Free Speech

New York City Declares Using the Term 'Illegal Alien' Can Result in a $250,000 Fine

The Commission on Human Rights is likely running afoul of the First Amendment.

|

Last week, New York City's Commission on Human Rights declared that using the term "illegal alien" pejoratively to describe an undocumented person violates laws designed to protect employees and tenants from discrimination, and could result in fines of up to $250,000. But the city's interpretation of the law is so broad that it may very well be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Perceived immigration status has long been a protected category under the New York City Human Rights Law, and the commission has now issued guidance that "use of the term 'illegal alien,' among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law."

It's important to note that this guidance does not affect all kinds of speech: The law covers workplace harassment, tenants' rights, and public accommodation. Merely calling someone an illegal alien on the street, or threatening to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement on them, would not be illegal.

The courts have, of course, held that anti-discrimination ordinances can survive scrutiny, even if they appear to limit the free speech rights of employers and landlords. But NYC is going further here. The 30-page guidance notes, for instance, that "the severity or pervasiveness of the harassment is only relevant to damages. Even an employer's single comment made in circumstances where that comment would signal discriminatory views about one's immigration status or national origin may be enough to constitute harassment."

That's a problem, and one that might push the guidance into unconstitutional territory. Government decrees to prohibit free speech in the name of anti-harassment or anti-discrimination must come with certain limiting conditions to survive a First Amendment test.

"The Supreme Court requires that conduct be not just unwelcome, but also severe or pervasive enough to make the work environment both subjectively and objectively hostile, before it is legally considered harassment under federal law," wrote Hans Bader, an attorney and former official in the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. "Even the 'severe or pervasive' standard found in federal law is not sufficiently protective of speech, so it is alarming that New York City has eliminated that modest limit on liability."

Bader's entire post on the subject is worth reading in full. The government cannot simply prohibit people from making politically incorrect statements about undocumented people—it must limit the scope of anti-discrimination mandates in order to satisfy the broad free speech guarantees enjoyed by all people.

Advertisement

NEXT: 8 Cases Everyone Should Know from the Rehnquist Court

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.

  1. “Last week, New York City’s Commission on Human Rights declared that using the term “illegal alien” pejoratively to describe an undocumented person violates laws designed to protect employees and tenants from discrimination, and could result in fines of up to $250,000.”

    This is an easy fix.
    1.) Fraudulent American
    2.) Criminal Martian
    3.) Illegitimate Citizen
    4.) Unconstitutional Resident
    5.) Unlawful Migrant
    6.) Prohibited Person
    7.) Smuggled Human
    8.) Contraband Being
    9.) Unauthorized Citizen
    10.) Migrant of Illicit Intent
    and my personal favorite:
    11.) Person of No-No Legal Status

    1. You forgot wetback.

      1. True. You would think they would cover their asses with that instead of opening the door for “beaner” to make a comeback.

        1. These jokes violate the standards of decorum that we recently began to enforce in all faculty and student lounges, and they miss one basic point: New York authorities have the absolute right to decide which forms of “speech” are acceptable, and which are not–just as they have the right, for example, to decide which forms of “parody” cross the line into reputation-damaging criminal conduct. We do, of course, always invite law enforcement officials to seek our advice here at NYU, because we are highly trained in defining that line, but our contribution in this regard should already be sufficient to clarify the state’s prerogative in all such matters. See the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

          https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

          1. Enforce then the following terms as illegal as well Benito de Blasio.:white supremist,white trash,cracker,dago,wop,pollack,mick,n….,and other terms that have been and are used by people of color or bigots of all colors. An illegal immigrant is better is a person who has unlawfully entered this country.Worse is when they receive welfare services.Anchor babies illegal too.WOP without papers used and still used today to refer to to refer to Italian Americans.NYC is acting as a Facist community.

            1. In certain circumstances–say if the terms are used in a lightly comedic manner and explicitly labeled as “humor” or such–they might be okay; otherwise, their use can indeed be defined as rank criminal conduct. These are questions for the state to decide as it sees fit in view of the local situation, just as it decides when inappropriately deadpan internet “parody” of respectable members of the community (particularly faculty members here at NYU) crosses the line and becomes subject to prosecution and criminal penalties.

          2. Who is joking?

            My personal favorite is “illegal criminal migrant.”

            BTW, in case you didn’t read the article, New York authorities do NOT have the absolute right to decide which forms of “speech” are acceptable, blah blah blah blah. It figures that another liberal nutjob would say that the Supreme Court decisions are not relevant.

