Good News: Apparently “Undocumented Immigrant” is Not PC, Either
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing. Follow me by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
For some time I have railed against the push to use the term “undocumented immigrant” instead of the term “illegal immigrant”—especially when journalists are involved. For instance at my old blog (language warning at the link), I once wrote about how calling Meg Whitman’s nanny “undocumented” had the effect of actively misleading people about what had happened, writing:
But I want to point out to you this hilarious blog entry from the LA times: “Union ad to highlight Whitman’s undocumented former employee.” Of course we all know that the left has taken to calling an illegal immigrant as an “undocumented immigrant” because it sounds better. Only there is a problem. As Whitman has shown, her maid was very well documented. She had a social security card, and a driver’s license. The problem was these documents were fraudulent.
So by using the euphemism “undocumented” they are implying that Whitman hired her without proof that she was here legally and eligible to work. That is simply not true. I am sure this implication is an oversight, but it shows you just what happens when you start using bullsh-t euphemisms, instead of just telling it like it is. She is an illegal immigrant. You might not like the laws that declare her to be one, but she broke the law by coming and working here. And it is actually dishonest to call her anything else.
As Michelle Malkin has pointed out, these supposedly undocumented immigrants actually very often have tons of documents, only fraudulent.
And at this blog I have hit that theme in the past. And mind you, I am equally opposed to using the term “illegal alien,” too. While “alien” is a technically correct term, it has carried a negative connotation since around 1979 or so.
But today via Mickey Kaus, we learn that even the term “undocumented” is apparently un-PC:
[Leslie Sanchez, a Republican strategist] added that “because of the ascension of Latino independents and Republicans, candidates have to be very sensitive as to how they talk about this issue.”
“They can’t use the term illegals,” Sanchez said. “At best it’s undocumented immigrant, at worst it’s illegals and illegal aliens, and both are pejorative and condescending.”
Of course the article didn’t specify what term to use. Maybe Ms. Sanchez recommends ignoring the subject entirely. (And to be fair to Ms. Sanchez she might be only reporting how others feel, without endorsing it.) But I am just astonished at our inability to even talk about this honestly.
Look, we all know what is going on here. Advocates for different causes take a thing* that people dislike and rename it in the hope of escaping that opprobrium. The problem is, however, that the opprobrium is attached to the concept, not the word, so the only result over time is that the new term gets a negative connotation, too. There is no shortcut to changing how that thing is perceived, you have to work to change how the underlying concept is seen, instead of trying to slap a happier word on it. For instance, in my own life I have seen this kind of effort in relation to disabilities. When I was growing up I started to see a trend toward calling disabled persons “special” or “challenged.” And all that happened was that the same people who sneered at disabled or handicapped people started sneering at those terms too until those terms attached a negative connotation, too. These word games do not work and all they succeed in doing is annoying people.
But—you might say—you yourself have just said you don’t use the term illegal alien, either. What is the difference? Well, as the link suggests, because of science fiction movies the term “alien” has become uniquely associated with inhuman life, possibly monstrous in form.* So unlike the situation with “illegal immigrant” where the opprobrium is actually attached to the concept it is describing, the term “illegal alien” carries an opprobrium unrelated to the term it is describing (although I suppose most space aliens living on earth would also be illegal immigrants as well).
So, please, folks, let’s not substitute PC terms for accurate and neutral words. Let’s talk about these things like adults, and if you don’t like how a group is perceived in our society, rather than trying to change the language, why not instead change the attitudes underlying it, instead?
———————–
* I use the term “thing” there because I am trying to speak broadly about many different things—ranging from groups of people, such as illegal immigrants, to concepts like, say “liberalism” which now hides behind the term “progressivism.” It is not meant to dehumanize the subject at hand—people who have crossed our borders illegally often for very human reasons like the desire to give their families a better life.
