Republican Latino Outreach Memo: Don’t Use the Term Illegal Immigrant, or Illegals, Aliens and “Anchor Babies”

In his press conference (campaign stop?) in Las Vegas today, President Obama noted the bipartisan support for “comprehensive immigration reform,” even pointing out it wasn’t often that Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush agreed on an issue, but immigration was one* and that, apparently was important. The group of senators onto whose proposal the president latched today included four Republicans:  Arizona’s John McCain and Jeff Flake, Florida’s Marco Rubio, and South Carolina’s Lindsay Graham. Republicans are widely perceived as needing to embrace the issue of immigration reform after their 2012 defeat, and now a leaked memo from the Hispanic Leadership Network, a conservative outreach group, urges members to eschew certain “tonally insensitive” terms, irrespective of their position on the issue. From The Hill:

The memo suggests that Republican senators and congressmen refer to "undocumented immigrant[s]" rather than "illegals" or "aliens" and that they never use the phrase "anchor babies." It also warns Republicans against using the term "amnesty" to describe the plan, and suggests attacking President Obama for not pushing earlier for a plan.

Illegal entry into the United States is a misdemeanor and anchor babies are pretty much a nativist myth. Opposition to the term “illegal” is based on the idea that “no human being is illegal.” Yet for libertarians the adjective “undocumented” might be more odious. After all, what kind of human being should require documentation?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    It's hilariously sad, isn't it?

    1) Build social welfare systems.

    2) Bitch that said system is being exploited.

    3) Societal clusterfucks ensue. Law upon law upon law.

    How about we just annihilate the welfare state?

  • Jeff||

    Let's.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Call the whole thing.

  • Hugh Akston||

    off?

  • Ted S.||

    Shall we dance instead?

  • Hyperion||

    Best case scenario, never do step 1 in first place, because the inevitable result is steps 2 and 3, followed by politicians unwillingness to address until economy collapses. Then step 4) We are fucked.

  • ||

    Which brings us back to Shakespeare: the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!

  • Brandybuck||

    How about we just annihilate the welfare state?


    No!!! We need it to justify our crypto-racist nativism!

  • Hugh Akston||

    It's still okay to say Wetback or Taco Bender though, right?

  • ||

    Absolutely! Don't give it a second thought, you redneck, right wing nut, cracker!

    Fondly,

    Lamestream commie pinko blabbermouth

  • Ted S.||

    What do you have against Taco?

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    I said all that needs to be said in the earlier thread about immigrtion, so I won't wade back into that. It's a contentious issue, and there are such fundamental disagreements between otherwise well-meaning people that there doesn't even seem to be a point in discussing it.

    What I will bitch about is political correctness. If all of those terms are accurate, why be afraid to use them and expose those individuals to the light?

  • ||

    Amen! It's not what you call someone, but how you treat them that counts.

    I can never decide which definition of "PC" I prefer:

    1) pretentiously cool -- or

    2) pure crap.

    At the moment, I'm leaning towards #2

  • Brandybuck||

    Being without papers is the ONLY crime where we call the perpetrator an "illegal". We don't call jaywalkers illegal people, we don't call pot smokers illegal people, we don't call prostitutes or drug dealers or traffic speeders illegal people. Why is it only brown skinned people who didn't follow a particular relocation process that we call illegal people?

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    I never refer to them as illegal people. I refer to them as illegal immigrants, which is accurate, as RC Dean points out below.

  • Brandybuck||

    So do you also refer to illegal pot smokers, illegal speeders, illegal cell phone using drivers, etc?

    Which is more accurate for corn-rowing without a license, "illegal hair stylist" or "unlicensed hair stylist"? The answer is clearly the latter. The former implies that the stylist is herself illegal, which is ridiculous.

    "Illegal immigration" is an appropriate term because it refers to the act itself which is the misdemeanor, but "illegal immigrant" is not because the immigrant person is not himself illegal.

  • ||

    Which is more accurate for corn-rowing without a license, "illegal hair stylist" or "unlicensed hair stylist"? The answer is clearly the latter. The former implies that the stylist is herself illegal, which is ridiculous.

