Death to all dictionaries!

[bododie]

Court: Quit saying 'illegal aliens'
But critics say, 'Let's call drug dealers undocumented pharmacists'

November 08, 2008


Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor stirred up a hornet's nest by endorsing a demand from the Hispanic Bar Association to censor words and phrases such as "illegal aliens" and "illegal immigrants" and substitute "foreign nationals" in court documents.

Then, when a blog at Judicial Watch reported on the instructions, court officials threatened to sue the government-watchdog organization, prompting its release of a statement defending the story.

The original report said the chief justice had agreed to forward to judges the Hispanic Bar's demands to alter the language in court opinions and documents.

Judicial Watch said, "In a strongly worded letter to the chief justice, Los Abogados' [Hispanic Bar Association] president says attaching an illegal status to a person establishes a brand of contemptibility, creates the appearance of anti-immigrant prejudice and tarnishes the image of courts as a place where disputes may be fairly resolved."

The letter, according to Judicial Watch, criticized the state's high court for using the term "illegals" in at least two opinions and the term "illegal aliens" in dozens of others.

Judicial Watch said the letter concludes with a list of acceptable and unacceptable terms relating to illegal immigration. Among the terms the group wants banned are "immigration crisis,' "immigration epidemic,' "open borders advocates", "anchor babies" and "invaders."

Acceptable terms are "foreign nationals," "unauthorized workers" and "human rights advocates," Judicial Watch said.

The report almost immediately was followed with a response from the court, Judicial Watch reported.

"The Arizona Supreme Court has threatened to sue Judicial Watch for revealing that its chief justice agreed to enforce a Hispanic Bar Association demand to ban the terms 'illegal' and 'aliens' in all of the state’s courtrooms," the organization said in a statement late today.

"In a threatening phone call to Judicial Watch today, a spokesperson for Arizona's Supreme Court denied that Chief Justice McGregor had banned anything and accused Judicial Watch of 'slander.' Judicial Watch, however, stands by its story," the organization said.

The letter, to which Judicial Watch provided a link, said McGregor took several steps to notify judges of the concerns raised by the bar association.

She confirmed she had provided copies of the demands to judges and concluded, "If Judge Song Ong has not already done so, I request that the Commissionon on Minorities in the Judiciary consider whether any further distribution of your request would be helpful."

The request from the Hispanic Bar Association, signed by Los Abogados President Lizzette Alameda Zubey and president-elect Salvador Ongaro, said it wanted McGregor to communicate "these points to all judges and court employees in Arizona so that none of these hurtful terms are used in Arizona court documents or proceedings again.

"Putting this in greater perspective, even a convicted murderer is never referred to as an 'illegal' because of that conviction," the bar association letter said.

"Those that use the terms as an instrument of hate know that it insults and incenses those that oppose their views," said the letter, which cited several court document uses of the terms.

"We believe it essential to ongoing public dialogue to eliminate hate speech in all forms and to strip away all vestiges of perceived bias," the group said.

It said acceptable terms are "undocumented immigrants," "foreign nationals," "persons without legal immigration status," "unauthorized workers" and "alleged or suspected undocumented immigrants."

However, the association said "illegals," "illegal aliens," "aliens," "resident or non-resident aliens," "illegal immigrants," "scratchbacks or wetbacks," "armies of immigrants," "invaders," "reconquistadores" and "anchor babies" should be banned.

On the Judicial Watch forums page the arguments included the technical.

"Yes, the concept of citizen implies that it can be legal or illegal, based upon the laws that confer citizenship in any particular jurisdiction. If members of a Supreme Court do not understand this, we are in a lot of trouble as a nation. God help us," wrote Gianni.

Others exhibited less patience with the request.

"If the Hispanic Bar likes that, then let's call drug dealers undocumented pharmacists, and home robbery suspects physical property adjusters," said the commenter. "I know a moron when I hear one."

They also got personal, "She must have gotten her law degree out of a box of Cracker Jacks," said another. "Calling an ILLEGAL ALIEN an 'undocumented immigrant,' 'unauthorized worker,' 'or 'human rights advocate' not only is nondescriptive of the individual, it is the same as calling a burglar an 'unwanted house guest.' Get real!"