* I fully acknowledge that this aversion to the term “alien” might be idiosyncratic to me. I will confess that as a child it was the aliens (the extra terrestrial kind) that scared the heck out of me and gave me nightmares. This included movies such as Alien which at that age I was only allowed to see a few still photographs from until I was old enough to see R-rated movies, but it was still enough to freak me out, but also included more benign movies like Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Seriously, they abducted a child just about my age in that movie and you weren’t told they meant no harm for certain until the very end. My parents dragged me to see that in a six-screen drive in theater, and I spent most of the movie turned around watching Star Wars on a different screen (and with no sound). And through much of E.T., I was convinced the creature was going to eat Elliot. In my defense, I was only ten years old, and just before going to see it I saw movie poster for some B-movie just beforehand featuring a creature that looked kinda like E.T., with fangs. And the early scenes are deliberately creepy, to capture the fact that Elliot was scared, too.
I am mostly over that, but that probably colors my thinking of the term “alien” today. So sue me.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
You want I should send you a night light?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/30/2011 @ 8:46 amYou bemoan the steady creep of PC madness regardin language whilst endorsing the ablition of one word for purely pedantic reasons. This ranks as one of your most trivial posts. Puts you right amongst the fools who decry the use of “niggardly” or “black hole.”
Gazzer (82d2af) — 11/30/2011 @ 8:53 amdaley
lol yes, please. 🙂
we were all scared of stupid stuff as kids.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/30/2011 @ 8:59 amI am still scared of stupid things – midgets, clowns, epwjs.
JD (0e41ea) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:16 amlet’s try to calm down whatever the issue is with Eric. i’m not saying anyone is right or wrong (because honestly i didn’t follow any of this enough to know what as going on), just let’s cool it for a while, please. for patrick’s sake.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:17 amComment by JD — 11/30/2011 @ 9:16 am
Three words that describe the same thing.
AD-RtR/OS! (45946a) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:25 amAW, that you are a lawyer, and refuse to use a legal term such as “illegal alien” in its rightful usage, is …. disappointing!
Remember, you’re a conservative, you’re not supposed to be capable of having “feelings”.
AD-RtR/OS! (45946a) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:27 amI am still scared of stupid things – midgets, clowns, epwjs.
Comment by JD — 11/30/2011 @ 9:16 am
— Man! Talk about your multiple redundancies!
Icy (4c3508) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:30 amComment by Aaron Worthing — 11/30/2011 @ 9:17 am
What?
AD-RtR/OS! (45946a) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:34 amIs epwj now a “teacher’s pet”?
AW – I apologize. I also, frankly, am kind of pissed. That clown has smeared and lied about more people than I can count, an admittedly small number, with no response from you, yet you take the time to call me out on it. But I will drop it, so as to not derail the thread. Midgets and clowns still suck.
JD (0e41ea) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:34 amWhy is it that so many Hispanic political advisors all tell us how bad it is to discuss illegal immigration when the actual Hispanic community is pretty upset about illegal immigration themselves to a large degree?
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:37 amComment by Aaron Worthing — 11/30/2011 @ 9:17 am
Be aware, Aaron, that when I come by and see a third of the comments in the Recent Comments column with EPWJ’s name, I’m starting to decide to spend my time elsewhere.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:40 amSPQR – it would be interesting if they would poll legal immigrants on the topic of illegal immigration.
JD (0e41ea) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:44 amJD, they have at times. Recall that the Arizona initiative that was the source of so much litigation, had a bit over 50% support from the Hispanic voters in Arizona. The older California initiative restricting services to illegal immigrants did well too among Hispanic voters.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:46 amWe can’t say that or Eric will accuse us of racism.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:48 amSPQR – if they expanded that to Asians, Euros, etc … I suspect those numbers would spike even higher.
JD (0e41ea) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:49 amA.W. – The immigration debate involves both law and emotion. This country has for whatever reason chosen not to actively enforce portions of its immigration laws for years. Some people like to change our vocabulary to reflect that lack of enforcement and argue since we have not enforced portions of the laws for years we are forbidden from choosing to enforce our laws today or changing our laws to reflect a stricter enforcement environment. That does not reflect a “compassionate” approach to immigration.
I think such arguments are complete BS. As a sovereign nation we have the ability to enforce and change our laws as we choose, not at the convenience of people here illegally in violation of our laws. Compassion can certainly play a part in decision making.
On the extremes we have open borders, let anyone in types on the left. On the right, we have hardliners people arguing to deport everyone. Going back to the last comprehensive immigration bill in Congress, however, the public was overwhelmingly behind securing the border first before taking any other steps. So am I.