    Oooh, I like that. If anything they are "unlicensed immigrants", which gets to the root of the issue. Immigrants should at most need to be checked to insure they don't bring typhoid into the country (or some other disease) and then let them live in the land of the free. They need the "Government stamp of approval" to cross the border, but no one will specify what that stamp entails.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    We use the term "illegal" in the crime of espionage as well, but its use is not as widespread as the former.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    To elaborate, I wouldn't call someone driving 100 mph in a school zone an illegal person, but I would sure be justified in calling him an illegal speeder.

  • Randian||

    I hate the term undocumented immigrants too. As if the rest of us have magical State-blessed "documents"

    I know the so-called "conservatives" love Ihren Papieren Bitte and all that jazz, but why not just call them "people"?

    Right, because then national borders would look like the silly, trifling things they are.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Are national borders "silly, trifling things" when it comes to the sovereignty of another nation? You will surely acknowledge that even with the US' flaws, its system of government is nonetheless far superior to that of many other countries -- particularly those countries in the third world that we so often find ourselves occupying.

    Should those "silly, trifling things" give way to a more libertarian concept of justice in those countries?

    I think more liberalized immigration would be a boon for both us and the immigrants, but let's try not to sound like the lyrics to John Lennon's "Imagine", hmm?

  • Randian||

    When it comes to peaceful people, borders are meaningless.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Looking around the world, it's hard to find "peaceful" governments and it's easy to find violent people -- which brings us back to open borders. Would you support restricting prospective immigrants with a violent criminal background from coming to the US, for example?

  • Brandybuck||

    Open borders does not mean we have to let in violent criminals. Next strawman please.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That's exactly what it implies. The EU, which has open borders between its member states, allows just that after all.

    And at any rate, I thought that national borders were meaningless? If someone with a criminal background can travel from Madison to Topeka, why not let a violent criminal from Nairobi travel to Topeka, as well? You aren't going to suggest that we impede that person's freedoms, are you?

    I'm pretty sure this is the part where I say something cheeky about brown people, heh.

  • ||

    You need to read the thousands of past threads on this. I can count on one thumb the commenters who wouldn't want to apply background checks on people entering to exclude the contagious or violent.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    Um, actually, that's exactly what it means.

    Closed borders means nobody gets through (think North Korea), open borders means everybody gets through.

    Most places have something in between, often closer to one side of that equation than the other.

  • ||

    Open borders means more like the US of 1900, where the rejection rate at Ellis Island of passengers without a special visa was 2% for steerage and 0% for first- and second-class, rather than like the US of today, where the rejection rate is 98%.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No they are not meaningless. They exist for valid reasons. TIT is right you're going all 'Imagine' here and it's painful.

  • Homple||

    "When it comes to peaceful people, borders are meaningless."

    I'm sure you are a peaceful person. So, visit some other countries, describe your treatment when you cross their borders, and tell us about the meaninglessness of said borders.

  • ||

    Borders, and sovereignty in general, are a means to keep other countries' laws out of your country.

    They should not be used to keep individuals out because they happened to be born in other countries.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Problem being that it's individuals that create and buttress law, and the de jure state of affairs in a democratic society is based on the de facto living arrangements that a majority feels are appropriate (at least, in theory). More succinctly, people bring baggage with them -- cultural baggage as much as anything else. As with religion, I have nothing against culture provided that you refrain from bringing it into the voting booth or imposing it on others forcefully (e.g., gypsies disregarding property rights in Europe).

    Easy-to-obtain citizenship/voting rights
    Unrestricted immigration

    If you want to maintain the integrity of your country's political system, you'd best limit your country's policies in one of those two areas.

  • ||

    Since citizenship and voting are a political constructs, while the rights of travel, residence, work, and association are fundamental unalienable individual rights, the limits should be placed on citizenship and voting.

