The recent story, “Commissioners Hear Plea from Immigrant Community,” [April 18 post on mountainx.com] constantly using the term “immigrants” as a politically correct substitute for the legal and accurate term “illegal aliens” is an insult to real immigrants and the rich tradition of immigration in America.
At more than 1 million each year, the USA takes in more legal immigrants than any other nation on the planet, a group that includes this proud American’s adopted sister and many close friends. Illegal aliens are people here in violation of our extremely liberal immigration laws that must be enforced if we are to honor the legal immigrants who join the American family lawfully.
Illegally jumping over a rickety border fence or overstaying a visa does not make anyone an “immigrant” ― and it does not make them Americans.
Border patrol agents and ICE agents risk ― and too often lose ― their lives in their noble work to protect us from the crime of illegal immigration. Reading that illegals have the temerity to insist that county commissioners do something to stop immigration enforcement should enrage anyone who believes in the rule of law.
If writers and readers are anti-enforcement on immigration, they should have the courage to speak up on their real goals: open borders.
For the mindless libs who will recoil at the thought of supporting law enforcement officers and who will howl the sure-to-come cries of “racism,” we suggest a good first step is to at least enforce our immigration and employment laws as effectively and as enthusiastically as does Mexico, where there is no confusion on the “illegal” part of illegal immigration or apology for enforcement.
For those confused about the difference between immigrants and illegal aliens: Immigrants do not require amnesty.
― D.A. King
Marietta, Ga.
Editor’s note: King reports that he is president of the Georgia-based Dustin Inman Society.
So far as Mountain Xpress’ word usage goes, we adhere to the guidance of the Associated Press in this and many other matters of word choice. The AP advises: “Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.
“Do not use the terms alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented (except when quoting people or government documents that use these terms).”
Beyond the specific terms used to characterize immigrant communities, Xpress in general does not use language that implies a civil or criminal violation of the law to describe individuals or groups who have not been convicted of such a violation.
Where does it say that all journalists must obey the Associated Press when it comes to usage? Why would your editors agree not to think for themselves?
LOL the words leftist, leftism, progressive, democrat, socialist, communist on one end and free thinking on the other do not go hand in hand. Censorship is needed to disguise lies and prevent knowledge from being passed. It’s easier to ban speech that goes against the narrative than to debate it. It’s why leftist are weak, their beliefs and true intentions have to be hidden, and they’re for selling out the nation to anyone who they can add to their voter rolls. Double standards for sure.
There’s a huge bombshell of the FBI spying on a certain campaign and infiltrating it. And more than likely it was to pass on info to the democrat candidate who herself had to cheat to win the nomination. And the leftist of course marginalize it. Flip the coin though and these people would be crying treason. Either you have integrity or you don’t. Laws, morals, and values to the left is whatever can place keep them in power. No matter how destructive it is.
I would encourage the avant garde MtnX to forget about the AP and do the right thing…the AP is no longer a trustworthy source of news.
So, MX prints a letter from well outside its coverage area, on an inflammatory issue in order to increase clicks, result in LTEs that will, it hopes, increase circulation, get more online comments about “demokkrats,” LOL and lulz whcih will, it hopes result on more clicks.
The editor’s note after the letter skits pretty close to admitting the above. Then a quick Google search of the first comment, which appears so very shortly (and surely coincidentally) after the press release — excuse me letter to the editor — from the director a group (the Midwest Coalition To REDUCE Immigration) also identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a nativist extremist group.
MX, you have been played. Your former mission of doing investigative reporting long ago gave way to giving over room to 42 food articles in every issue. Now you allow yourself to be had by giving over some of your print space a well coordinated effort to give publicity to extremist groups seeking publicity. Both from outside the area.
There was a time when the fringe right said that their agenda was not against legal immigration but illegal immigration, yet the two groups involved in this cobash MX has allowed itself to be caught up in are opposed to most, if not all, LEGAL immigration — so much so that one of them admits that in the title.
I miss the days when MX did serious local investigative reporting and while I still welcome its one time mission to encourage civil discussion from across the spectrum its increasing fixation on all points having equal merits make me wonder when it will ask “The Holocaust: Did it really happen?”
LOL the SPLC is a fringe leftist mouthpiece org. LIEberals omit such things as the increased costs across the board of illegal immigration. On top of being dishonest with their real agenda of open borders. When the leftist go cray cray over the use of the term animals by Trump in reference to MS13, they are literally showing us all how big a sellouts they are.