Changing the language of the debate does not change the parameters. I think focusing too heavily on people here illegally also give short shrift to the people trying to follow proper procedures and emigrate to this country legally.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:50 amA more complete pull quote from the WaPo article is instructive:
So Barreto — who is beyond doubt an Obama supporter — says that Romney “sounds like [he’s] hating on people parents or grandparents,” and “Republican” Leslie Sanchez says that clinically descriptive terms for people who came to the nation illegally are “pejorative and condescending,” they are essentially saying the same thing: “Regardless of party, we resist assimilation, and will punish anyone who insists on it. Muchos gracias for the inch, we’ll take the mile, thank you very much.” Or, to be more blunt: “If you want my vote, you’d better beso mi culo.”
BTW – if you question whether Barreto is a leftie, check out the pic on his Twitter home page. And while we would be trashed on Univision, Telemundo & MSNBC for calling Matt Barreto “Burrito,” he gets to do it to himself.
L.N. Smithee (d7ed67) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:55 amThis word battle is how we win or lose arguments. They succeeded with “assault weapon,” we won with “partial birth abortion.” Illegal immigrants is more accurate, so we could win this battle, as long as conservatives don’t buckle to the RAAAAAAAAACIIIIIIIIIST! screams of the other side. If we continue to hammer them saying, “they ARE documented with ILLEGAL documents,” we win.
But if we allow them to continue calling this “the immigration debate,” we lose for sure. Once they drop both “illegal” and “undocumented” and just say “immigrant,” we spend half the discussion fighting uphill against a predetermined conclusion of xenophobia.
ghost (25f255) — 11/30/2011 @ 9:55 amGreetings:
So, am I violating my PC license when a refer to peaceful, or “mostly” peaceful, OCCUPY political demonstrations as passive-aggressive civic disruptions ???
11B40 (4333a6) — 11/30/2011 @ 10:03 amYes you are.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/30/2011 @ 10:03 amGlobal warming or climate change?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/30/2011 @ 10:08 am“…Going back to the last comprehensive immigration bill in Congress…”
Going back even further, to Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986, we find that the amnesty in that act was predicated on the imposition of employment restrictions on non-Green Card holders – restrictions that the Democrat Congress (and subsequent GOP ones) refused to allow to be enforced by not providing any funding for such enforcement.
So, we have two guiding principles:
1- Only permanent, resident “aliens” shall be allowed to work within the confines of the United States (no citizenship, no Green Card, no work!);
2- The Border shall be secured to the maximum practical to reduce/eliminate the entrance into the country of those not approved under the auspices of law for that act.
These are two basic concepts that the majority of U.S. citizens support.
Why is it so difficult to impress upon our “public servants” that this is what they should be acting towards?
It is long past time for our displeasure to be registered upon individual “public servants”, so that they may “get their mind straight”.
AD-RtR/OS! (45946a) — 11/30/2011 @ 10:13 amLet me be clear on the eric v. doh thing. I don’t want eric to be goading people on about this either. Like i said i don’t know who is right or wrong, i just see our comment threads being jacked by whatever this is and i see it turning people off. So i am just asking you guys to cool it.
And bear in mind, i can’t really enforce that. i am just asking.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/30/2011 @ 10:13 amAW, It’s called the Euphemism Treadmill.
#11 – It’s a tactic of deceit, imputing that the Hispanic community is of one opinion (which they represent), when polls show that Hispanics are divided 49/49.
LarryD (feb78b) — 11/30/2011 @ 10:13 amNon-indigenous personnel
Icy (4c3508) — 11/30/2011 @ 10:16 amDaley,
Exactly. They were losing with global warming, so they switched to climate change.
They tried health care rationing, we called it death panels. We called it an infringement of our second amendment rights, they called it gun control.
This is fun. What other word wars have we fought?
ghost (25f255) — 11/30/2011 @ 10:28 amAW – it is not an epwj vs doh thing. It is an epwj vs honesty thing. Repeatedly.