    As the Declaration of Independence notes, governments are instituted for the express purpose of securing unalienable rights. Everything about their citizenship and franchise is a political means to reach that end.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I agree, and that's how Hong Kong has managed to secure its government's form in the face of overwhelming immigration. As we're starting to see with the institution of more significant elections in Hong Kong, that's starting to change.

  • ||

    If we could actually reach a sane, bipartisan solution to our immigration problems, I'll sing any damn song you like.

    But I think the Mr. Roger's theme song beats the crap out of Lennon's "Imagine."

    "It's a wonderful day in the neighborhood" isn't it?

  • Hyperion||

    If we could actually reach a sane, bipartisan solution to our immigration problems, I'll sing any damn song you like

    We are relying on our congress to do this. IOW, you don't need to worry about singing.

  • Ornithorhynchus||

    National borders have only important function. They set an outer limit to a government's authority. The purpose of a border is to keep a government in, not to keep anyone or anything out. No matter what sort of tyranny is oppressing you, a border is there to give you some way to escape it.
    (Sadly, as US foreign policy has shown in recent decades, this doesn't always work properly, but still, this is a border's true purpose.)

    Anytime a country puts restrictions on who can enter and under what circumstances, it is, intentionally or not, cooperating to hold people prisoner under whichever regime they may be suffering under.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    In practice, good government means the government keeping plenty of things and circumstances outside its borders to the extent possible (organized crime and terrorism, for example).

    There are plenty of people "suffering" under governments that imprison pedophiles or whathaveyou. There are some circumstances and actions which are self-evidently wrong under a libertarian ethic and subsequently some consequences from which there should be no escape.

  • Hyperion||

    We'll all understand this a lot better in the near future when the US starts restricting travel so that they can bleed the rest of what blood is left out of tax payers, before they all flee the country.

  • Brandybuck||

    Yeah, that border between California and Oregon is a silly, trifling thing. We can all acknowledge Oregon's superior system of government. That flood of Californians seeking to escape oppressive taxation will just overwhelm native Oregon culture.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    As if the rest of us have magical State-blessed "documents"

    Like it or not, we do.

  • Randian||

    I mean really, what do I have? A birth certificate and a Social Security card? Is that still really all people need to be "real Americans"?

  • Ornithorhynchus||

    The Fourteenth Amendment says the birth certificate alone would be all you need.

  • SKR||

    last time I checked, my birth certificate wasn't 'magical'.

  • cavalier973||

    You're not using it right.

  • brec||

    ...four Republicans: Arizona’s John McCain and Jeff Flake, Florida’s Marco Rubio, Arizona’s Jeff Flake, and South Carolina’s Lindsay Graham.

    .The Flakes dominate.

  • Jeff||

    Flake is overdocumented.

  • Rich||

    Opposition to the term “illegal” is based on the idea that “no human being is illegal.”

    Just as opposition to the term “black” is based on the idea that “no human being is black.”

  • R C Dean||

    What fatuous crap. Whether or not a human being can be illegal, their presence in a certain country certainly can be.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Thank you.

    "Illegal immigrant" is a perfectly honest and accurate term, making a meaningful distinction.

    A LEGAL immigrant is someone who has immigrated here in compliance with immigration laws.

    An ILLEGAL immigrant is someone who has immigrated here in VIOLATION of immigration laws.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, now that you typed certain terms in all capital letters, your rhetorical sophistication has convinced me of your argument.

  • ||

    As I note below, I completely agree.

    Similarly, a LEGAL bus rider is someone who rides the bus in compliance with bus-riding laws.

    An ILLEGAL bus rider is someone who rides the bus in VIOLATION of bus-riding laws.

  • Marla Singer||

    A LEGAL immigrant is also, apparently, a SUCKER.

  • grrizzly||

    Just yesterday I read in the LA Times, that well-known right-wing, nativist rag, about a surge of maternity hotels in LA where Asian women give birth to make children American citizens. But now I'm relieved that it's just a myth.

    Los Angeles County residents are growing weary of maternity hotels in their neighborhoods, filing 60 complaints in the last month alone, according to a report by the county Planning Department...