"How about felonious foreigner," suggested another.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The report almost immediately was followed with a response from the court, Judicial Watch reported.

"The Arizona Supreme Court has threatened to sue Judicial Watch for revealing that its chief justice agreed to enforce a Hispanic Bar Association demand to ban the terms 'illegal' and 'aliens' in all of the state’s courtrooms," the organization said in a statement late today.

Whew!! That's a switch!!

It's usually Judicial Watch that's filing all of the lawsuits!!!!​

 

[The Scotsman]

what.....you mean that you cannot call a Mexican illegal immigrant climbing over a border fence a jumping bean?...............how boring.......

 

[bododie]

I just call them criminals. I would never insult a jumping bean!

 

[The Scotsman]

I just call them criminals. I would never insult a jumping bean!

..............

 

[Stalin]

The reality is that people from mexico and further south have much more right to be there than those of european descent.

Comrade Stalin

 

[bododie]

The reality is that people from mexico and further south have much more right to be there than those of european descent.

Read and learn stalin. There WILL be a test.


The Mexican War between the United States and Mexico began with a Mexican attack on American troops along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846. Fighting ended when U.S. Gen. Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14, 1847; a few months later a peace treaty was signed (Feb. 2, 1848) at Guadalupe Hidalgo. In addition to recognizing the U.S. annexation of Texas defeated Mexico ceded California and, New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ending the Mexican War, was signed on February 2, 1848, by Nicholas P. Trist, for the United States, and by a special commission representing the collapsed government of Mexico.

Under the treaty, Mexico ceded to the United States Upper California and New Mexico (including Arizona) and recognized U.S. claims over Texas, with the Rio Grande as its southern boundary. The United States in turn paid Mexico $15,000,000, assumed the claims of American citizens against Mexico, ($3.25 Million) recognized prior land grants in the Southwest, and offered citizenship to any Mexicans residing in the area. Then a few years later, the US bought land that is now Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico for another 6 million dollars.

Why did we need that additional land?

After the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, border disputes between the United States and Mexico remained unsettled. Land that now comprises lower Arizona and New Mexico was part of a proposed southern route for a transcontenental railroad. US President Franklin Pierce was convinced by Jefferson Davis, (Later the First President of the Confederate States of America) then the country's Secretary of War, to send James Gadsden (who had personal interests in the rail route) to negotiate the Gadsden Purchase with Mexico. Under the resulting agreement, the U.S. paid Mexico $10 million. There was a problem with the money, however: Even though the agreement specified $10 million, the US Congress only agreed to pay $7 million. When the money finally arrived, in Mexico City, $1 million was found to be lost, thus making $6 million the amount Mexico actually got for the sale of that land. Hey, they set the price… we paid it!

Run the numbers and you will find that the US paid Mexico $24, 250,000.00 (24 million, two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand) US dollars for the land in the Southwest US which many claim, today, we (The US) stole!

 

[vyo476]

Read and learn stalin. There WILL be a test.

The Mexican War between the United States and Mexico began with a Mexican attack on American troops along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846.

This attack was precipitated as a result of conflicting views of where the border lay. Mexico claimed the border was further north; Texas (and America) claimed it lay at the Rio Grande - so President Polk (who was elected on an imperialist platform) sent American troops to the Rio Grande. How many troops? 14. Were they there purely to piss of the Mexicans? That's up to you.

Fighting ended when U.S. Gen. Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14, 1847; a few months later a peace treaty was signed (Feb. 2, 1848) at Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Please note that the biggest problem the US Army encountered was travel; Scott's plan called for them to land by sea on the western coast of Mexico, not an easy place to get to from the eastern half of the United States.

In addition to recognizing the U.S. annexation of Texas defeated Mexico ceded California and, New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States.

And therein lies the stealing bit. I think you'll find most history textbooks don't look favorably on the German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 - just because we "won" doesn't necessarily mean that carving away half of their territory (and that's not including Texas) was justified.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ending the Mexican War, was signed on February 2, 1848, by Nicholas P. Trist, for the United States, and by a special commission representing the collapsed government of Mexico.