JD (0e41ea) — 11/30/2011 @ 10:30 amLarry
Wow, never heard that term before, but its very apt. Thanks for that.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/30/2011 @ 10:31 amUnlimited duration non-native kinetic residency operation.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/30/2011 @ 10:31 amTax expenditures versus tax credits or deductions.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/30/2011 @ 10:37 am*grouch on*
Since apparently we can’t please anybody no matter what we call them, I vote we go back to “wetbacks”
*grouch off*
C. S. P. Schofield (e6ca01) — 11/30/2011 @ 10:38 amI am still scared of stupid things – midgets, clowns, krugmans, and kmans.
Better?
JD (78f312) — 11/30/2011 @ 10:38 amJD
> I am still scared of stupid things – midgets, clowns, krugmans, and kmans.
> Better?
well, apart from the redundancy involved…
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/30/2011 @ 10:40 am“well, apart from the redundancy involved…”
Double heh!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/30/2011 @ 11:01 amSPQR, there’s a simple solution to that problem.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/30/2011 @ 11:02 amIt’s an epwj v everybody else thing.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/30/2011 @ 11:06 amEPWJ seems to have no connection to reality at all. He’s the only person I have blocked with my script, though my original purpose was to block Carol Herman on those sites where she comments. Other people I can argue with, but I can’t argue with EPWJ because we inhabit different universes. He just makes things up and insists they happened.
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 11/30/2011 @ 11:09 amLet’s use new terms altogether: border violators for illegal immigrants and counterfeit contractors instead of undocumented workers.
Think that would be PC?
Renaissance Nerd (de4d63) — 11/30/2011 @ 11:22 amThe term “alien” was an opbscure legal term, or had become so, and espoecially from about 1928/9 (the birth of Astounding) or 1938 (the time John Campbell becamse editor of Astounding) and espexcially after the post-World War II – maybe 1950s era of usually bad science fiction movies, alien meant a creature from outer space.
Only in 1974 was there this attempt to popularize this meaning of thw word alien.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 11/30/2011 @ 11:29 amThe proper, neutral term, would be illegal immigrant unless you wanted to be more specific, and that’s much better than this strange term alien and at leasat admits they are human, but the problem for some people is taht term illegal is pejorative, or could be considered pejorative.
So they just refer to people as immigrants
This manages to avoid the issue. It doesn’t actually convert anybody, nor does it inform anybody.
They are not ready to hit it head on. If they don’t hit it head on how do they expect to change the law? By subtrefuge? The answer is, sort of, yes. But Numbers USA and some other lobbying groups and some members of Congress and talk radio show hosts won’t let them. This just won’t be snuck through Congress. And it won’t pass with little attentionm and light lobbying. That was Barack Obama’s big mistake on this issue.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 11/30/2011 @ 11:40 amWith regard to Jews coming to pre-1948 Israel in violation of the White Paper, there was no shame in saying illegal immigrant. It was also called (in Hebrew) Aliya Bet (Category B aliya)
Everybody on this issue is playing around with words. Nobody wants to confront the issue head on.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 11/30/2011 @ 11:41 amGinger White-I don’t think Cain is fit to be president.
Interviewer-Who did you support for prez.
Ginger White smirked as she said Bill Clinton.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/30/2011 @ 11:59 amCain!!!!
Sorry Aaron – couldnt resist
Milhouse – Cain has how many women now accusing him, getting paid large sus of money, having limo rides with, sleeping in his apartment, getting finanical aid, getting private cell phone numbers?
And Cain lied about all of this – remember?
and now we should believe him?
That time has long passed
I havent said anything that hasent been commentated on or reported by fox news – if you think its in error contact the guy who owns the network
I didnt cause Cain’s problems – Cain caused his problems –
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/30/2011 @ 12:35 pmComment by AD-RtR/OS! — 11/30/2011 @ 10:13 am
1- Only permanent, resident “aliens” shall be allowed to work within the confines of the United States (no citizenship, no Green Card, no work!);
2- The Border shall be secured to the maximum practical to reduce/eliminate the entrance into the country of those not approved under the auspices of law for that act.
That’s the problem.
They also:
1) Don’t know or understand what border security entails. Apparently it is when anti-immigration lobbyists will say it’s enough, which will be never or maybe only after land mines are planted.
