CDZ Please explain to me, The term "undocumented" is this a PC term for "illegal immigrant"?

[Billo_Really]

This thread has been hijacked and derailed.

Un-documented workers in this country are not illegal people. And this is NOT as big an issue as all the attention it is getting.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Illegal aliens emit much more CO2 in the US than they do at home.

ROTFL!!!

 

[sakinago]

All I see are the usual suspects, claiming that nobody needs to bother with a trial in order to label someone an "illegal" alien.

And be careful what you wish for, prosecutors would have a very easy time doing this.

If it wasn't for that pesky Constitution...

You mean that part that grants control of immigration to the federal government?

 

[Pogo]

This thread has been hijacked and derailed.

Un-documented workers in this country are not illegal people. And this is NOT as big an issue as all the attention it is getting.

Agree on both counts. The thread was supposed to be about a definition of a term.

As I noted at the beginning I've been an undocumented worker but I was never where I was illegally. This would be mainly in France.

For the OP -- the term "undocumented worker" used to be interchangeable with "migrant worker" which implies a temporary gig to which one migrates back and forth. Like seasonally. There's a lot of that around in that realm, which is what I also did. That's an important aspect that has been ignored here --- the transient nature of the work they do.

 

[sakinago]

All I see are the usual suspects, claiming that nobody needs to bother with a trial in order to label someone an "illegal" alien.

The laws making them illegal aliens are already in place, they've been there for a long ass time. Also federal government constitutionally has control of boarder security and naturalization, in the enumerated powers, article 1 section 8.

 

[sakinago]

No your previous post imply the US is an illegitimate government...since non of us are legal unless we're Native American.

That's not what I said. And its against forum rules to deliberately misconstrue my point. This is the 2nd time I've had to tell you that wasn't my point.

You're smarter than that, quite being a useful idiot.

Stop attacking me. Calling me a "useful idiot", is also against forum rules.

You're point was we are all illegal citizens if we are not Native American, for that to be true the USG would have to be an illegitimate government...no other way around that.

I also said you were smarter than what you've been posting without thinking.

 

[sakinago]

This thread has been hijacked and derailed.

Un-documented workers in this country are not illegal people. And this is NOT as big an issue as all the attention it is getting.

So your saying immigration laws do not exist?

 

[Unkotare]

Andrew Jackson was thoroughly familiar with native Americans and how untrustworthy and duplicitous they were, they weren't the hapless victims hippies and Hollywood likes to portray them as, which is why he knew it was in their best interests to move. The 'Trail of Tears' was entirely a self-inflicted tragedy by the Cherokee themselves. Jackson was very generous and humane to them, by any standards. They simply took the money and massive amounts of supplies and then welshed on their deal. they had several years in which to move, then decided to give him the finger. as a consequence they were moved during a bad time of year and lost many to disease. It wasn't anybody's fault but their own.

This is about as ridiculous as the revisionism on the other side. Why do people feel the need to fight stupid with stupid?

 

[Vandalshandle]

All I see are the usual suspects, claiming that nobody needs to bother with a trial in order to label someone an "illegal" alien.

The laws making them illegal aliens are already in place, they've been there for a long ass time. Also federal government constitutionally has control of boarder security and naturalization, in the enumerated powers, article 1 section 8.

So, like most people on the Right, YOU decide if Juan is an "illegal alien", not a court.

 

[sakinago]

All I see are the usual suspects, claiming that nobody needs to bother with a trial in order to label someone an "illegal" alien.

The laws making them illegal aliens are already in place, they've been there for a long ass time. Also federal government constitutionally has control of boarder security and naturalization, in the enumerated powers, article 1 section 8.

So, like most people on the Right, YOU decide if Juan is an "illegal alien", not a court.

No Juan does so by crossing the boarder without permission. Juan evades the legal process himself. Just like in any other country Juan gets deported.

 

[Vandalshandle]

All I see are the usual suspects, claiming that nobody needs to bother with a trial in order to label someone an "illegal" alien.

The laws making them illegal aliens are already in place, they've been there for a long ass time. Also federal government constitutionally has control of boarder security and naturalization, in the enumerated powers, article 1 section 8.

So, like most people on the Right, YOU decide if Juan is an "illegal alien", not a court.

No Juan does so by crossing the boarder without permission. Juan evades the legal process himself. Just like in any other country Juan gets deported.

Poor Sac. Just can't seem to brush aside the Constitution's guarantee of a right to a fair trial....


https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

 

[Unkotare]

All I see are the usual suspects, claiming that nobody needs to bother with a trial in order to label someone an "illegal" alien.

The laws making them illegal aliens are already in place, they've been there for a long ass time. Also federal government constitutionally has control of boarder security and naturalization, in the enumerated powers, article 1 section 8.

So, like most people on the Right, YOU decide if Juan is an "illegal alien", not a court.

No Juan does so by crossing the boarder without permission. Juan evades the legal process himself. Just like in any other country Juan gets deported.

If it's not Juan thing it's another.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All I see are the usual suspects, claiming that nobody needs to bother with a trial in order to label someone an "illegal" alien.

The laws making them illegal aliens are already in place, they've been there for a long ass time. Also federal government constitutionally has control of boarder security and naturalization, in the enumerated powers, article 1 section 8.

So, like most people on the Right, YOU decide if Juan is an "illegal alien", not a court.