    The facilities are typically set up in single-family homes in quiet residential neighborhoods, particularly in the San Gabriel Valley. The Chino Hills site, which shut down after the city sued its owners, had been illegally subdivided into 17 bedrooms and 17 bathrooms, according to city officials. Neighbors complained of frequent comings and goings, and an overloaded septic tank caused a massive sewage spill.
    So-called birth tourism is a booming industry, fueled by women from Asia who travel to the United States while pregnant. They live at boarding facilities for several months before giving birth, accumulating bills of as much as $20,000 by the time they return home with their American citizen babies.

    The facilities in the San Gabriel Valley cater to Chinese and Taiwanese mothers, while women from South Korea patronize maternity hotels in Los Angeles' Koreatown.
  • Jeff||

    If they need help making American citizens, I'm game.

  • R C Dean||

    Love the way they skip on the bills.

    And I suspect those several month stays are in excess of their tourist visas, too.

    But even if you think busting a tourist visa is no biggie, surely defrauding the doctors and hospitals is a Bad Thing, right?

  • ||

    I'm not sure where you got that.

    The article said something about "accumulating bills of as much as $20,000", I saw nothing about them not being paid.

    I'm fairly sure that if these "maternity hotels" were getting stiffed by their customers, the owners would close them up and go into some other line of business. Frankly, I'd bet they get their money upfront.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    The article is a complete fabrication. I was assured in the previous thread that all immigrants are only hard workers who would never take advantage of the system like that.

  • ||

    --They live at boarding facilities for several months before giving birth, accumulating bills of as much as $20,000 by the time they return home with their American citizen babies.--

    If only we could make every illegal pay $20k to give birth to an American citizen, we could take a great big bite out of the national debt.

    We all know they're going to do it, anyway -- all I'm proposing is that the payee be the taxpayer, instead of some underground network of hotels and airlines. We're the ones paying the long-term consequences of this bullshit. Shouldn't we the ones who get SOME reward for it?

  • Jeff||

    What exactly is the long-term consequence of some Asian kids having American citizenship, and how are you the one paying for it?

  • ||

    The yellow hordes will descend when the kid grows up and returns to the USA and starts bringing his family over.

    This will cause the end of civilization as we know it.

  • Marla Singer||

    But at least we might finally be able to get some decent ramen in this country.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Grizzly,

    Just yesterday I read in the LA Times, that well-known right-wing, nativist rag, about a surge of maternity hotels in LA where Asian women give birth to make children American citizens.[...] I'm relieved that it's just a myth.


    What's a myth is that these are anchor babies. They CAN'T make the mother an American citizen or even a resident until these kids are 21 FUCKING years old. And they can only request their parents for an (almost) immediate visa and then a greencard, but not their siblings, which may have to wait up to 16 ADDITIONAL YEARS after the request is filed before their case for a greencard is taken.

    So YES, the anchor baby canard is a myth perpetuated by idiots who don't know their own laws - that is, direct results of the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem Dat Teeches Childrun To Red And Writ

  • Cytotoxic||

    +1

  • Anonymous Coward||

    U spelt REED rong.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Not a myth, by Shikha's own chart.

    Says that a parent of a US citizen can immediately receive a green card, and become a citizen, in the best case scenarios, in 6-7 years.

    http://reason.com/assets/db/07.....2ef5ad.jpg

  • pmains||

    My favorite part.

    "They're a moneymaking machine. They're totally unsafe," Knabe said. "It's so obvious that they jeopardize not only the health of the baby, but the mother as well."

    In case you were wondering, this is why the LA Times is horrified and reporting on this issue. Somebody is making money and the whole thing is unregulated. Regulations are magic. Let the local government tax and regulate these hotels, and it becomes a non-issue.

    Also, notice that they return home. Why would they do this if these baby are magical anchors? I thought once the baby was born, the mother could stay here forever and live on American welfare.

    That's why "anchor baby" is inaccurate. Yes, the babies are citizens. No, they are not anchors in the manner you imagine.

