the Democrats.
Second: Your criticism of "deiversity" is just a euphamistic cover for your own racism.
Third - Dependance on gov't programs. White's represent the single largest racial group of people on public assistance. That's a fact: http://www.publiceye.org/welfare/Decades-of-Distortion.html. Until recently they were a actual majority of recipients. And since 1968 poor whites (that would be rural white vs., say, urban blacks) overwhelmingly vote Republican. (Just look at where all the Red States are!)
Finally - Border Security is a "non-offensive descriptor" for you wanting to keep america white. We'll never have real security as long as people don't comply with the given system. I've proposed a system that could work. You insist on sticking with something that hasn't been the least bit effective (a typical conservative attitude) because it stroked you preconceived notions and makes you feel better. Nevermind that it has never worked in the history of man.
Anything else?
The U.S. Attorney at the time estimated that there were at least 80,000 illegal aliens registered to vote in Chicago, and dozens were indicted and convicted for registering and voting.
So... in actual fact they found a few dozen people in a City with a population of almost 3 Million.
The rest of your post consists of a few ancedotes, and some really strong critiques of our government databases.
-- the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that...30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens.
You see... THIS tells me that we have the technology. If one man can find something out, than another man can find it out as well. Are we DOING that? No, becasue we insist of allowing states, cities, town, municiplaties and every podunk rural puddle of mud to do things their own way.
OT, and not that I'm necssisarily in favor of it, but nixing the electoral college and going to a poular vote could fix this opvernight. Then anyone with a SSN could vote, anywhere they want, ONCE. One SSN in the gov't SS (and IRS) database - ONE VOTE. And it wouldn't matter WHERE it's cast, since there's no winner take all system for states.
I only listed a few "anecdotal" items in the interest of courtesy...follow the link and you will find the entire report describing the miserable failure of our govt. to do their duty in fulfilling the obligation of one man/one vote...and excluding illegal aliens from voting.
Fair enough. Our gov't fails to insure the vote in many ways, and that's one of them. It's far from just a DEMOCRATIC (party), LIBERAL or ACORN-related problem though. The Rebublicans don't want comprehensive immigration reform (to fix that half of the problem) and the only proposals they have to fix the voting problems would be ineffective against illegals, and yet likely disenfranchise poor LEGAL voters. Who yes, at least in the urban areas, tend ot vote democratic. (The poor whites in rural regions tend to vote republican, however.)
I'm a conservative republican that supports immigration reform.
I support stepped up border security...increased enforcement of the existing employment laws...the deportation or jailing of illegal aliens...and a workable and enforceable guest worker program. I don't support any form of amnesty...no matter how it's cloaked.
I also support disenfranchising voters...those that can't prove that they are legal citizens.
With the exception of your last line, you and I are fairly close to the same page.
Heck, snoop...you and I have agreed before...we've disagreed before...and even agreed to disagree.
Just goes to show that not all differences of opinion have to resemble Matt Dillon and Black River Jake shooting it out in front of the Long Branch Saloon to determine who wins and who loses.
-- "The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be“ -- Socrates
Why are you so vindinctive about people who's only crime is walkign from Point A to Point B to get a job? Who have they harmed?
They BROLE THE LAW?! That's it?! They BROKE a LAW that doesn't make any sense in the first place!
If you've ever driven 5 mph over the limit, the you are very bit the criminal. (In that you also have broken a law that, in many cases, doens't make any sense.)
Good laws are generally agreed upon by all people. Don't kill (no one's arguing that) Don't steal (no one's arguing that) Don't physically or sexually assault people (no one's arguing that)... STAY WITHIN THE ARBITRAY BOUDARY THAT YOU WERE BORN IN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S A $#IT#OLE OR NOT - DON'T YOU DARE WALK A FEW MILES FOR A BTTER WAY OF LIFE! Well my friend... it seems the only people who support THAT kind of law are the ones lucky enough to have NOT been born in the $#IT#OLE country. It a law that protects one group by imposing limits another. NO of the other "good laws" I mentioned above do that. They protect ALL PEOPLE EQUALLY. And there are clear VICTIMS when those crimes are broken.