No Juan does so by crossing the boarder without permission. Juan evades the legal process himself. Just like in any other country Juan gets deported.

Poor Sac. Just can't seem to brush aside the Constitution's guarantee of a right to a fair trial....

Juan, can you prove you're an American citizen?

"No"

Send him home!

Seems these trials can be very quick, what do you think?

 

[saveliberty]

There was a piece on MSM yesterday telling us about a Catholic priest in LA that had classes on how to avoid and deal with ICE. Church and State need to be separate, but the lefties see no problem with this. Interesting

 

[sakinago]

All I see are the usual suspects, claiming that nobody needs to bother with a trial in order to label someone an "illegal" alien.

The laws making them illegal aliens are already in place, they've been there for a long ass time. Also federal government constitutionally has control of boarder security and naturalization, in the enumerated powers, article 1 section 8.

So, like most people on the Right, YOU decide if Juan is an "illegal alien", not a court.

No Juan does so by crossing the boarder without permission. Juan evades the legal process himself. Just like in any other country Juan gets deported.

Poor Sac. Just can't seem to brush aside the Constitution's guarantee of a right to a fair trial....


https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

These aren't jury trials genius, it's a different type of court. The article admits that, it's for show. They are not citizens under this constitution. Enemy combatants do not go through a jury trial either, at least up until recently, because they are not citizens. If you cross the boarder without permission you do so illegally.

 

[Picaro]

Don't need to 'prove it', you proved it.

No you didn't prove it. You made a claim. A claim that is a personal attack. Personal attacks are against this forums rules. You have not tried to explain your claim in more detail, or provide evidence backing up your claim, you simply stated I was ignorant of American history and left it at that.

I said I don't need to prove it, you already did, and I pointed out where you wrong. You just want more attention.

We know, but you want to make it about you.

Whose we? Now there's another personal attack. Stating what "I want".

No, you make it obvious that you indeed want it to be all about you. This is easy.

 

[Picaro]

Andrew Jackson was thoroughly familiar with native Americans and how untrustworthy and duplicitous they were, they weren't the hapless victims hippies and Hollywood likes to portray them as, which is why he knew it was in their best interests to move. The 'Trail of Tears' was entirely a self-inflicted tragedy by the Cherokee themselves. Jackson was very generous and humane to them, by any standards. They simply took the money and massive amounts of supplies and then welshed on their deal. they had several years in which to move, then decided to give him the finger. as a consequence they were moved during a bad time of year and lost many to disease. It wasn't anybody's fault but their own.

This is about as ridiculous as the revisionism on the other side. Why do people feel the need to fight stupid with stupid?

Yes, historical facts will always elude you. They were paid millions, given supplies on top of that, a few years to leave, and land; they pocketed the money, sold the supplies, and dared Jackson to move them. Doesn't sound like some maniacal genocide' in the works. The expedition leader made a bad choice, went by a swamp at a bad time of year, and disease took its toll. No aid could have gotten there in time. Nothing 'ridiculous' about it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I keep hearing this being used to describe illegals from Mexico. I don't know if this is a PC term for illegal immigrants, a term to describe a specific situation for someone who had a VISA and it expired, or, one of the "dreamers" who was born in America because their parents were illegal, yadda yadda.

Can someone explain this term to me please? If it is just a politically correct term for "illegal immigrant", it needs to be wiped from the lexicon, it's an insult to the terminology.

I await any information that you guys could provide.

Whoever Controls Language Controls Thought

It subliminally associates these invaders with harmless people, such as a legitimate driver who happened to leave his license at home. "Documented" also implies red tape, petty fussing over proper papers. For awhile, the xenophile traitors even tried to extend the term to "undocumented citizens"!

 

[Vandalshandle]

All I see are the usual suspects, claiming that nobody needs to bother with a trial in order to label someone an "illegal" alien.

The laws making them illegal aliens are already in place, they've been there for a long ass time. Also federal government constitutionally has control of boarder security and naturalization, in the enumerated powers, article 1 section 8.

So, like most people on the Right, YOU decide if Juan is an "illegal alien", not a court.

No Juan does so by crossing the boarder without permission. Juan evades the legal process himself. Just like in any other country Juan gets deported.

Poor Sac. Just can't seem to brush aside the Constitution's guarantee of a right to a fair trial....


https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

These aren't jury trials genius, it's a different type of court. The article admits that, it's for show. They are not citizens under this constitution. Enemy combatants do not go through a jury trial either, at least up until recently, because they are not citizens. If you cross the boarder without permission you do so illegally.

Totally wrong, Sac. It is a trial, and a trial is required by the Constitution before anyone in US territory can be convicted of being an illegal alien and deported, unless they voluntarily give up that right. We are talking about 8th grade Civics, here, Sac. The reason that those guys are in Guantanamo is so that they can be held without regard to US constitutional rights. if Juan is apprehended in the US, only a court can take away the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Before the trial, he is "undocumented". If found guilty in the trial, he is "illegal".

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Tangential question: What is the difference between "people of color" and "colored people"?

I'm socially color blind. But on days I get too much sun, I become colored too.

Midgets Are Excluded From the NBA Only Because of Their Munchkin Voices!!!

As we are told to think by those paid to tell us, skin color is the only cause of racism, not behavior. So I'd be very reluctant to get a tan and cause a whole lot of oppression to fall on me. Extend liberal logic to anything else and it proves how absurd it is.