Now that is a well articulated and expressed burn.
I agree with NFB. Internet high five/fist bump.
I await Mtn X’s lukewarm defense of their LTE policy on pins and needles.
This should be a good’un.
As a retired Chicago journalist with 30 years, I fully agree. It’s very sad to see how the rules governing responsible journalism have virtually disappeared from today’s news reporting, especially when it comes to immigration.
So reducing immigration is part of the “fringe right”? Really. Was the late civil rights icon Barbara Jordan, a black Democrat, who chaired President Clinton’s bipartisan immigration reform commission, also part of that “fringe” when she called for halving legal immigration?
It’s pretty clear to us that you are in the dark about what a majority of Americans want in terms of immigration, but you can thank our mainstream media for that because they can’t be bothered anymore with presenting all the facts, e.g.
64 percent of voters want annual immigration reduced to 750,000 per year or less.
79 percent (including 61 percent of Hispanics) support requiring employers to verify worker status.
Even Rep. Jeff Denham’s own constituents prefer the Goodlatte bill’s approach to his no-strings amnesty.
(If you like, I can send you the links to the above survey results. Just provide me with your email.)
Are we supposed to hang our head in shame because the long ago discredited SPLC decided that we were a nativist organization? Please, do your homework, OK? You can start by reading Ken Silverstein’s “The church of Morris Dees,” Harper’s magazine, November 2000.
Finally, you seem to be hung up on the fact that commentary here has come from “well outside” MX’s circulation area. So? What, exactly, is your point?
We are proud immigrants and we are happy to see someone speak up for us not being illegal. We both came here in the law and soon will be American citizens. It is a bad insult for people to mix us up with the illegals who care nothing about American laws. You should find some word you can use to describe the illegal ones who admit they are illegal and say they want the commissioners to stop immigration enforcement. This is a brave letter. And we like it. Thank you.
MG
Oh, honey, ICE and Border Patrol and the nativists who get their “news” from propagandists will still assume you have no right to be in the US.
Like boatrocker, I’m not sure why MX thinks it’s a good thing to troll its readership by rebroadcasting cranks who hide behind the paper facade of a “society”.
I don’t understand you. The writer did not hide, he says his name and city and that he is part of a effort to see immigration laws enforced and he wants to defend us from being mixed up with the illegals. That does not seem like crank. Your answer makes no sense to me. Maybe you are the one who is misinformed by the news? If border Patrol does not do its job, who will stop the entire world from coming here? Do you not like police or law enforcement? we are happy too see this letter printed so that we can see who cares about the illegals being called ‘immigrants’. Like Mr. King said. we do not need amnesty. We are already legal. When we are citizens, we will vote for President Trump.
LOL I’m the son of immigrants lulz. 1st Gen US citizen LOL.
Reviewing the comments, it occurs to me that we must be doing something right. Commenters with perspective on left and right are angry at us. We, as usual, are not taking a perspective when we present stories because that betrays the potential for good dialogue and fairness. We take letters on local topics from all perspectives.
On the left, you are unhappy we published this letter at all. We strive to publish all letters submitted to us that are focused on local matters or our coverage (assuming they aren’t essentially constant repeats and rehashing of previously published letters). When someone wants to complain about the way we cover important issues such as local unrest about ICE activity, we are going to publish that letter and respond appropriately. We do prioritize letters from local people, but we have often published letters from people who don’t live here, as long as the subject matter is pertinent to us and our readers.
Letters we publish have nothing to do with our reporting. They are the opinions of our readers and do not positively or negatively impact our reporting.
You will notice our website is fairly clean and not covered up with ads. We get very little of our operating income from online advertising — so we have never been, and probably will never be, motivated to post something simply for the number of clicks we might get from it.
On the other side those of you on the right don’t like our response to the letter. We believe AP guidelines are important to responsible journalism. Rhetoric is always difficult to navigate for journalists because language and the way it is used gets more loaded with meaning by the minute. Dog whistles abound and the safest approach for a journalist striving to tell the story without including unintended meaning is to follow AP guidelines and the agreed upon meaning of words. We will describe situations and when the immigration status of someone is important to the story, we will describe that using language that doesn’t include meaning we don’t intend.
Thank you, as always, for reading and for sharing your thoughts.
