"Illegal Alien"

Black Dog · Oct 19, 2009

Agnapostate said:
Actually, the "libertarians" that you're probably thinking of would advocate an expansion of "free trade."

I have no problem with free trade, I would support that no problem. Open borders on the other hand, no ****ing way.

I know many libertarians and I like most of their stands on issues. It is unfortunate that I see way to many unrealistic wants by the same people.

Agnapostate · Oct 19, 2009

Catz Part Deux said:
Be honest, you don't believe in national borders. So, of course you see it as propaganda.

Most libertarian-minded probably have some such subconscious sentiments, but the abolition of nation-states isn't something that will occur in our lifetimes and is near the outside of the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window"]Overton window[/ame] and will remain so until long into the "progressive future," when there's a shift. But it's propaganda regardless.

yea, i know alliteration makes you hot; it was deliberate.

Blackdog said:
The term has been used for a long time. I have found nothing that says it was a term invented for "propaganda."

Evidence of such would be nice.

I already explained precisely why the term is propagandistic; "the term 'alien' specifically is a propagandistic one used to convey an image of severe detachment and a complete and utter lack of commonalities between U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants. It's thus used to escape serious consideration or analysis of the general topic, which is why the authoritarian and anti-immigration talking heads are usually largely ignorant of the legitimate economic consequences of illegal immigrants' presence and their own proposed policies."

Blackdog said:
I have no problem with free trade, I would support that no problem. Open borders on the other hand, no ****ing way.

I know many libertarians and I like most of their stands on issues. It is unfortunate that I see way to many unrealistic wants by the same people.

That's a perfect recipe for authoritarianism and unethical and unfeasible policy. It's the trade liberalization that most self-identified "libertarians" and other economic rightists in the U.S. advocate that exacerbates the inequitable international wage differentials between the U.S. and Mexico and displaces rural farmers and associated agricultural workers, first driving them into urban areas of Mexico and then into the U.S. itself. To place authoritarian restrictions on border crossing after having imposed neoliberal policies is the effective equivalent of infecting someone with a virus and then maliciously stealing the antidote and running away, laughing maniacally just for added effect.

Catz Part Deux · Oct 19, 2009

Agnapostate said:
yea, i know alliteration makes you hot; it was deliberate.

More, please. I know you can do better.

Agnapostate · Oct 19, 2009

Catz Part Deux said:
More, please. I know you can do better.

It's all expended; when they came here, they surreptitiously stole my skills and scavenged my success. They took our jobs!

Catz Part Deux · Oct 19, 2009

Agnapostate said:
It's all expended; when they came here, they surreptitiously stole my skills and scavenged my success. They took our jobs!

Muy bueno, mi Amigo.

Cephus · Oct 19, 2009

the makeout hobo said:
I have no problem with illegal alien, but "illegals" by itself seems dehumanizing.

There's nothing dehumanizing about it, it is expressly pointing out that they have violated the law. If that's dehumanizing, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Black Dog · Oct 19, 2009

Agnapostate said:
I already explained precisely why the term is propagandistic; "the term 'alien' specifically is a propagandistic one used to convey an image of severe detachment and a complete and utter lack of commonalities between U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants. It's thus used to escape serious consideration or analysis of the general topic, which is why the authoritarian and anti-immigration talking heads are usually largely ignorant of the legitimate economic consequences of illegal immigrants' presence and their own proposed policies."

And I call bull**** because you have posted no evidence to prove it was created for "propaganda."

I looked and found nothing so I am not going to take your word for it, sorry.

Agnapostate said:
That's a perfect recipe for authoritarianism and unethical and unfeasible policy. It's the trade liberalization that most self-identified "libertarians" and other economic rightists in the U.S. advocate that exacerbates the inequitable international wage differentials between the U.S. and Mexico and displaces rural farmers and associated agricultural workers, first driving them into urban areas of Mexico and then into the U.S. itself.

That's Mexico's problem, not the US. It only becomes a problem when our government openly supports and condones illegals coming in and not enforcing our laws already on the books. I don't see Canadians running across the border illegally.

Agnapostate said:
To place authoritarian restrictions on border crossing after having imposed neoliberal policies is the effective equivalent of infecting someone with a virus and then maliciously stealing the antidote and running away, laughing maniacally just for added effect.

In what realm of fantasy land? :2wave:

Agnapostate · Oct 19, 2009

Catz Part Deux said:
Muy bueno, mi Amigo.

IMO, that's an obnoxious language if I ever heard one. I agree with the Zapatistas; the "upper class" Mexican government officials who only speak Spanish are more ignorant than those who've learned Spanish specifically to communicate with them but have Tzotzil as their natural tongue. It strikes me as elitist as a result, I guess. :shrug:

Agnapostate · Oct 19, 2009

Blackdog said:
And I call bull**** because you have posted no evidence to prove it was created for "propaganda."