  • SKR||

    I'm soery, what part of "return home with their American citizen babies" equates to "anchor baby" wherein they don't return home with said child?

  • R C Dean||

    This PC nancying about really chaps my ass, too. And its not like its going to do the least bit of good, either.

  • ||

    If they don't like "illegal aliens" do you think they might prefer "FELONS"?

  • Jeff||

    Illegal immigration is not a felony, so probably not.

  • ||

    ---Yet for libertarians the adjective “undocumented” might be more odious. After all, what kind of human being should require documentation?--

    Despite our different political leanings, I happen to agree completely. But it does lay bare some huge hypocrisy.

    If no human being should require documentation, why the f%^& did so many libertarians make such a big f-ing deal about Obama's birth certificate?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Here's a hint: those were Republicans, not libertarians.

  • ||

    By "so many", you must mean "zero".

  • Jeff||

    The fuck is a "journaiist", and why are they so retarded?

  • Randian||

    why the f%^& did so many libertarians make such a big f-ing deal about Obama's birth certificate?

    Two things:

    1. No we didn't
    2. The requirement to be President is in the Constitution. What are the paper requirements to be a human?

  • Hyperion||

    why the f%^& did so many libertarians make such a big f-ing deal about Obama's birth certificate?

    WTF are you talking about?

  • ||

    "If no human being should require documentation, why the f%^& did so many libertarians make such a big f-ing deal about Obama's birth certificate?"

    You are new here. We write FUCK, FUCKING, FUCKIN' AND FUCKITY FUCK FUCK with abandon on these threads. And worse. It gives us great pleasure.

    Also, I dont really remember many, if any, libertarians going on about the birth certificate thing. That was a paranoid conservative thing. I do remember many here, including myself, pointing out that even if it were true it was a non-starter so leave it alone.

  • Hyperion||

    Troll alert...

  • CampingInYourPark||

    lmfao..."USJournaiist"

    fish on!

  • JeremyR||

    So Donald Trump gets added to the list of mythical Libertarians?

  • GILMORE||

    why the f%^& did so many libertarians make such a big f-ing deal about Obama's birth certificate?

    Dear Career Retard:

    Please cite single example of anyone @ H+R getting into a tizzy over Birther bullshit?

  • ||

    T o n y. Duh. Check and mate, libertarians.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Sloppy's ranted about it a number of times.

  • waaminn||

    Now thats what I am talking about, wow man, very cool indeed.

    www.irAnon.tk

  • General Butt Naked||

    I knew it!

    You anchorbaby, motherfucker.

  • Ted S.||

    I thought he fucked children, not mothers.

  • ||

    I think everyone opposed to idiotic laws should embrace the word "illegal" when referring to those laws or those whose conduct is illegal under those laws.

    Lawmakers may have a different opinion.

  • OldMexican||

    The memo suggests that Republican senators and congressmen refer to "undocumented immigrant[s]" rather than "illegals" or "aliens" and that they never use the phrase "anchor babies."


    Because the accurate term should be "anchor 21-year olds."

    By the way, Rubio's plan is just too stupid to even give it consideration. First, we enforce the borders, because it can be done! We didn't before but, now, we can! Then we ask everybody to go back into a line that doesn't exist. THEN we give them visas if (wink, wink) they qualify - that is, people that may have been in the U.S. their whole fucking life.

    Fuck you, Marco.

  • Hyperion||

    21 year olds are babies too! At least until they are 26, or until they can get a job and move out of their moms basement.

    Why do you hate the babies? Racist!

  • Hyperion||

    My thought on this process, ever since it was first being talked about years ago, is that I am damn glad that I got my wifes visa process over with before they totally FUBAR the system.

    The immigration process is already fucked up beyond all reason. Does anyone think these bunch of fucktards in the congress can fix it? When they get done, no one will ever want to come here again, legally. That should fix it.