“Terms like “undocumented” and “unauthorized” can make a person’s illegal presence in the country appear to be a matter of minor paperwork. Many illegal immigrants aren’t “undocumented” at all; they may have a birth certificate and passport from their home country, plus a U.S. driver’s license, Social Security card or school ID. What they lack is the fundamental right to be in the United States.”
That was AP’s recommendation in Oct. 2012 until it caved in months to a barrage of leftist, anti-borders and anti- immigration law enforcement activists , which pretty much describes the immigration press in general. It’s absurd to say that a person “living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.” is somehow not an illegal immigrant or alien, the noun being less important than the adjective, which is appropriate because it is a accurate, persistent description of the state of the noun. It’s omission is a deliberate attempt to push an agenda that conflates legal with illegal immigration.
“we must be doing something right.”
If your intention is to troll, yes. Message received. But perhaps stick with “vegans vs pig-butchery teachers” in future.
U.S. federal government:
Immigrant – An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Such an individual is also known known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a “green card” (USCIS Form I-551), which is the evidence of the alien’s LPR status.
I’m with you, Luther. This looks like another of those canned letters that uses a reference to a local story as an opening hook and then completely ignores the story it is supposed to be complaining about. The me-too comments from all the (suddenly outraged) off-mountain types confirm that conclusion. I suppose the Xpress wants to give preference to letters that criticize its coverage and bravo for that, but these professional gasbags do get old.
I just read your story. It seems that illegal aliens are trying to convince the county government to stop the federal authorities from immigration enforcement. Now, why would legal immigrants be worried about ICE? Just a guess, but the group that you describe as “immigrants” are really here illegally – no “dog whistle” intended.
Your response here is more convoluted that the liberal and biased AP Newspeak “We will describe situations and when the immigration status of someone is important to the story, we will describe that using language that doesn’t include meaning we don’t intend.” Most of your readers are likely intelligent enough to understand that you were writing a tale of woe about illegal immigrants/aliens. Like the editors, It seems that some of them simply don’t care if you blur the line between illegals and immigrants as long as there are victims of some manufactured oppression. Not very pro-immigrant. Why do you hate immigrants?
oh we don’t hate immigrants but for about 50 years from 1923 to 1960s there was NO immigration to allow those already here to assimilate. That is what we need again. We simply are
overrun with immigrants of every description, many of whom expect taxpayer handouts thru the government. That’s what we are tired of. We already have WAY too many of our own people who we cannot afford!
Leftist push identity politics for power. What they won’t admit is that it means that whites HAVE to remain silent while their opportunities and very livelihoods are taken away and GIVEN to others. And are the ONLY group that are shamed and labeled if they speak up against it. And if blacks are affected by illegals? Just blame it on white privilege LOL. Somehow illegals are never blamed for the problems they cause simply because you can always blame whites for it.
Illegals are a sign of a people that have allowed their own nations to fail. And come to the USA with now an expectation of special treatment. They should all be rounded up and sent packing. ICE should conduct raids once a week and shut down permanently any employer that hires them.
“for about 50 years from 1923 to 1960s there was NO immigration to allow those already here to assimilate.”
Untrue. Again.
In what year did the current White House occupant’s mother arrive in the US from Scotland?
You got it right
The word choice that the AP advises proves that they’re part of the far left which doesn’t seem to recognize the problems brought about by illegal aliens. Until you’ve lived with them all around you and see life as it used to be changed, you have no idea of the enormity of the problem. Certainly, most of them are nice people, but they don’ t know how to fit into American society nor do they really care about trying. If you ask most legal immigrants, they agree that that people should not come here illegally nor be allowed to stay here. And that’s what our laws, which are mostly unenforced, say. The idea of illegals demanding that our laws not be enforced would be laughable if it didn’t happen all too often.
As an American born citizen who has a number of extended family members who have immigrated legally, I wholly concur with the letter writer’s comments.
The term “Illegal Alien” derives from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). If a foreign national chooses to cross the border without inspection, they have illegally entered. If an alien, which is a term explained in the INA, enters the US on a temporary US visa and violates the conditions set in the visa, they also become illegal aliens.
If former President Obama creates a new class of aliens (DACA), without congressional approval, he doesn’t grant an immigration benefit. He simply decides to ignore America’s immigration law, and hopes the American public will be sufficiently under informed about the law, and focus on cutesy crap like “Dreamer.”