The people from Mexico signing that treaty might not have actually had guns pointed at their heads, but it wasn't exactly their choice, either. Treaties made under duress like that rarely turn out well (cough, Versailles, cough).

Under the treaty, Mexico ceded to the United States Upper California and New Mexico (including Arizona) and recognized U.S. claims over Texas, with the Rio Grande as its southern boundary. The United States in turn paid Mexico $15,000,000, assumed the claims of American citizens against Mexico, ($3.25 Million) recognized prior land grants in the Southwest, and offered citizenship to any Mexicans residing in the area. Then a few years later, the US bought land that is now Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico for another 6 million dollars.

Only the Gadsden Purchase was legitimate, because that took place without our army sitting in their capital.

If you put a gun to someone's head and tell them you're buying their car, even for a decent price, is it okay?

Why did we need that additional land?

After the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, border disputes between the United States and Mexico remained unsettled. Land that now comprises lower Arizona and New Mexico was part of a proposed southern route for a transcontenental railroad. US President Franklin Pierce was convinced by Jefferson Davis, (Later the First President of the Confederate States of America) then the country's Secretary of War, to send James Gadsden (who had personal interests in the rail route) to negotiate the Gadsden Purchase with Mexico. Under the resulting agreement, the U.S. paid Mexico $10 million. There was a problem with the money, however: Even though the agreement specified $10 million, the US Congress only agreed to pay $7 million. When the money finally arrived, in Mexico City, $1 million was found to be lost, thus making $6 million the amount Mexico actually got for the sale of that land. Hey, they set the price… we paid it!

Actually, Santa Anna set the price. Most of Mexico wasn't too thrilled with the purchase. But, hey, it's their government.

Run the numbers and you will find that the US paid Mexico $24, 250,000.00 (24 million, two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand) US dollars for the land in the Southwest US which many claim, today, we (The US) stole!

In other words, so long as we're defining what "stealing" is, we're just fine.

 

[vyo476]

Court: Quit saying 'illegal aliens'

The whole point is that it diminishes the humanity of the subject. They've done something that is wrong - they came here illegally. Saying they did something illegal and they are illegal are two very different things.

 

[bododie]

Saying they did something illegal and they are illegal are two very different things.

You must be joking. They have no respect for the laws of this country, but I'm supposed to respect their feelings? What do you think the ILLEGAL would care about more? Being called a name, or being handed free money? "Humanity" involves honor on BOTH parts. How about we call them people with no honor or respect for anyone but themselves, who lack the courage to even begin to take on the corruption in their own country, and run like cowards here, because their fellow mexican officials have no value for their own countrymen's lives". Is that a better name?

This is NOT a humanitarian issue. It is a LEGAL issue.

 

[vyo476]

You must be joking. They have no respect for the laws of this country, but I'm supposed to respect their feelings? What do you think the ILLEGAL would care about more? Being called a name, or being handed free money? "Humanity" involves honor on BOTH parts.

Have you ever heard the expression "be the bigger man" before? What it really means is "be the better man," but it got changed at some point, who knows why. One way or the other, it's something you should perhaps mull over.

How about we call them people with no honor or respect for anyone but themselves, who lack the courage to even begin to take on the corruption in their own country, and run like cowards here, because their fellow mexican officials have no value for their own countrymen's lives". Is that a better name?

How about we call them people in desperately awful situations, who feel (whether validly or not) that attempting to affect change in their own country is pointless, and come here as the only option they see for a decent life, since Mexican officials can't (or won't) figure out what to do about the mess.

Or how about we call them people who have comitted a crime. There are plenty of semantics being thrown around about renaming burglars and the like -are they referred to as "illegals"? No. They're called criminals - people who've done something wrong - not "illegals" - people who are intrinsically wrong.

This is NOT a humanitarian issue. It is a LEGAL issue.

All legal issues are also societal (social) issues, and how something is worded can have a deep, resounding impact on all spheres - social, legal, economic - if allowed the opportunity.

 

[bododie]

people who are intrinsically wrong

They're not intrinsically wrong unless they keep having children that they know they can't support. The minute they step over the border they become an "illegal entity". Affirmative Action was me being the bigger man. Want to discuss how it was appreciated?