    Comprehensive Immigration Reform == FUCKED UP BEYOND REPAIR

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The immigration system is completely fucked on several levels. It's embarrassing how easy I had it -- I'm Puerto Rican, so I get to hop on the plane and go wherever I want in the US. In contrast, just a couple hundred miles away a rural Cuban would have to divine some way to get on Florida on a makeshift raft without the Coast Guard or his country's police state finding out about it first. Even closer, a Haitian or a Dominican would have to go through the arbitrary visa process.

    Immigration can and should be significantly liberalized.

  • Hyperion||

    Unless you have ever been through an immigration process for a spouse, you really cannot conceive how draconian it is. I think it should be classified as cruel and unusual punishment.

    But make no mistake, our elected retards are fully capable of fucking it up even worse.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Absolutely. My wife is a German-Panamanian mix (Panamanian nationality), and it was a bitch to get her papers in order. It's the closest thing to a USSR bread line you're likely to see in this country.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You want to know what's a blast? Try getting a Report of Consular Birth Abroad for your kid, when living overseas and your wife is not a citizen yet. I still have PTSD from that process.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That sounds... horrible. Thankfully we went through the process before kids were involved.

  • Hyperion||

    Yeah, I'm glad there wasn't any children involved in our process( and children all grown and on own, woohoo! Party time!), it was nightmarish enough without that. 8 freaking months, and I swear a stack of documents that dwarf the size of the greater Baltimore area phone book.

  • MWG||

    I about shit a brick when I read your first sentence. Luckily my wife applied for and gained US citizenship before we left the country precisely so we would have to go through the black hole that is our current immigration system again upon returning.

  • MWG||

    My comment was for HM of course.

  • 21044||

    Where were you? My youngest got his report of birth in about 15 minutes in Edinburgh. (25 years ago)

    My niece, who lives in Paris, received her son's report abroad with no hassle, well at least less hassle than going to motor vehicle.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The immigration system is completely fucked on several levels. It's embarrassing how easy I had it -- I'm Puerto Rican,

    Technically, though, isn't that not immigration? Puerto Rico is not a state but it's part of the U.S.A. If you were born in P.R., you're as American as the next guy. Same goes for Guam, U.S.V.I., and the Northern Mariana Islands.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Hmm... you're right, mea culpa. Well, I guess *emigrants* like me have it better than *immigrants* like my wife.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • SIV||

    Like I'm going to trust "The Pew Hispanic Center" that anchor babies are a myth. From their own report on the "myth":

    Undocumented immigrants can get federal funds to help pay for health care and food for their citizen children, but most have no easier way to gain citizenship themselves. According to Politifact, “Having a child can also help an undocumented parent qualify for relief from deportation

  • SIV||

    Correction: That is from Politifact in the same article.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: SIV,

    According to Politifact, “Having a child can also help an undocumented parent qualify for relief from deportation


    No, they don't, unless they find a judge that's feeling particularly magnanimous that day.

    Don't kid yourself. This "anchor baby" thing is more a long-term investment for the parents than an immediate path to becoming American.

  • SIV||

    According to the article there are 4000 annual "slots" for anchor baby-parent amnesty.

    I'm all for immigration so long as we don't subsidize it.

  • Hyperion||

    It's nearly impossible to come here legally unless you have some type of sponsor, then it's a nightmare process.

    You either have to be a spouse of an American citizen or a child under 21 years of age of American citizen. Or have a work visa sponsor, or be attending a university for a course of study, which is not going to keep you here permanently legal.

    Anything else will either take forever, or it will just be impossible.

    There are LOTS of illegals here in MD from all over. They are taking classes here and working here. I have no idea how they are doing it, but they are. Doesn't bother me, I hate our government anyways, so I don't have any respect for a lot of laws, including this one. I don't break them, I just don't care if anyone else does.

  • Brandybuck||

    My friend who married a Filipino woman said he was extremely tempted just to hire a coyote to bring her in.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I married a Russian. I don't have anything against making immigration easier, but why the fuck should I have to spend thousands of dollars and go through all the BS of providing evidence of being married, having to be in a "conditional" status for 2 years while people that live closer get all the benefit of breaking the fucking law. Will anything change for someone that can't walk here?