Americans had better wake up, and realize progressives are playing them.
Regarding the AP Guidance on Politically Correct Terminology, most patriotic citizens know ‘undocumented immigrant’ is a fake term and that journalism is dead. Obfuscating ‘illegal presence’ is just another Libtard Lie.
For the truth visit http://www.illegalaliens.us which states;
“The correct terminology for the nearly 20 million persons illegally in the U.S. is illegal aliens. The term undocumented immigrants is purposely incorrect in order to sway the public in favor of special interest groups and only clouds the reality of the situation. ”
“An alien is a person who comes from a foreign country. The term illegal alien is broader and more accurate because it includes undocumented aliens and nonimmigrant visa overstayers. An undocumented alien is an individual who has entered the U.S. illegally, without entry documentation. Any alien who violates the terms of his or her admission may be deemed to be out of status. Becoming out of status occurs when a nonimmigrant remains in the United States beyond the expiration date of their visa or when a nonimmigrant engages in employment in the United States for which she is not authorized. Roughly 60% of the illegal alien population are undocumented aliens and about 40% are nonimmigrant visa overstayers. Thus, the term illegal alien, being broader in scope, is the accurate term to use.”
David Caulkett, operator http://www.illegalaliens.us
great comments…right on target David… thanks for your work!
I am ashamed of how hateful our nation is towards people who attempt to get a better life and how Congress has ignored addressing for decades. The Statue of Liberty has nothing to stand for anymore.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
We welcome more than a million (legal) immigrants each year. More than any other country. Maybe reread the letter. You are ashamed of a false claim you invented to fit in with the other liberals who also have no idea what about the facts. Like the man said, you should admit you want open borders. Please just say it. Quoting poetry is not really a good argument . SMH
Why is the right so interested in making liberals the enemy?
And why do we not demand our elected officials – right now all Republican dominated – do something about this besides build a wall that will be obsolete in a year. They have no political will or courage to address this – or the fact that people here illegally pick our food, wash our dishes and build our homes and without their contributions, our economy will be harmed.
You don’t seem to read around much. There is a huge fight going on to stop illegal immigration by stopping illegal employment. Another FACT: At least half of illegals here came legally on visas and we didn’t make them leave when visa expired. So, yes, a wall is only part of solution. Perfect that you put forth the concept that we MUST have blackmarket labor to have an economy. (Google H2A via to see that we don’t need illegals on farms) You are saying that you will always want illegals here so that your prices are low and so that wages for our own low-income workers stay low. Advise you look around to see what Americans on the right are demanding on immigration. And, wait until you get the rich tapestry of the murderous MS-13 in your area.
Agree that congress is the problem, as they are controlled by the business community that wants to keep wages low. SO: WHY don’t liberals stand up for American workers and the rule of law? Try reading outside of your bubble. Honest. But, thanks for not replying with another poem.
Yes – the poem by Emma Lazarus speaks to a time when immigration was far more stringent and actually pretty dehumanizing for many folks – getting your name changed at Ellis Island because the immigration official couldn’t pronounce your name, being quarantined for any number of physical or mental issues, getting poked and prodded and having your eyelids turned inside out with a button hook and being tested for intelligence.
You also had to possess so much money and a sponsor – and if you perished while waiting for the process to run its course, there was a crematorium and a bone crusher on site to take care of your remains……
Yes, the borders were more porous in those days but the world back when that poem was written was “root, hog or die” – you made it or you didn’t – you ate or you starved, and if you got sick or injured you either healed up or you died.
The genuine legal immigrants who came to the US in the 19th and 20th centuries wanted to be here – and they worked harder than most folks can imagine to stay here.
I seriously doubt that most immigrants and those who sympathize with the situation of illegals these days would want to return to the days when the Statue of Liberty was erected and Ms. Lazarus wrote her poem.
“getting your name changed at Ellis Island because the immigration official couldn’t pronounce your name”
Did not happen. It’s a myth. Ellis Island arrivals had their names listed on shipping manifests, and the officials had no input into that part of the process. People who changed their names did so afterwards, either when naturalizing or at some other point in their lives without any legal process or bureaucratic oversight. Why? Often because they faced prejudice or distrust from other Americans.
https://www.nypl.org/blog/2013/07/02/name-changes-ellis-island
The story of an immigrant who did receive a name change at Ellis Island may surprise you.