VYO, I don't have disdain for people in desperate situations. I have disdain for the mentality that expects me to pay for it, and then still has disdain for me. Do you have any idea what the illegal population in California has done to the economy of that state, not to mention the crime?

Your desperate people include a whole lot of gangbangers who have no value for anyone's life. Do you think they deserve a drop of respect? Do you think they are just a few in number? What do you think their purpose for coming here is? To make America a better place for ALL?

Anyone who is in this country illegally should hang their head in shame. They should not be rewarded or respected for trying to justify their illegal actions by terms like desperation.

I notice that you are in Mass. I guess the 18th street gang branches haven't taken hold in your area yet. Don't worry. They're coming. You will change your mind about humanitarianism when you actually see this in action. Don't worry about prosecuting them though, these here folks can run back across the border really fast too, to avoid that.

The hilarity of this situation is that Mexico is BRUTAL to those coming from Guatemala into Mexico. Oh where is the humanitarianism?

You speak of Utopia. I speak of reality.

 

[vyo476]

They're not intrinsically wrong unless they keep having children that they know they can't support.

No human being is "intrinsically wrong." The right to live is a basic human right (remember life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?). Therefore, calling someone "illegal" is what is intrinscially wrong.

The minute they step over the border they become an "illegal entity".

Their entrance was illegal. Their presence here is illegal. Their existence is not illegal. If you want to call them people who are here illegally, that's fine, but they are not "illegal entities." They're still human beings, not viruses.

Affirmative Action was me being the bigger man. Want to discuss how it was appreciated?

Don't give me that "I've paid my dues" crap. If you want the moral high ground you have to maintain it.

VYO, I don't have disdain for people in desperate situations. I have disdain for the mentality that expects me to pay for it, and then still has disdain for me. Do you have any idea what the illegal population in California has done to the economy of that state, not to mention the crime?

If you were in a desperate position, would you care? You might not have disdain for people in desperate situations, bododie, but I don't see you trying to understand them, either.

Your desperate people include a whole lot of gangbangers who have no value for anyone's life. Do you think they deserve a drop of respect? Do you think they are just a few in number? What do you think their purpose for coming here is? To make America a better place for ALL?

Anyone who is in this country illegally should hang their head in shame. They should not be rewarded or respected for trying to justify their illegal actions by terms like desperation.

Must things be black and white? It's possible to admonish someone for doing something wrong without "rewarding" them. All the phrases being suggested in the place of "illegal alien" aren't exactly complimentary - they just aren't dehumanizing, which is the point.

I notice that you are in Mass. I guess the 18th street gang branches haven't taken hold in your area yet. Don't worry. They're coming. You will change your mind about humanitarianism when you actually see this in action. Don't worry about prosecuting them though, these here folks can run back across the border really fast too, to avoid that.

Believe it or not they have reached Massachusetts. I remember when I was four our next door neighbors (we were living in a run-down apartament complex in a post-industrial area) were found out and deported. Of course, at the time my parents just told me they were "moving to Mexico," but they've since come clean about the whole thing.

The hilarity of this situation is that Mexico is BRUTAL to those coming from Guatemala into Mexico. Oh where is the humanitarianism?

What Mexico does to people coming into their country is irrelevant to discussion on what to do about people coming into our country. Pointing and saying, "but they're WORSE!" is grade-school whining of a very pungent variety, and will get us precisely no where.

You speak of Utopia. I speak of reality.

I don't "speak of Utopia." Stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[bododie]

"I've paid my dues"

Uh, excuse me? I didn't have any dues to pay!

What Mexico does to people coming into their country is irrelevant to discussion on what to do about people coming into our country.

Your issue was humanity. Are you saying that other peoples don't have that responsibility but we do? I DO? Mexico escorts Guatemalens to OUR BORDER, if they don't violently send them back to Guatemala. Don't you know this is going on? Gosh, maybe we need to give the Mexican government a lesson in humanity instead of taking care of the people that THEY should be taking care of.