        2. Some semiliterate redneck just got fired for shouting BEANER at a little girl chatting in Spanish with her friends–in a McDonalds! If the USA were to squander less money paying superstitious Junta dictatorships to jail and kill their own people over plant leaves, fewer would be fleeing toward the Welfare States borders. This is basic economics once you grasp the connection between prohibitionism, asset-forfeiture looting and financial collapse.

      2. Oh Heck-you beat me to it!

      3. Operation Wetback

        Excerpt from the novel, Retribution Fever:

        In 1953 with “Operation Wetback”, President Eisenhower proved that we can defend our southern border effectively with a minimum of manpower at a minimum of expense provided that we employ sufficiently potent and immediate contingencies. We will. We must. Resurrection of the traditional American character and culture is at stake.

    2. 12.) Foreign National.

      1. I was going for other names that have a more negative connotation like “illegal alien” because that is what NYC tried to stop from happening.
        By banning 1 term.

    3. That’s rhetorical horseshit all intended to mean the same thing. So whats the point of changing the language?

      1. “So whats the point of changing the language?”

        To look good and have positive press written about you.

        1. I prefer to use the legal term.

          1. Yes, “illegal alien” IS the legal term of art for such people. One can quibble about whether it’s a “nice” description but it is the term found in immigration legislation. How can it be illegal to use legal terminology?

            1. Progtards.

              The answer is ALWAYS either Hitler or Progtards and often both.

      2. Pandering and virtue signaling.

    4. How about Border Trespassers?

      1. If sombrero Nazi takes off then maybe the left will oppose the immigrants. They don’t like certain words and will steer clear from them at all costs.

    5. Foreign Invader

      1. I prefer “sweatbacks.” I think that it’s pejorative and descriptive.

    6. I expect that the lawyers are already sharpening their briefs. The sooner they can slap on the first lawsuit, the better.

    7. I prefer “criminal invader”. The actual cheapest, easiest and most effective solution would be to put our military on the border and kill anyone invading America. In short, protect our borders as assiduously as we protect borders in Iraq.

      Within a week, the flood of riminals invaders would become a trickle – something our border patrol would have no difficulty handling.

      We’d likely only have to obliterate as many invaders as currently die each year in the desert – and we would definitely establish the fact that we have a border which we will defend.

      Next, we need legislation making it a crime punishable by a $1000/day fine to negligently employ or rent property to a criminal alien. “Negligence” would be defined as failure to obtain an E-Verify clearance.

      The final piece of the puzzle would be to order all criminal aliens to leave within 6 months. Assist those departing with completing paperwork to immigrate LEGALLY (at the end of the line) if they so choose. After 6 months, put a bounty on the remaining criminal aliens and imprison any captured in a desert tent prison in the Arizona desert for two years and confiscate all property. Let Sheriff Arpaio run the place. At the end of two years, eject the criminals with the warning that if they ever return, they will be executed.

      Less than 1 year. Problem solved.

    8. You forgot the old term. Wetback
      Let’s see how they react to that derogatory term that is still legal. What a bunch of knuckleheads.

      1. How about wop,without papers used in reference to Italian immigrants in 1907.The word is still used today.This is part of Cortes and her squad of anti white squad.

        1. I think that’s what “wop” means: “WithOut Papers,” WOP!

    9. Gotta go with deplorable defector.

    10. Paul Harvey’s favorite term was “sneak-ins”

    11. Foreign felon

  2. heads to New York w/Genesis ’83 album

    1. For those of you who don’t have 250 grand, I suggest Steve Earle’s “City of Immigrants”. In addition to being still legal in NYC, it’s a less annoying song.

      1. lol. also, the O.G. illegal alien ’cause he says so, Sting on line 2.

        1. no i’m stupid Sting claims legal status. der.

  3. Now that is literally unconstitutional.

    1. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

      100% 1st Amendment violation

  4. What about “illegal sub-human”? Will that still be OK? What if it is said sarcastically, about how some of us treat other human beings like shit?

    What if your CEO says stuff like this, about Mexicans:
    “They’re sending people that have a lot of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

    Would that kind of comment be actionable?

    1. Telling the truth is in nearly every case protected by the 1st Amendment. What if a politician actually said the truth? It is just amazing isn’t it.

      1. “Telling the truth is in nearly every case protected by the 1st Amendment.”