I looked and found nothing so I am not going to take your word for it, sorry.

You've not attempted to dispute my own argument. If you're trying to claim that propaganda is explicitly identified as such upon its creation, then there's more than one thing you need to research. :2wave:

Blackdog said:
That's Mexico's problem, not the US. It only becomes a problem when our government openly supports and condones illegals coming in and not enforcing our laws already on the books.

"Mexico" isn't an independent or conscious entity, just as "the U.S." is not an independent or conscious entity. For example, both the U.S. and Mexican financial and political classes are complicit when it comes to the consequences of NAFTA (though I'd say the former are somewhat more guilty), but rural peasantry had little influence in the matter.

Blackdog said:
In what realm of fantasy land? :2wave:

That of accurate analogies. I see this is another thing you've not attempted to dispute. :shrug:

Black Dog · Oct 19, 2009

Agnapostate said:
You've not attempted to dispute my own argument. If you're trying to claim that propaganda is explicitly identified as such upon its creation, then there's more than one thing you need to research. :2wave:

I am asking you to back up your accusation with something tangible, and you can't.

It figures.

Agnapostate said:
"Mexico" isn't an independent or conscious entity, just as "the U.S." is not an independent or conscious entity. For example, both the U.S. and Mexican financial and political classes are complicit when it comes to the consequences of NAFTA (though I'd say the former are somewhat more guilty), but rural peasantry had little influence in the matter.

So what? Makes it no less a US problem because of Mexico's government. We are not the caretakers of the world. If Mexico can't take care of it's own, thats to bad.

Agnapostate said:
That of accurate analogies. I see this is another thing you've not attempted to dispute. :shrug:

Nothing to dispute, it is your opinion, so it means little.

Agnapostate · Oct 19, 2009

There was only one portion of your post that even had the illusion of an argument about. :shrug:

Blackdog said:
So what? Makes it no less a US problem because of Mexico's government. We are not the caretakers of the world. If Mexico can't take care of it's own, thats to bad.

Are you missing something? It's a matter of trade liberalization initiated and expanded by the U.S. political and financial classes that's destabilized and uprooted the Mexican rural class. Your focus should be on the U.S. capital class, not on a displaced farmer from Sonora.

Black Dog · Oct 19, 2009

Agnapostate said:
There was only one portion of your post that even had the illusion of an argument about. :shrug:

In other words you can't prove or back up with evidence anything you have said. I understand.

Agnapostate said:
Are you missing something? It's a matter of trade liberalization initiated and expanded by the U.S.

And Mexico and Canda Oh no! They were all in on it. Don't try and make it sound like it was just the US.

I love members of the blame the US crowed for EVERYTHING.

Agnapostate said:
political and financial classes that's destabilized and uprooted the Mexican rural class. Your focus should be on the U.S. capital class, not on a displaced farmer from Sonora.

They were ****ed long before NAFTA, so that is bull****. It's not like they weren't flooding across the border long before that happened. Jeesh.

Take your head out of you anti-US ass.

Agnapostate · Oct 19, 2009

Blackdog said:
And Mexico and Canda Oh no! They were all in on it. Don't try and make it sound like it was just the US.

I love members of the blame the US crowed for EVERYTHING.

Actually, I could never be so audacious as to claim that the political and financial classes constituted the "U.S."; that would ignore the vast majority of the citizenry of the U.S. Regardless, the point you're attempting to make is that "Mexico" was a willing participant of trade liberalization, when the Mexican political and financial classes were the proponents of an agenda so antithetical to the interests of the rural peasantry that it sparked a violent revolt in Chiapas by the EZLN.

Blackdog said:
They were ****ed long before NAFTA, so that is bull****. It's not like they weren't flooding across the border long before that happened. Jeesh.

Take your head out of you anti-US ass.

Was there or was there not a substantial increase in illegal immigration in the 1990's? My point was that inequitable international wage differentials were exacerbated by the expansion of trade liberalization, not that they were created by it. And expansion of appropriate fair trade strategy would reduce those differentials, and consequently, the motivation for immigration as well as not rob U.S. beneficiaries of trade of the benefits of the more liberal policies.

Black Dog · Oct 19, 2009

Agnapostate said:
Actually, I could never be so audacious as to claim that the political and financial classes constituted the "U.S."; that would ignore the vast majority of the citizenry of the U.S. Regardless, the point you're attempting to make is that "Mexico" was a willing participant of trade liberalization, when the Mexican political and financial classes were the proponents of an agenda so antithetical to the interests of the rural peasantry that it sparked a violent revolt in Chiapas by the EZLN.

No. I was trying to say you were wrong to place blame on the US, and that Mexico was a willing partner.

Agnapostate said:
Was there or was there not a substantial increase in illegal immigration in the 1990's?

It was increasing yearly at an accelerated rate even before. I think what had a much bigger impact was the fact we were actually enforcing the law back then. Then under Bush that went away.