Believe it or not they have reached Massachusetts. I remember when I was four our next door neighbors (we were living in a run-down apartament complex in a post-industrial area) were found out and deported. Of course, at the time my parents just told me they were "moving to Mexico," but they've since come clean about the whole thing.

Are you talking about "undocumented desperate humans" or gangbangers? There's a major difference. These people kill people for FUN! They aren't desperate. They have a very organized drug trade. Just because someone is human, doesn't mean they have the right to be treated the same as a decent human being who would never do such things. They are a DANGER to decent people. They come here illegally. When they are deported, transportation that is paid for by you and me, by the way, they come back!

You think that kindness is appreciated. Guess what! Why don't you tell it to La Raza. They need a lesson in humanity, relative to non-Mexicans. Tell it to the Mexicans in California. I guess they don't understand that it's supposed to be appreciated. That that's what people who are interested in "humanity" do. Hell, just GO THERE and live in South Central L.A. for a week, and then come back and have this conversation with me. Tell me about the humanity you saw in response to any kindness you gave in any regard.

Plus I never said they were illegal "humans". Don't put words in my mouth. The ACTIONS are illegal. They become an "illegal entity" at that point. There are different words in the language for a reason you know.

I don't see you trying to understand them, either.

That's right you don't. Do you give of your time to people in need? Then don't judge me. Plus I have given financial support to 4 kids in India from childhood to adulthood, that I never even met!

Here's the bottom line question: Do you really believe that those coming here illegally from Mexico have any love for this country other than what it can give them? Would you love a country that you were forced to go to because your own government didn't give a crap about your intrinsic right to life?

These are desperate times for our economy. If my tax dollars are going to help anyone, I want it to be someone who belongs in THIS country, by right of birth or by emigrating via the law.

Everyone DOES have an intrinsic right to life. Not everyone has an intrinsic right to be in America. That is the law. If you agree to pay for these desperate human beings, then believe me, I will sing the praises of your humanity over mine gladly.

If we didn't give so much foreign aid to countries that don't appreciate it, maybe we could afford to feed our own poor, who have a right to be here by law. I like that kind of humanity better. It's better for AMERICA. I happen to care about America.

 

[vyo476]

Uh, excuse me? I didn't have any dues to pay!

Stop attempting to cloud the issue. If you want to claim any form of high morality, than humanity -even towards those you don't necessarily respect - is a necessity, completely regardless of your view of "honor."

Your issue was humanity. Are you saying that other peoples don't have that responsibility but we do?

We're responsible for ourselves, right? You can't justify something by saying, "they're doing it, we should be allowed to do it to."

I DO? Mexico escorts Guatemalens to OUR BORDER, if they don't violently send them back to Guatemala. Don't you know this is going on?

Why do you care?

Gosh, maybe we need to give the Mexican government a lesson in humanity instead of taking care of the people that THEY should be taking care of.

Obviously we need to give ourselves a lesson in humanity before directing our focus towards foreign governments.

Are you talking about "undocumented desperate humans" or gangbangers? There's a major difference.

At least you can admit this much.

These people kill people for FUN! They aren't desperate. They have a very organized drug trade.

We have plenty of that anyway. You've heard of Whitey Bulger, yes?

Just because someone is human, doesn't mean they have the right to be treated the same as a decent human being who would never do such things.

Not the same, necessarily, but they still deserve to be treated as human beings. If you disagree, I suggest you take it up with the writers of our Bill of Rights.

They are a DANGER to decent people. They come here illegally.

I'm curious - are these affronts equal in your eyes?

When they are deported, transportation that is paid for by you and me, by the way, they come back!

And that is a problem that needs to addressed. Tell me, do you think that referring to them in an overtly demeaning way - implying that their existence is illegitimate - will in some way convince them not to come back?

Let me put it another way. Do you somehow think that insulting people who enjoy murdering for fun, as you put it, will discourage those people from coming here, where the people who insulted them live?

You think that kindness is appreciated. Guess what! Why don't you tell it to La Raza. They need a lesson in humanity, relative to non-Mexicans. Tell it to the Mexicans in California. I guess they don't understand that it's supposed to be appreciated. That that's what people who are interested in "humanity" do. Hell, just GO THERE and live in South Central L.A. for a week, and then come back and have this conversation with me. Tell me about the humanity you saw in response to any kindness you gave in any regard.