It is utter foolishness to put immigration laws on the same level as natural, universal human laws. So let's stop with this "criminal" nonsense. If they've commiteed a crime, show me an actual victim.
A more accurate term for an individual known to be in this country without proper authorization is "criminal suspect."
I think that's spot on pongo. You must have learned that from Jeeves, or mayby Bingo Little
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/What_the_Huck_Chuck_Norris_.html S'ok Chuckies going to save Texas.
Amazing, call for armed insurrection against a democrat, get labeled a hero by the right. Say you're ashamed of the republican president, get labeled a traitor who deserves death by the right. And they wonder why they get the nazi reference applied to them.
Actually, while I'm all for free speech, from any objective measure Chuck Norris IS a traitor. He actually called for armed insurrection / secession, literally. Liberals have never gone beyond being critical of policy. (We've never even discussed armed rebellion in metaphoric terms. The waorst we talk about doing is moving to Canada - and that's LEGAL!) It's amazing how sofa king stupid the conservtives in this country are.
It's especially amusing when you consider that Coulter wished for the death of people who exposed the warrantless wiretapping operations. So telling terrorists that we might be listening in on phone calls (duh) is treason, but calling for secession is not. I also seem to remember a lot of people talking about emboldening terrorists. If saying that we're on the brink of civil war doesn't embolden terrorists, I can't imagine what would.
Did they use the term "illegal alien" in any of the cited notes? Are they subject to having to follow the rules of a third party that equates "illegal" to "illegal alien"? This is one of MMFA's funniest posts (and there have been darn few over the years), it may even rank #1.
Oscar, between yesterday and today, I've had a stellar day. Don't F#$k it up! ;)
I think the point is that "illegals" was used as shorthand for "illegal aliens", and so now people take it the same way while it's actually shorthand for "illegal immigrants". That being said, I don't get the criticism either. "Illegal" is the word of contention to begin with, and I don't see a major difference between "alien" and "immigrant", especially when we're talking about the readers of the Washington Times. As if their readers are going to interpret "illegals" as "illegal aliens" and think "bad people" while if they thought of "illegal immigrants" they wouldn't think of that quite as negatively. I doubt it.
This isn't to say that labels don't make a difference in general. "Undocumented" (if the WT was actually beholden to the request of the NAHJ) is more benign, certainly. Political parties and special interest groups get to determine their names, and that's supposed to be respected. It would be outrageous to see pro-life forces referred to as "anti-choice" in a newspaper, for instance. But when you're dealing with something illegal, that seems to me to make a major difference. Someone growing and selling marijuana is a criminal, no matter what any particular person or group thinks about that. They aren't an "alternative farmer" or whatever other title they might prefer. Illegal immigrants deserve respect as human beings, but they don't have the legitimacy to determine the label that applies to them.
And in one of those stories they actually included the words 'felon' and 'previously deported' as descriptors of 'illegals'! Why those dastardly evile editors of Washington Times. I would rather that they be referred to them as 'cute as kittens' or 'border challenged la raza-ers' instead.
Memo to media matters (for very little), how about not using quotation marks when describing the 'regime' of John Solomon.
x's & o's pc
I prefer illegal invaders.
You better tuck and run as you take your dweeby pot shots...
For some reason, I actually like you Snoopy. Even though I rarely agree with you, you have some lame arguments and your the typical, bleeding-heart lib that I despise, you have a very good sense of humor :) I love that image above. Touche.
undocumented immigrants ARE illegal immigrants.
WITH?
Convicted in which court?
Are you saying that until you're convicted of committing an illegal act it's not illegal? That's stupid. By that reasoning, Dubya's warrentless wiretapping wasn't illegal.
Beautiful expose...simply beautiful.
Nah, I'm saying you are not a criminal till you've been convicted of a crime. Shrubs wiretapping has many court descisions flipping back and forth I've heard of no one being convicted in connection with the wire tapping. Even so there's only one of him, its unlikely that someone would try a citizen's arrest on someone who looked a little like him.