Agnapostate said:
My point was that inequitable international wage differentials were exacerbated by the expansion of trade liberalization, not that they were created by it. And expansion of appropriate fair trade strategy would reduce those differentials, and consequently, the motivation for immigration as well as not rob U.S. beneficiaries of trade of the benefits of the more liberal policies.

I see your point, but I completely disagree.

Each country needs to fend for itself. With no boarders it would be chaos.

I also don't want to lose my standard of living or live in your version of communist utopia, sorry.

liblady · Oct 19, 2009

Blackdog said:
No. I was trying to say you were wrong to place blame on the US, and that Mexico was a willing partner.

It was increasing yearly at an accelerated rate even before. I think what had a much bigger impact was the fact we were actually enforcing the law back then. Then in the 90's under Clinton that went away.

I see your point, but I completely disagree.

Each country needs to fend for itself. With no boarders it would be chaos.

I also don't want to lose my standard of living or live in your version of communist utopia, sorry.

actually, under clinton we increased the number of employers fined, and under bush we stopped almost completely.

fine the employers, secure the borders.

Black Dog · Oct 19, 2009

liblady said:
actually, under clinton we increased the number of employers fined, and under bush we stopped almost completely.

fine the employers, secure the borders.

You are right, it was under Bush. I stand corrected.

And people wonder why I can't stand Bushes politics.

I actually like the guy, hate his politics.

liblady · Oct 19, 2009

i don't wonder.

DrunkenAsparagus · Oct 19, 2009

Agnapostate said:
The term "alien" specifically is a propagandistic one used to convey an image of severe detachment and a complete and utter lack of commonalities between U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants. It's thus used to escape serious consideration or analysis of the general topic, which is why the authoritarian and anti-immigration talking heads are usually largely ignorant of the legitimate economic consequences of illegal immigrants' presence and their own proposed policies.

No alien is a term used to refer to someone who is in the country that is not native born or naturalized.

Alien Definition | Definition of Alien at Dictionary.com

al⋅ien /ˈeɪlyən, ˈeɪliən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [eyl-yuhn, ey-lee-uhn]

–noun 1. a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen ).
2. a foreigner.
3. a person who has been estranged or excluded.
4. a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial.

–adjective 5. residing under a government or in a country other than that of one's birth without having or obtaining the status of citizenship there.
6. belonging or relating to aliens: alien property.
7. unlike one's own; strange; not belonging to one: alien speech.
8. adverse; hostile; opposed (usually fol. by to or from): ideas alien to modern thinking.
9. extraterrestrial.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1300–50; ME < MF < L aliēnus, equiv. to *alies- (ali-, base of alius other + -es- n. suffix) + -nus adj. suffix

Synonyms:
1. immigrant. 2. See stranger. 3. outcast. 7. exotic, foreign.

Agnapostate · Oct 19, 2009

Wow! A re-posting of something already mentioned to define a word that didn't have a challenged meaning so much as a challenged usage. How enlightening. :rofl

DrunkenAsparagus · Oct 19, 2009

Agnapostate said:
Wow! A re-posting of something already mentioned to define a word that didn't have a challenged meaning so much as a challenged usage. How enlightening. :rofl

Read the origin of the word before you go on

DrunkenAsparagus · Oct 19, 2009

The entry is also to illustrate that it isn't some slang propaganda term, but has been in use for centuries

Agnapostate · Oct 19, 2009

Goodness. If only I had claimed that the term "alien" originated as a propaganda term instead of claiming that its modern usage in the context of discussion of immigration was for propagandistic purposes. If only.

Catz Part Deux · Oct 19, 2009

Agnapostate said:
the "upper class" Mexican government officials who only speak Spanish are more ignorant than those who've learned Spanish specifically to communicate with them but have Tzotzil as their natural tongue. It strikes me as elitist as a result, I guess. :shrug:

I can't even SAY tzotzil, much less speak it, darlin. I have the limitations of thousands of years of whiteness. I also can't slur my r's.

Catz Part Deux · Oct 19, 2009

Agnapostate said:
Goodness. If only I had claimed that the term "alien" originated as a propaganda term instead of claiming that its modern usage in the context of discussion of immigration was for propagandistic purposes. If only.

the terms have a legal meaning that is not communicated by the more propagandistic--Wait. I mean politically correct--phrase "undocumented," which implies that they have some legal status in this country but have simply set their documents aside momentarily.

:mrgreen:

MyOwnDrum · Oct 19, 2009

I voted 'other'. My explanation is that it is offensive to some people, but not others.

I think it is ridiculous to be offended, but nevertheless some people are offended.

"Illegal Alien"

Is the term "illegal alien" offensive?

Yes

No

Other (please explain)

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

pirate lover

King Of The Dog Pound

pirate lover

Devourer of Poor Children

Devourer of Poor Children

Devourer of Poor Children