        Not any more, it isn’t! You try running any business establishment, as a biased person, renting out your apartments or hotel rooms, or allowing people entrance to your emergency rooms, and you tell them the TRUTH: “I really don’t like your kind of people being here.” As a biased person, you have just told the TRUTH! Now see how long you can remain in business, doing that kind of thing!

        In my libertarian world, you’d ideally be allowed to say these things, AND run your business that way (probably with the sole exception of emergency rooms). You’d just be prohibited from false advertising… Don’t be telling your customers “all humans are welcome here”, and then discriminate against some, on a non-rational basis. The free market could then take care of things. Tons of us would NOT frequent businesses that discriminate (that can’t honestly post a non-discrimination sign).

        What irks me is we are getting worse and worse here on double standards… People like our Orange-Haired Wonder POTUS can say anything they like, and the rest of us have to watch every word we speak or write.

        1. Strange how you’re complaining about something you’re OK with.

          SQRLSY One
          September.22.2019 at 10:42 am
          Nobody ever died for lack of a cake. Laws about non-bigot-driven access to emergency rooms, OK then. Hotels & restaurants, essential for travelling, OK then

          Gay wedding services? Gimme a break! Carve out an exception to mandating “equal” services for this one; problem solved!

          https://reason.com/2019/09/22/historic-house-vote-approves-broad-marijuana-federalism/#comment-7939159

          I guess you realized how awful you look and are trying to rehab your rep.

        2. “People like our Orange-Haired Wonder POTUS can say anything they like”

          Except he’s lost court cases specifically because of what he said, so even that claim is wrong.

          1. Wow, ToolPoopy has yet another new ID? How’s your treatment for multiple personality disorder coming along?

            Orange-haired Wonder POTUS was busted for false advertising of His Get-Rich-Like-Me, uncredentialed “real estate tycooning” school… Busted for false adverting, ripping people off… Thievery! You defending THAT?!?! … Meanwhile, what I am saying is important people (like the POTUS) have one standard, and the rest of us get shafted… Such as for “biased words”, and for “red flag” laws. POTUS is defended by an armed palace guard, and can say whatever he likes. I piss someone off with words? They might come and take away my right to self-defend! You defending THAT, asshole?

            Also, are you defending “you must bake cakes for gays” laws? Are you even capable of putting forth your ideas and defending them? Or are you too busy changing your ID all the time, not knowing who you actually really are? All that you are firmly convinced of, is that you are cool and smart, and others are stupid and icky-poo? Is that ALL that you have to contribute here?

            1. You seem really upset that I easily proved you wrong.

              No, dumbfuck, YOU DID.

              SQRLSY One
              September.22.2019 at 10:42 am
              Nobody ever died for lack of a cake. Laws about non-bigot-driven access to emergency rooms, OK then. Hotels & restaurants, essential for travelling, OK then

              Gay wedding services? Gimme a break! Carve out an exception to mandating “equal” services for this one; problem solved!

              https://reason.com/2019/09/22/historic-house-vote-approves-broad-marijuana-federalism/#comment-7939159

              Lololol what the fuck is wrong with you lolol

              1. Ahahahaha Hihn’s idiot ass defends enslaving people for cakes, then absolutely loses his shit when his desire to enslave people is pointed out.

                Lolo you were wrong about Trump not having to watch his words. That being wrong like completely destroyed your last shred of sanity is telling.

                1. Do you see a single bold-face sentence? An ass-rape threat? One solitary sneer? No? Then it’s *not* Hihn!

                  (Also, I don’t think Hihn went in for “the libertarian case for forced cake baking and unlimited bennies for criminal immigrants”. He was more about “the libertarian case for forcible disarmament of the citizenry”.)

                  Really, it’s like you people think there’s only one deranged and stupid nutter on these threads.

                  1. He outed it definitively. It’s WHihn.

                  2. “Do you see a single bold-face sentence? An ass-rape threat? One solitary sneer? No? Then it’s *not* Hihn!”

                    OK guy who weirdly sounds like Whihn and defends him.

                    (Also, I don’t think Hihn went in for “the libertarian case for forced cake baking and unlimited bennies for criminal immigrants”. He was more about “the libertarian case for forcible disarmament of the citizenry”.)

                    I’ve quoted yo.. Ahem HIM repeatedly in this thread saying otherwise.

                    1. Defending Hihn? I was merely pointing out that there’s more than one idiot here. A point you seem to insist on reinforcing.