Illegal alien as used dams any latino you don't know as a probable convicted criminal. That illegality being equal to a traffic violation.
Expose, is that your special word this week Wesley? Your definition of this word please.
Did I, or Washington Times, say that undocumented = criminal?
"Nah, I'm saying you are not a criminal till you've been convicted of a crime."
Absolute, utter nonsense.
"undocumented immigrants ARE illegal immigrants"
That's what you originally responded to. That has nothing to do with being convicted in court. People who enter the country illegally (and not having documentation, obviously) are illegal immigrants, whether put on trial or not, just as people who use violence as a means of achieving political goals are terrorists whether put on trial or not. If you're talking about specific people, then you need to prove it in court. As a general concept, the action defines the title, independent of any judicial determinations.
If I speed I'm also a criminal then. I'm comitting a well known illegal act as well. Where do you want to put the two crimes on a piority list for the various law enforcement agencies?
In another similarity, due to my daily drivers type and appearence, I get profiled and ocassionally harrassed by public safety officers.
For my transgressions, has my situation been the same as someone who could be identified, rightly or wrongly as an undocumented or illegal alien? No.
I see little difference in the weight of my crimes to an undocumented alien's. I do see a big difference in both legal and civilian worlds to the penalties we are liable too as a result of our respective illegalities.
I'm not talking about priority lists, nor am I talking about profiling. I have absolutely no idea how you think what you're talking about here is relevant to the point.
If you do something illegal, it's illegal. Whether you get charged and convicted of it only reflects on the public recognition of your act, it doesn't change the inherent nature of the act in the first place.
If your argument is purely semantic in that "criminal" is a label applied to someone who's actually been convicted of a crime, that's fine. But I do believe you're the one who introduced that term here. Talking about "illegal acts" is general and theoretical, and doesn't have anything to do with court procedures.
Confusion abounds.
Illegal immigrants versis illegal aliens. The point of the article seems to be how the phrases will affect the readers perception of the designated population.
My chances in a legal detail argument with you are like that of a snowball's chances in hell. My concerns are perhaps a step along from the article's. Perhaps fuzzy, but very important to me none the less.
Your concerns are your own, and that's fine. I'm not interested in legal details either, I'm just pointing out that you can recognize the concept of an illegal act without a court convicting everyone that commits it.
James:
Turn off right -wing hate radio and pick up a book. You might learn something.
Read our laws and you might learn something.
How the coffers open up to the freeloaders is not the libs concern. The true concern is just getting a "sit at home for free card" for whomever wants one.
Just because a nation does not ride a horse up to the border with a sword in their hand does not make this ANY better. Our sovereignty is being screwed with. My childrens birthright is being diluted by folks that do not have that right to do so.
Period.
And you'll hurt anybody who you think might be somehow involved. That's why pre-emptive strikes were invented of course.
Yah gonna be part of Ranger Walker's Armed insurection?
What birthright, precisely, is being diluted?
The true concern is just getting a "sit at home for free card" for whomever wants one.
WHF are you talking about? The people that come here work. They work HARD. They work hard doing $#itty jobs that we don;t want, for a fraction of what we'd get paid. I've both worked with and hired immigrants both legal and (suspected) illegal and have been very satisfied with the work I've gotten. I've also hired many a red-neck yokel just to have him screw the job up. That's not to say that ALL Mexican work hard or that ALL yokels are incompetant (On the contrary - I won't trust my car to anyone who's NOT a shade-tree mechanic!) But I've seen, first hand, plenty of evidence to the contrary of your neo-con rant.
What's more, we've got a plant in Mexico. I've been there dozens of times. Let me tell you - those people work like DOGS for HALF (at best) what they could make in thet states. And I've been to many a plant in the states (both union and otherwise) that I was not nearly as impressed with.
Your spouting racist, right-wing nonsense. But hey... why let evidence get in the way of a good stereotype?