  • MWG||

    "...while people that live closer get all the benefit of breaking the fucking law."

    You seriously think immigrants who are here illegally have ALL the benefits of those who are here legally?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "You seriously think immigrants who are here illegally have ALL the benefits of those who are here legally?"

    You mean like payroll withholding and the ability to file joint taxes?

  • MWG||

    Given the fact that illegals are all but trapped in the lower classes of society due to basic documentation, I would say they're considerably worse off than those who were able make it to the US legally.

    Seriously, you need a dose of fucking perspective.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Given the fact that illegals are all but trapped in the lower classes of society due to basic documentation...

    Not sure what your experience is... but all of the illegals that were working for me during the 00 boom 'bought' houses with 0 down fha loans, had car loans and credit cards. The only 'benefit' that they (theoretically) didn't have was voting.

  • MWG||

    Having worked in retail banking in AZ I can assure you that those do not represent the norm.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "have ALL the benefits"

    And I didn't say "ALL" the benefits. I said THE benefit.

  • MWG||

    Actually you did "...all the benefit...".

  • Hyperion||

    ^This^

    My wife seems to be more annoyed about it at the moment than I am. All that we went through the supposedly 'right way', and then they just give it to those who broke the rules.

    Like I said, I don't care anymore. Fuck the entire system, the quicker this criminal robber gang of a government falls down, the better.

  • MWG||

    In my experience, and I know plenty of immigrants, they tend to be surprisingly neutral with regards to illegal immigration. They certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes as CYP seems to suggest.

    They do generally see the system as completely fucked.

  • Calidissident||

    Your wife didn't do it the right way. She did it the legal way. There's a difference.

  • Calidissident||

    Your issue should be with the politicians that made your wife moving here a hassle, and incentivize illegal immigration, not with people trying to come here to make a better life for themselves. I personally can't hold a grudge against someone just because they violated an unjust law

  • OldMexican||

    After all, what kind of human being should require documentation?


    The kind that is owned by the state?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Pretty sure USJournalist is Mary Stack. iCloud is like $100/year, Rectal. That seems like a lot of money just to troll a bunch of blog commenters.

  • Hyperion||

    The statement about birthers left no doubt about he/she/it being a stupid hack.

  • Ice Nine||

    Opposition to the term “illegal” is based on the idea that “no human being is illegal.”

    Of course nowhere has anyone remotely declared the absurd notion that anyone is illegal because of his membership in the human race, except in the fevered minds of certain rabid libertarians. Talk about politically correct bullshit memes.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Yeah, that sentiment is precious enough to gag a maggot.

    I prefer illegal to "undocumented" -- illegal can at least be construed as shorthand for someone who is staying in the US in defiance of the immigration law that has been established. It is in that sense a neutral descriptor -- pro-liberalizers think the illegality should be changed, pro-status quo think it should stay the same. "Undocumented" implies that "documented" is the "correct" way to go through life.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Yes.

    Illegal immigrant mrsnd that one immigrated in violation of law. That's it. It's no commentary on anyone's humanity.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    ^^THIS!!!

  • GILMORE||

    how do you say, "A Day Late and a Dollar Short" in Spanish?

    its sort of pathetic that the GOP realize they spent the last decade demonizing immigrants, drove part of the country into a Mexican-panic-froth, and now have to backpedal and modify their tone in order to actually support more moderate policies than, "giant wall with lazerbeams and drones"

    im guessing the farmers in many states are fed the fuck up with labor shortage and have been twisting GOP arms to get real

  • buybuydandavis||

    "its sort of pathetic that the GOP realize they spent the last decade demonizing immigrants"

    False. They opposed illegal immigration, not legal immigration.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "False. They opposed illegal immigration, not legal immigration."

    For someone that advocates open borders there is no distinction.