                      Also, what’s with the “Whihn” anyway?

                    2. If you don’t want it reinforced, stop posting and reinforcing it.

                      He outed himself. Definitively. There is no their side of it. Be an idiot again and Screech otherwise.

                      “Also, what’s with the “Whihn” anyway?”

                      Are we doing passive agrdesice accusations of idiocy, or questions? Is that normal for you, to passive aggressively be a douche to people because you’re ignorant of the backsrory, and THEN ask about the backstory?

                      He hates having his name mispelled. His autistic tendiencies make him freak out when it happens. Try it.

                    3. And to be clear, no I don’t think you’re WHihn. But I have posted the proof that he outed himself repeatedly, as have others. It’s Whihn.

                    4. Passive-aggressive? Do you see my handle? I don’t do passive-aggressive. I asked because I had no idea why you were spelling his name that way. I’ll have to try it out.

                      Also, calling me an idiot because I wasn’t aware that SQRLSY One claimed to be Hihn is rather…idiotic. I don’t tend read these boards on a daily basis, and I definitely try to skip over anything that turd writes.

                    5. “Passive-aggressive? Do you see my handle? I don’t do passive-aggressive.”

                      Oreally?

                      “A point you seem to insist on reinforcing.”

                      Yeah, you totally do passive aggressive. Right there in fact.

                      “Also, calling me an idiot because I wasn’t aware that SQRLSY One claimed to be Hihn is rather…idiotic”

                      AKSHULLY, I didn’t call you an idiot until AFTER I told you he outed himself. Had you simply ASKED instead of insisting you knew better, you wouldn’t have been called an idiot.

                      Go ahead. Look. My timeline is accurate.

              2. You’re too stupid to read and understand what I write. What I write isn’t all that hard to follow… I am not using $50 words.

                To boot, your ego is SOOOO utterly huge, you have actually become evil! Read this book… M. Scott Peck, “Glimpses of the Devil”, https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonfoundation-20/

                Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist’s Personal Accounts of Possession

                I don’t know if such things work, or not, or who they will or will not work on… Like many things, it may depend on whether or not you believe in it. As far as I can tell, the only thing that YOU believe in, is your own ego! … The power of belief can be astounding! Study up on “placebo effects” some time. And consider getting an exorcism. If you DO get one, be sure to pay your exorcist in full! Else you may get re-possessed!

                1. SQRLSY One
                  September.22.2019 at 10:42 am
                  Nobody ever died for lack of a cake. Laws about non-bigot-driven access to emergency rooms, OK then. Hotels & restaurants, essential for travelling, OK then

                  Gay wedding services? Gimme a break! Carve out an exception to mandating “equal” services for this one; problem solved!

                  https://reason.com/2019/09/22/historic-house-vote-approves-broad-marijuana-federalism/#comment-7939159

                  Fuck off slaver

                  1. You know, you say SOOOO little of ANY substance… Other than, ToolPoopy is a Superior Being, and anyone who pisses off ToolPoopy, is icky-poo… I very rarely know WHAT it is that you believe! I guess I’d better give up… Trying to make sense of utter nonsense is a fool’s errand. You won’t even answer plain and simple questions about, what IS it that you believe. You’re here to strut and preen your imaginary superiority, and nothing else. I do actually pity you. I can’t imagine that you’re living a happy life. I hope that you actually DO get a meaningful life one of these days. But you’re going to have to set a LOT of ego to the side! You COULD do it, if you wanted to, you know…

                    1. SQRLSY One
                      September.22.2019 at 10:42 am
                      Nobody ever died for lack of a cake. Laws about non-bigot-driven access to emergency rooms, OK then. Hotels & restaurants, essential for travelling, OK then

                      Gay wedding services? Gimme a break! Carve out an exception to mandating “equal” services for this one; problem solved!

                      https://reason.com/2019/09/22/historic-house-vote-approves-broad-marijuana-federalism/#comment-7939159

                      Fuck off slaver

        3. Sounds like you finally agree to repeal Section 230.

          “In my libertarian world, you’d ideally be allowed to say these things, AND run your business that way (probably with the sole exception of emergency rooms). You’d just be prohibited from false advertising… Don’t be telling your customers “all humans are welcome here”, and then discriminate against some, on a non-rational basis. “

          1. It’s funny he thinks repeating that he is pro slavery means that he isn’t pro slavery.

    2. He said that specifically about illegals you stupid cocksucker. I know you’re a piece of sit liar, but I’m not unconvinced that you are literally too stupid to understand what we’re talking about.

