There are those who believe…
“…referring to people as “illegals” goes far beyond “petty insult”“…referring to people as “illegals” is downright mean and nasty…”
“…the border is illegal, not people”
My response goes like this…
It’s neither mean nor nasty; it’s just the truth of their situation.
If people are not legal citizens or legal residents, or they do not have a legal reason with valid (pre-pen and phone executive action) documentation for being here, then the truth is they are here illegally and can be referred to as being illegal or as illegals.
If they have committed a any crime worse than running a stop sign, they should go to jail and then be deported; if no crime they should be detained, investigated and then probably deported period. Detained and investigated preferably at the border, not in Maine, or Kansas, or Alaska… and certainly not transported and warehoused in secrecy.
I have also heard others say…
“The word “illegal” relates to people who cross the border without permission or legal status to do so the same way it relates to any driver who’s ever broken a traffic law, or to any person who’s ever broken any other law… “Given all the different ways that a person can commit an illegal action (some of them quite horrific), it seems bizarre to me that the label “illegal” would be placed on those who cross a border without authorization.”
In regard to that, I think a bit of clarity can certainly be found by looking at the issue of “illegals” using those parameters. For instance…
**Someone who enters a home not his own and without permission or authorization of the actual homeowner, who then proceeds to steal one, two, three or more items large small, worthless or of great worth… that person has burgled that home and is sometimes referred to as a “burglar” (as well as other worse descriptives).
The burglar earned his title and his reputation by his own choice, no matter the circumstances leading up to the burglary; and I doubt anyone would be offended by him/her being described that way in conversation, a news story, or in the police report etc.
Continuing in that same vein…
**Someone who always has something to say about other people, whether it’s true or not, someone who can’t have a conversation without talking about other people’s business. . . that person becomes known validly as a gossip, a gossiper, a gossipmonger, tittle-tattler, chin-wagger, rumormonger.
**Someone who sticks his hand into the pocket/purse etc of people he passes on the street or who have gathered together to watch a street performance, who then lifts their valuables from them and disappears into the crowd before they realize it… that person has picked the pockets of unsuspecting citizens, and is referred to as a pick-pocket.
**Someone who is unfamiliar with the truth, or makes up his own truths has validly earned the title and reputation, and is referred to as a liar.
**In the same way someone who takes someone else’s car is referred to as a car thief or car-jacker depending on the circumstances surrounding the theft.
**In the same way someone who murders another person is in most cases rightfully referred to as a murderer.
**In the same way someone who deliberately sets fires has validly earned the descriptive title of ‘firebug’, arsonist, pyromaniac, and or crazy, as well as murderer depending on circumstances.
**In the same way someone who crosses the U.S. border illegally has earned and can validly be referred to as an illegal.
Okay, it looks like there may actually be a very small difference between being someone who crosses the border illegally, and being someone who simply commits a ‘regular’ illegal action –>> for which they earn their own titles and reputations.
But it is NOT an ameliorating difference, and is really only the difference between committing the crime (thus earning it’s commensurate title) and actually being the crime, being the illegal activity… ie: being someone who remains for years in the illegal activity generated by the act of crossing the US border against the law, violating U.S. sovereignty …