Once again with the give-and-take argument. What is given is not always returned equally; sometimes, it is given in the hope that someday it will be returned equally. No one person's actions will cure the pervasive social issues that exist. No one measure will bring about an end to all the problems we'd like to see over and done with. Going to South Central LA and trying to help people, yeah, I probably wouldn't do a lot of good. I might not accomplish anything at all, and I'd probably be laughed out of the neighborhood. On the other hand, I might inspire one person. Maybe just one. And maybe that would be enough.

The measure that this thread addresses won't solve everything. It won't even solve, in a final way, anything. It's just an attempt to take a step towards solving these issues.

Plus I never said they were illegal "humans". Don't put words in my mouth. The ACTIONS are illegal. They become an "illegal entity" at that point. There are different words in the language for a reason you know.

The definition of "entity":

1. something that has a real existence; thing: corporeal entities.
2. being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: He conceived of society as composed of particular entities requiring special treatment.
3. essential nature: The entity of justice is universality.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Entity

So, either an "illegal entity" is "something illegal that has a real existence" or "something that has an illegal existence." Which is it?

And remember, to, that this measure is aimed at people who probably don't sit down and think out the definitions of everything they hear. You must consider the subconscious, as well as the conscious, implications of the term.

That's right you don't. Do you give of your time to people in need? Then don't judge me. Plus I have given financial support to 4 kids in India from childhood to adulthood, that I never even met!

Many of the kids I work with through my town's recreation department are from destitute families. A few have been from immigrant families. I've also donated my time at a couple of area soup kitchens and done volunteer work with the disabled and the elderly. Growing up with a severely disabled mother impressed on me the impact of charity. I tell you this because you asked, not because I feel I need to be congratulated for it. I have done what I've done, and will continue to do when I can, because I feel people deserve it.

Why did you choose to support four kids in India? Were you aware of their characters when you decided to support them? Would you have cut them off if they made choices you didn't agree with? Is it that you didn't get to choose to help support people who've come to this country illegally that upsets you, or that there are so many of them?

Here's the bottom line question: Do you really believe that those coming here illegally from Mexico have any love for this country other than what it can give them? Would you love a country that you were forced to go to because your own government didn't give a crap about your intrinsic right to life?

I doubt that many people coming here truly "love" America right off the bat, regardless of how they got this country. I doubt many people come here with the express intent of "loving" this country. Whether or not immigrants, having come here illegally or not, wind up loving this country is contingent on what they find here, as well as whatever emotional baggage they brought with them from their country of origin.

These are desperate times for our economy. If my tax dollars are going to help anyone, I want it to be someone who belongs in THIS country, by right of birth or by emigrating via the law.

We agree on this matter. I'm not saying that we should allow illegal immigration - just that there are better ways to deal with it than through heavy-handedness.

Everyone DOES have an intrinsic right to life. Not everyone has an intrinsic right to be in America. That is the law.

And we agree again. The issue at hand, started by the original post in this thread, deals with whether or not the intrinsic right to life is recognized clearly through the terminology of our legal system. That's all.

If you agree to pay for these desperate human beings, then believe me, I will sing the praises of your humanity over mine gladly.

If I could, and if I thought that would help the larger issue, I would. I think other actions - specifically in regard to our relationship with Mexico - are more promising.

If we didn't give so much foreign aid to countries that don't appreciate it, maybe we could afford to feed our own poor, who have a right to be here by law. I like that kind of humanity better. It's better for AMERICA. I happen to care about America.

I care about America too. I really hope that you, and everyone who disagrees with my views on things like this, realize that I do have the interests of our country at heart, and that I don't put the interests of others over our own. Figuring out how to help them - or figuring out how to help them help themselves - helps us, in that it stops them from flooding in. In the meantime, improving our view of these people helps improve their view of us, which, hopefully, makes them less inclined to disregard our laws. And if it doesn't do that - who does it hurt? What is so awful about not being able to call someone an "illegal immigrant" in a legal document?