  • Calidissident||

    Let's not pretend there's not a strong block within the Republican Party opposed to immigration in general, or supporting only very limited immigration. Right now, it's extremely difficult and burdensome to move here legally, and very few Republicans have proposed anything to change that.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Let's not pretend there's not a strong block within the Republican Party opposed to immigration in general

    The most anti-immigrant people that I've ever met were blue collar union members and inner city black people.

  • ||

    And retards like you!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Only against drunk retarded Irish immigrants like you.

  • ||

    I'm not retarded or Irish!

  • Calidissident||

    There certainly are those types in the Democratic party. But there are also a ton of multiculturalists and others that make Hispanics feel more welcome in the Democratic party than the GOP. There isn't a comparable group in the GOP to offset the nativist contingent

  • MWG||

    This.

  • ||

    So, given that plenty of people are opposed to open borders on the theory that the new immigrants are going to fail to uphold the ideals of our current society in the voting booth, I'm guessing you also oppose the open borders that currently exist between states.

    Can we expect you to propose a quota on immigration from Detroit, California and the like?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "I'm guessing you also oppose the open borders that currently exist between states.

    Can we expect you to propose a quota on immigration from Detroit, California and the like?"

    I propose a quota on citizens of the state of Detroit.

  • ||

    Why would we limit it to states?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Hell yeah,

    Immigrants from New England and the midwest in the 1970s and 1980s fucked up CA.

  • 21044||

    Can we expect you to propose a quota on immigration from Detroit, California and the like?

    If I lived in Colorado, I sure as hell want a quota on Californians. since I live in Maryland, don't care.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    and anchor babies are pretty much a nativist myth.

    Yep every Cosmo knows that they are a complete.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03.....wanted=all

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18.....ir-babies/

  • ||

    Retard, those people immigrated legally.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Is that babbling supposed to refute the notion of anchor babies somehow?

    Try again when you sober up, Mick.

  • Calidissident||

    The families went back to Asia afterwards. I would assume this is done so their child can study/work/live in the US in the future. That's not what the term "anchor baby" generally implies. Nor do I see what is so odious about the practice described in the articles

  • The Derider||

    "Yet for libertarians the adjective “undocumented” might be more odious. After all, what kind of human being should require documentation?"

    According to the Republicans, and completely coincidentally Nick Gillespie, voters.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/08.....ually-anyw

  • lap83||

    Debating immigration with some libertarians is like debating with liberals. If you're on the wrong side, you're automatically racist.

    Although this article took it to a whole new level. If you're on the wrong side, you don't think illegal immigrants are human.

  • Marla Singer||

    Wait...are there people who don't require documentation? Where do these people live and what do they do, exactly?

    "Undocumented" when used to refer to most illegal aliens is a misnomer. Most of them have documentation, too. Most of them have documentation--whether fake, stolen, or legally obtained (e.g., in New Mexico, it used to be the case that illegal immigrants could legally get a NM driver's license if they passed the tests--I don't know if it's still true)--of one kind or another. Many of the illegals who live around here live in some kind of subsidized housing (for "agricultural workers" only), send their kids to a HeadStart (for "migrant and agricultural workers" only) and collect WIC (their kids are citizens--but certainly not anchor babies), and apparently pay taxes, including FICA. I don't really know (or, frankly, care very much) what documents they are using to do all this, but I am pretty damned sure that all of this requires some kind of documentation.

    Man, nothing turns libertarians against the rule of law faster than talking about illegal immigration. I guess it's OK to decide to nullify the law for certain classes of people as long as it's an outcome we favor.

  • Calidissident||

    "Man, nothing turns libertarians against the rule of law faster than talking about illegal immigration."

    Since when are libertarians in favor of blind obedience to law? Have you ever read a thread about the War on Drugs here? Your head might explode

  • ||

    I guess it's OK to decide to nullify the law...

    Yes. When the law is wrong, it is.

  • Acosmist||

    It ever bother you guys that you're importing tens of millions of rabidly ANTI-libertarian people that will bury your philosophy as a viable political option?

    No?

    Ok then.

  • ||

    We're not importing anyone, you fucking retard, we're just minding our own business.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement