|
|
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
I interrupt the blogosphere’s recent obsession with America’s obsession with Paris Hilton and other imprisoned or kidnapped white women to report an act of state-sponsored terror and intimidation in New Haven, a city I have come to know and love over the past two years.
On Monday, the New Haven Board of Aldermen overwhelmingly approved a plan to issue municipal identification cards for all city residents regardless of immigration status. The plan – the first of its kind in the nation – was acclaimed by progressive activists and immigrants around the country. The ID card is intended to help undocumented immigrants avoid getting robbed or assaulted, and will be a combination of identification, debit card, library card, and a way to pay the parking meter.
But on Wednesday morning, the federal government circumvented New Haven authorities, invaded at least four households in the Fairhaven neighborhood, and took 31 allegedly undocumented immigrants away from their families to detention facilities. Today, an estimated 1,500 people of every background took to the streets to protest the feds’ blatant violation of civil liberties.
I urge you to take a minute to read up on the sequence of events and take action. Contact Sen. Joe Lieberman, who as chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee is an influential voice on immigration and law enforcement as well as a long-time New Haven resident. Ask him to 1) issue a statement condemning the New Haven raids, 2) demand an explanation from the Department of Homeland Security for the timing and conduct of these raids; and 3) ask the Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to exercise prosecutorial discretion and decline to pursue removal proceedings against any of Wednesday's arrestees without a prior removal order, or to immediately release them on their own recognizance or minimal bond.
!
That's about eight people per house, and you say the family was left behind. DAMN! How big are those families?
The federal government acting within its rights to deport illegal immigrants is not 'terrorism'.
I support some form of legalization for illegal immigrants (Spare me the bullshit term 'undocumented', by the way). My great-grandparents (some of them, anyway) immigrated to this country illegally, as best I know. I think such a legalization would ultimately be good for our country.
That said, arresting illegal immigrants for deportation is not terrorism. I hope we give illegal immigrants the legal right to be in this country, but at present they do *not* have that right, and there is no moral imperative being violated by doing so.
I don't begrudge them violating our border to come here - they could, so they did. Similarly, I don't begrudge the federal government rounding them up and sending them home - they can, so they do.
Some sort of amnesty/legalization plan for illegal aliens would be nice - but its opponents are not acting immorally by opposing it. There is no 'moral high ground' on this issue.
This a battle of process and pragmatism, not a battle of morality.
A euphemism is not a technical definition. The legal definition is "illegal alien." Why does the correct (i.e, legal, i.e. technical) definition bother you so?
Your definition creates needless (though maybe purposeful) ambiguity. Many, if not most, illegal aliens have documents, so they're hardly "undocumented". Unfortunately their documents are illegal too.
I'm all for picking better terms, but "It's the legal term" isn't the world's best guidepost for doing that.
Your glib point about "Well, they have documents that are fake, so they're not 'undocumented'!" is completely off base. The word 'documented' is being used as a VERB - in other words, WE have documented them entering the country. That's a meaningful distinction for precisely the reasons JR noted. Whether they possess 'documents' is another matter entirely.
Well, "alien" is slightly more precise. "Alien" refers to a citizen of another country whereas some "immigrants" are U.S. citizens. (see Black's Law Dictionary). I hate to give you any rude awakenings, but the precision of terms is not based on what Superduperficial likes or dislikes.
"I'm all for picking better terms, but "It's the legal term" isn't the world's best guidepost for doing that."
Maybe you have a better idea than rule of law. Please enlighten us.
"Your glib point about "Well, they have documents that are fake, so they're not 'undocumented'!" is completely off base"
You might find it profitable to read some of the work that has been done in common language philosophy. (G.E. Moore, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russel, et al) Just a suggestion.
And FWIW, when I see the term "undocumented immigrants" being tossed around, it tends to be used to refer to *all* illegal immigration. You can't deny that there's political intent behind the way the term is generally used, namely to avoid the stigma of the word 'illegal'. In this case, for instance, I can't see how it would make any difference if those rounded up had been "documented illegal immigrants", rather than the undocumented variety. Indeed, from what I see I'm not sure we can say that these are undocumented immigrants affected here.
I'll adopt "documented" vs "undocumented" in the cases where it makes sense to observe the distinction (this isn't one, necessarily), but it's not a substitute for the legal vs illegal distinction.
I get the feeling we've had this conversation before - if so, well, I forgot. My bad on that.
I hate to keep belaboring the obvious, but this distinction you find "worthwhile" is totally bogus.
If an immigrant overstays his visa he is no longer "documented," even under the rather forced "verb" definition you gave in reply to my post. At best you could say he was formerly "documented" but is now undocumented.
If a persons driver's license expires or is revoked and they continue to drive, the law looks upon them as an unlicensed driver, not a "licensed illegal driver." So why the silly and confusing term "documented illegal immigrant?"