The goal of the restrictions is not actually to control the border, which as Bush realized couldn’t in fact be done if too many people wanted to break the law and wasn’t friendly to Mexico if you took the attitude you’ll just overwhelmn them – what was needed to control the border was to open an avenue of legal immigration. he called that “comprehensive immigratuion reform” The problem was the first thinmg the people working on the bill agreed to was not to raise the quoita. It was doomed from that point on.
The goal of the propoents of border control is not to control the border or anything.. It is to prevent the enactment of something else the American people support, which is:
2) Increased legal immigration (at least when nobody says more or elss than now or uses numbers rather than proportions)
And they even support:
3) Amnesty – except they would like it to be the the last time.
The American people, also…
4) Don’t, by and large, know what the laws are now are it impacts on people. I guess some people actually think some logic went into them. It’s teh usual bias about government.
Note: The House just passed a law 389-15 (some businesses must have been really screaming and this is an attempt to appease them) that would stop apportioning work visas among countries
http://www.firstpost.com/world/us-house-votes-to-end-country-caps-for-work-visas-2-145112.html
It didn’t raise the total cap, but it gets rid of
the per-country caps for employment-based visas and raises the per-country cap from seven per cent to 15 per cent for family-based visas, all without adding even a single additional visa. Adding visas without “controlling the border” or increased internal enforcement is abig no-no with some people)
The American people don’t know how limited the possibilities of legal immigration are compared to the demand, nor do they know that the law already contains provisions for amnesty, which are there for good reason, because otherwise the restrictionists know there’d be private immigration bills and a gwerally more liberal law.
Listen it is impossible to do anything if people don’t argue.
It was Clinton, by the way, who used to use polls of uninformed people as arguments.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 11/30/2011 @ 12:36 pmthey are aliens, in that they are not citizens.
they are here illegally.
ergo, they are illegal aliens and i don’t give a rat’s who is offended by the truth: they can FOAD, and take their precious illegals with them.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 11/30/2011 @ 12:42 pmOne reason GEORGE W. BUSH and Rick Perry, were somewhat sympathetic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution
The Mexican-born settlers in Texas were soon vastly outnumbered by people born in the United States. To address this situation, President Anastasio Bustamante implemented several measures on April 6, 1830. Chief among these was a prohibition against further immigration to Tejas from the United States, although American citizens would be allowed to settle in other parts of Mexico. Furthermore, the property tax law, intended to exempt immigrants from paying taxes for ten years, was rescinded, and tariffs were increased on goods shipped from the United States. Bustamante also ordered all Tejas settlers to comply with the federal prohibition against slavery or face military intervention.[6] These measures did not have the intended effect. Settlers simply circumvented or ignored the laws. By 1834, it was estimated that over 30,000 Anglos lived in Coahuila y Tejas,[7] compared to only 7,800 Mexican-born citizens.[8] By 1836, there were approximately 5,000 slaves in Texas.[9]
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 11/30/2011 @ 12:50 pm“Milhouse – Cain has how many women now accusing him”
Two
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/30/2011 @ 12:50 pmAW: ” … if you don’t like how a group is perceived in our society, rather than trying to change the language, why not instead change the attitudes underlying it, instead?
How about changing the underlying illegal behavior instead? That would be a novel approach, indeed.
pa (4f643b) — 11/30/2011 @ 12:51 pm“No. The reason was that Reagan hadn’t yet overcome his reputation as being too extreme right”
And that opinion did not change before the re-election campaign. At that point, 1983, GDP was just beginning to gather itself and unemployment still stood at something like 8%.
I was twenty something during the whole of Carter’s tenure, Reagan was chosen despite being ‘too conservative’ over Rabbit’s Bane.
I re-iterate, Carter was ahead in the polls until the final weeks and Reagan’s landslide was an MSM earthquake.
gulrud (d88477) — 11/30/2011 @ 12:51 pmSammy at #45:
Ken in Camarillo (481b14) — 11/30/2011 @ 12:52 pmYou seem to forget that the USA allows more legal immigration than all the other countries of the world combined.