“The genuine legal immigrants who came to the US in the 19th and 20th centuries wanted to be here – and they worked harder than most folks can imagine to stay here.”
This is another false comparison. White immigrants in the 19th and 20th century were assimilated three ways: initially, by remaining tightly within their immigrant community, as census records make clear; then generationally, as their children and grandchildren grew up as Americans, and by being given property on extremely generous terms, whether it was rural homesteads or subsidized home loans. The redlining maps make that clear.
Ask yourself why these myths take root, and why some people desperately want to believe that their immigrant forebears were “the good immigrants” as opposed to the immigrants around them today, and that they themselves are somehow different from the Know-Nothings of yesteryear.
Millions of Americans like BRO here still adhere to the myth that the Statue of Liberty has something to do with immigration; it does not. The statue’s official name is “Liberty Enlightening the World” (not Liberty Inviting the World). I urge BRO and those who still believe as he does to read Robert Suro’s July 5, 2009, op-ed that ran in The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070201737.html
Yes, the statue still “stands for something”: Liberty
Dave, you know that government screwls that no longer teach real US history have dumbed down millions of people…
Congrats, Mtn X.
Step 1- publish incendiary LTEs from those outside readership of a physical copy
Step 2- watch the LTE’s online buddies pile on in order to create a tin foil hat echo chamber
Step 3- offer a tepid response to LTE policy while clickbait increases
I’ve noticed various reactionary groups employ this tactic here over the years.
Specifically, the anti-immigrant types, anti-abortion types and militant vegans.
It reminds me of watching an ant farm in grade school. The ants would swarm a grasshopper
because, well, hive mentality. I’m sure Trekkies call it the Borg Mentality or something like that.
I am insulted/________ I lost my son Dustin an Faimly pet Lucky my wife in a Wheelchair with a Brain Injury just setting at Red Light to an illegal alien that hasn’t been held accountable in 18 years and Our Government KNOWS where he is an says can’t do nothing because he’s in Mexico
It’s kind of sad that we’re having this topic about words illegal immigrant and legal immigrant / Illegal ALien and it insults some !!?? An Not the Problem They Know this before they make the Decision to be Here However they Come This problem insults me that’s been going on for decades and its Sad it took Donald Trump to bring it to the attention it’s getting Today it’s like calling right wrong wrong right Bottom Line the Immigration Problem is Broken an Too many People just Don’t Care anymore seems like An the ones that do care are Insulted treated like the BAD one :( things do need to Change back to Right is Right an Wrong is Wrong .
Regarding Mx response to word useage. Why not just state the TRUTH, “there is a person who is present in this country (an action) , that is not legal?”
I think most people can understand that, avoiding much confusion.
Sheesh. The purpose of a stylebook is to promote consistency (and, with it, credibility) from one story to the next and from one issue to the next. The last thing any publication should do is let each editor and writer decide correct usage for herself. The more a publication deviates from its stylebook, the more chance it creates for mistakes. If the Xpress chooses to use the AP Stylebook, then it should stick with it to the extent practicable. Inasmuch as no one seems to be genuinely confused about what the complained-of story was about, I’d say the Xpress was wise to follow the rules and let the fusspots fuss.
Saul Alinsky would be proud of that prognosis.
The real story is that there are persons who have acted illegally, are continuing to act illegally, are in this country illegally, and therefore are simply breaking the law of these United States.
When a publication, a media organization, and any political subdivisions obfuscate the truth; the citizens have a responsibility to point out the truth . Otherwise, we can start calling drug dealers confused pharmacist and county government fraudsters misunderstood accountants. But, that might require a new guidebook and lead to more confusion.
Put me down for Nah, I believe I will just stick to free speech. The individual voice is at the top of the pyramid, not the bottom as an “Alinskyite” would have it.
You still haven’t identified anything in the original story that was unclear — although I do thank you for furnishing a helpful example of unruly writing.
Thank you, I consider unruly in the context you provided a compliment.
Just to assist in your adjudication of my comments, please see the adjoined comment by Mx Editor in the original post which is what I believe to be the “biting of the hook” the original post cast. Kind regards.
Much obliged, although no help was necessary. I already figured out most of the comments on this thread using the Fox News Stylebook.