Is everything about Cain?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/30/2011 @ 12:53 pm“I havent said anything that hasent been commentated on or reported by fox news”
Wrong cupcake. You claimed Cain’s statement Monday admitted the affair. Fox reported he denied it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/30/2011 @ 12:55 pmSammy
mmm, well, that is an interesting point and i was aware of that before you said that, but i am not sure how much that would make bush sympathize. his family did not cross the US-Tejas border until the 20th century. Indeed Bush himself was born on Yale’s campus.
i don’t know about perry’s family history on that point.
it also shows you that mexico is one to talk to complain about the US controlling the border.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/30/2011 @ 12:56 pm“I havent said anything that hasent been commentated on or reported by fox news”
EPWJ – You claimed Cain raped a woman. Produce a link to that reporting on Fox or retract your claim.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/30/2011 @ 12:59 pm23. I’m with AD in that what is encouraging about a quasi-conservative of Newt’s estimable resume in his immigration initiative is that he holds out hope that this can not be kicked further down the road.
Like Reagan he can talk and is relatively fearless, perhaps prone to bigger indiscretions but we seem to be embarrassed for a lack of conservatives disposed to bleed.
The current depression and a 4.9% unemployment rate south of the border are a great opportunity for addressing the issue.
gulrud (d88477) — 11/30/2011 @ 1:13 pm“The goal of the propoents of border control is not to control the border or anything.”
Sammy – Bull dookey. I think the people you are talking about are the folks like the two white supremacists this site banned a short while back, not the majority of folks who support border control and it is damned insulting to suggest otherwise.
“It is to prevent the enactment of something else the American people support, which is:
2) Increased legal immigration (at least when nobody says more or elss than now or uses numbers rather than proportions)”
Do you have any support for this conjecture or is it just your opinion? It seems a reasonable proposition for a country to choose who it wants to admit for work, residency and potential citizenship, rather than just accept any person who presents themselves at the border, does it not, Sammy? I don’t think residency and citizenship are like an easement on real estate, simply to be gained through adverse possession.
What we are talking about here is essentially illegal immigrants since the last amnesty in 1986, or 25 years. Were any promises made to these people about future amnesties? I don’t think so.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/30/2011 @ 1:17 pm“Listen it is impossible to do anything if people don’t argue.”
Sammy – Only 22% of the American public supported the last comprehensive immigration bill. It wasn’t because Americans were dumb as you suggest above, it was because they thought Congress was out to lunch and not listening to them and would not follow through on its promises to secure the border. The American people were right.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/30/2011 @ 1:23 pmLeslie Sanchez can go kiss my ulcerated butt.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/30/2011 @ 1:29 pmgetting private cell phone numbers?
— Well then, here is your big chance to get on Attack Watch:
Scarlett Johansson has had Barack Obama’s cell phone number since at least 2007. Since, in your math, possession = guilt you must now launch an all-out campaign to discredit Obama by stating that he and Ms Johansson have had an ongoing “relationship” (in Perry-toolbot parlance: “affair”) for at least the past 4 years.
GO!
Icy (4c3508) — 11/30/2011 @ 1:35 pmAwwwwwwww poor baby how dare 2nd amednment advocates pose with santa. It’s very harrassing against Saint Nick.
Anyway Eric go suck Perry’s sack.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/30/2011 @ 1:38 pmSammy
no, the border will never be 100% controlled. But we can do a lot better than this. Like more like 99% controlled.
and if you really wanted to end illegal immigration, [we should] end the conditions that make it desireable to hire illegal immigrants–the miles of regulatory red tape and expenses associated with hiring Americans. Congress and the President say they want to hire more workers, but then they increase unemployment benefits, for instance. Where do they think that money comes from? Where I live, it comes from the businesses themselves. Each company is, more or less, expected to pay the unemployment benefits of any person they fire unless it is for sufficiently bad misconduct–which they have to often prove and might not be able to do so. i have seen the d.c. dept of employment services question if it was “gross misconduct” when a nurse tried to get a loan from a patient under her care–that’s the kind of unreal lunacy you can expect from bureaucrats. So every time you hire someone, you are taking on an increased risk of being saddled with paying for their unemployment benefits if you have to fire them. And Congress and the president decided to increase that burden. and they wonder why we aren’t creating that many jobs for Americans. Because as a rule, you don’t pay unemployment benefits on an illegal worker.