Here’s a story from a major American newspaper that discusses immigration enforcement without using the terms “illegal immigrants” or “illegal aliens.” I didn’t have any trouble following it, and the tone seemed kind of humane. See what y’all think. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/27/what-the-legal-process-looks-like-for-an-immigrant-child-taken-away-from-his-parents/.
I think we can all agree that children (minors) entering our country illegally, whether accompanied by an adult or not are at risk. Naturally, we should be empathetic to their circumstances. However, this does not require us to treat these children any different than we would want our own or our citizen neighbor’s children to be treated if suspected of breaking the law.
Finding the root causes of these circumstances are the responsibility of the US Government and individual states working in unison. Issues in this country such as the lack of law enforcement for employment of illegal persons, an immoral appetite for abusing minors, a corrupt legal system, and a failure of foreign policy are just a few of the notable issues. All we know for sure is that actions we have tried in the past have not worked leading to pressure on local governments to cope.
How are we to know that the adults accompanying these minors have their best interest as a priority? It seems that all we know for sure is that the adults by their own actions are entering the country illegally and breaking the law of the United States of America. One would think that normal law enforcement actions would begin to eliminate risks.
If we were to find a family of US “citizens”, let’s say four adults and six minor children breaking the law in some fashion whether it be trespassing, petit theft, etc.; would we agree that these citizens (adults with children) should be detained together in one of our detention facilities along with other adults? Would our social scientists, social services, and others in the business of protecting children agree that this policy would be in the best interest of the minor children? Think that through for a moment………
The fallacy of this argument is obvious on many levels. 1. What is the logic of detaining children and adults together when we are not even sure if there is a family unit? 2. Should we not be concerned that there are adults in the midst of the law breakers that have nefarious motives involving these children? 3. If we would not want our own children placed in custody amongst adults in detention, why would we not apply that same concern and empathy for the children entering our country illegally? 4. What is the deterrent for this illegal activity?
Sessions, while not my most favored “govacrat”, is correct to try something different as a deterrent to this illegal activity.
Your comment proves too much, old friend. The only reason I attached the Washington Post article was to show that a truthful, accurate, fair and informative story about immigration enforcement could be written without using the terms “illegal immigrants” and “illegal aliens.” The same proposition is demonstrated by the Xpress story about which so many people seem to be complaining but so few appear to have actually read carefully. I will leave it to you to consider whether casual reliance on arguably dehumanizing catch-all terms — at least where more precise descriptions are readily available — can unintentionally promote thought patterns that make it easier for people, especially people in authority, to lapse into behavior that dehumanizes “the other.” As a great jurist once said, words — no matter how plain — have connotations and echoes. The Xpress has done well to be mindful of that, and I applaud its editors for it.
Forgive me for addressing the entire article. I must admit to being an analytical type searching for common sense. Although, your reference to “tone and humane”, I reasoned a slight introduction of a broader topic.
Yes; I would concur that, as in any social structure, we will always find bad actors that seek to take down a person. We can find the typical percentage of those in our government institutions that cannot separate the people from the problem or have become the problem.
It is indeed concerning that people are treated as chattel for any agenda. Not being of the legal profession; I would have to defer to the laws that are on the books as guidance.
To each his own. Many newspapers try to avoid boilerplate legalese where clarity can be achieved by more elegant and precise language. Go figure.
So according to conservative thought (if I understand this correctly):
– life begins at conception but a child loses his/her rights once born. Get a job, you baby!
-said child with no rights deserves internment in an American concentration camp for the
sins of his/her parents.
-1500 detained immigrant children have been lost by Trump’s administration like a pair of car keys
or reading glasses.
-conservatives had so much fun breaking up families during slavery times that they long to do it again.
-it is now OK to gun down (oops, murder) unarmed would be immigrants at our militarized borders now
because, well they spoke Spanish.
MAGA?
Boatroker – FYI the WW2 internment camps were done by a Democratic
President and Congress. [I was about 6 yrs old then, and remember when our playmates just disappeared. Also remember that my Dad harvested their flowers and sent them the $$.] That was my VERY conservative father, also known by Braceros as El Jefe for his translating aid.. Dad was a gardener and nurseryman [one of many jobs said to be “work Americans won’t do”] and knew the deleterious effect of unrestrained illegal immigration on all Blue Collar workers. Por favor abra tus ojas, oidos, y corazon para comprender el efecto real de la immigration ilegal. Gracias.