And that is just scraping the surface about how our regulatory state encourages businesses to look to illegal immigrants to hire. You cannot have our social safety net and our regulatory state and an open border. It just doesn’t work.
[edited after the fact for clarity. –Aaron]
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/30/2011 @ 1:43 pm> Scarlett Johansson has had Barack Obama’s cell phone number since at least 2007. Since, in your math, possession = guilt you must now launch an all-out campaign to discredit Obama by stating that he and Ms Johansson have had an ongoing “relationship” (in Perry-toolbot parlance: “affair”) for at least the past 4 years.
I think a lot of guys would be too impressed with him for snagging her to consider that a scandal.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/30/2011 @ 1:45 pmChris Christie is racist for criticzing Obama and Biden. Racist against Black and White people
/Sarcasm off
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/30/2011 @ 1:49 pm“no, the border will never be 100% controlled.”
A.W. – Californians will still find a way to fly over the wall we construct around their state under their own power. Of that I am quite certain.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/30/2011 @ 2:01 pmCrimaliens are born when they cross the border.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 11/30/2011 @ 2:16 pmWhy does the EPA care about waste?
Anyways I hope that d*ickweed Obama gets hosed…………….oooops am I racist?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/30/2011 @ 2:27 pmThis thread is making Christopher Columbus Hunstman all hot and bothered.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/30/2011 @ 4:27 pmHuntsman*
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/30/2011 @ 4:28 pmI prefer the term Alien Invaders or Alien Invasion Force.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 11/30/2011 @ 5:17 pmI prefer the term sweaty ass obama voters.
😯 😯 😯 :lol 😆 😆
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/30/2011 @ 5:18 pmSigh.
😆
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/30/2011 @ 5:18 pmAs to Cain’s guilt or innocence, at this point, Ace is right. We don’t know enough to know what happened.
A priest I once knew talked about how easy it is to cheat on your spouse. All you have to do is put yourself in the right situations. Cain did that. It doesn’t mean he’s guilty, but it means he wasn’t careful. For Christ’s sake, he’s got a lot more years on this planet than I do, and he’s JUST now learning that women have a tendency to be slightly deceitful? Even if he is completely innocent, doesn’t this cast his judgement into doubt?
Listen, maybe its just because I’m married. But all my female friends are married to my best friends. We’re never alone together, or talk on the phone for long amounts of time, and most of those phone calls are “is my husband still over there?”
There’s no instance, ever, where my wife and I doubt each other, because we don’t put ourselves in situations that even look bad.
Cain should have known better.
ghost (f559f8) — 11/30/2011 @ 5:21 pmi think the Team R monkeys need to stop yammering so much about the dusky immigrant folk in the debates and start talking more about the global warming scam or you know what?
Next thing you know Team R is gonna nominate a filthy nutless climate change pansy in the guise of Romney or Gingrich.
And that would be a damn shame. The last thing this broke failed pitiful little country needs is another climate change whore in her little white house.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/30/2011 @ 5:31 pmI think the Team R monkeys need to please Happyfeet or he will kick your nuts.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/30/2011 @ 7:01 pmThat flatly contradicts the idea that it cost the Cal. GOP support among Hispanics.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 11/30/2011 @ 7:01 pmDishonesty, disshmonesty, we leftys don’ care about no steeeenkin’ dishonesty!!!!
Smock Puppet, Official Patterico Libtard Chanelling Expert (2fb1c2) — 11/30/2011 @ 8:02 pm“She is an illegal immigrant.”
Or more precisely, an illegally documented illegal immigrant.
John T (77fddb) — 12/1/2011 @ 12:04 pmCalling Charles Johnson a fat foppish dandy is being too kind.
Calling Illegals Illegals is common sense.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/1/2011 @ 12:15 pmEuphemisms, how about: Delightful Spanish Speaking Blue Collar Aspirants That Are Not Yankees? Or, Those That Constantly Wire Mil Millones Remittances To Their Southern Non-Gringo Kin.
My own, while driving in LA? Well it is not very polite-but can apply to anyone, from anywhere.
dudeabides (195811) — 12/1/2011 @ 9:37 pm