  5. Since we Koch / Reason libertarians prioritize #ImmigrationAboveAll, we should consider supporting bans on such hateful language. There is a compelling left-libertarian case that hate speech does not deserve First Amendment protection. Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky explains it here.

    #BringBackBerlatsky

  6. Unlawful immigrant seems most accurate.

    1. “Immigrant” implies a wish to stay here permanently. An illegal alien might intend to stay only temporarily.

  7. The correct term is“aliens illegally present in the US”, which is often shortened to “illegal aliens”.

    Stop calling them “undocumented immigrants” to refer to “illegal aliens”. They are not “immigrants” because they don’t have immigration status, and they are not merely lacking documentation for their presence, they are present in violation of US law, i.e. illegally.

    And “undocumented immigrant” is someone who is legally present in the US, has received an immigration visa, but is not carrying documentation (which is, in itself, a violation of immigration law).

    1. They are immigrants. “Immigrant” just means they originated in another country.
      That isn’t what “undocumented” means either.

      1. No, immigrant means they came from another country and intend to stay permanently. An illegal alien is simply any foreigner who is here in violation of the law, regardless of how long they intend to remain.

        1. Fair enough. We don’t call tourists immigrants. I still disagree with NOYB that only legal immigration is actually immigration.

      2. They are immigrants. “Immigrant” just means they originated in another country.

        The term for that is “alien”. Most aliens in the US are not immigrants. I lived for many years as a non-immigrant in the US. What turns an alien into an immigrant is a valid immigration visa (“green card”).

        That isn’t what “undocumented” means either

        “Undocumented immigrant” is a manipulative propaganda term worthy of Pravda. It’s like referring to a bank robbery as an “undocumented withdrawal”.

        People who enter the US illegally are correctly described as “aliens illegally present in the US” or “illegal aliens” for short. The term “undocumented immigrant” is wrong: they are not immigrants, and the lack of documentation isn’t what distinguishes them from other aliens.

        The US used to have plenty of “undocumented immigration” in its early years, but undocumented immigration has been impossible for more than a century now. That is, legally, you simply cannot be both undocumented and an immigrant because immigration requires documentation (about 4 pounds of documentation in my case).

        1. Your insistence on your own definitions doesn’t make them correct. I will accept the correction that immigrants are distinguished from other types of aliens by their intention to stay indefinitely. In which case, most illegal aliens are still immigrants. The insistence that only legal immigration is immigration doesn’t make sense to me, though.

          Whatever it is, it’s fucking stupid to try to criminalize perfectly normal and common accurately descriptive terms.

          1. The insistence that only legal immigration is immigration doesn’t make sense to me, though.

            There are immigrant and non-immigrant visas. It’s in the law. There are separate lines for immigrant visas at many airports. Legally, you’re an immigrant only if you have an immigrant visa.

            Your insistence on your own definitions doesn’t make them correct

            Those are not “my own definition”, they are the definitions used by the US immigration system. Immigrants like myself have to know them or risk their livelihood. For example, if you arrive in the US and tell the officer that you are an “immigrant” but don’t actually have an immigrant visa, you’ll probably be denied entry and banned from entering the US for years to come.

    2. Also, a significant number of them actually can produce “documents”. They may be forged, or obtained via identity theft, but they have them. The are illegal aliens.

      1. And, a denial of asylum or a deportation order are also documents. Illegal aliens who have those are not undocumented.

  8. “use of the term ‘illegal alien,’ among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law.”

    So if it is used to accurately describe an illegal alien, all is well?

    1. So can teh courts no longer use a term that written in legal doctrin

  9. humans are not illegal!!!!11

    unless they use hate speech, vote Republican, don’t use my preferred pronoun, run an Airb&b, use plastic straws….but besides that, and maybe a few other exceptions that will come to me later, all humans should be welcome with open arms as long as they fit certain criteria

    1. Enjoy the wrong intoxicants, bet on the wrong sports, give too much money to a political campaign, sell food without proper documentation…
      I could go on.

    2. Have you lost your mind?

  10. The Commission on Human Rights

    What a delightfully Orwellian designation.

    1. A unit of the Department of Truth?

    2. It is our responsibility to attempt to record for posterity the many incidents of extreme human pain and degradation that are performed daily here on this planet called Fire.
      We ourselves do not participate in such practices, but – We believe the recordation of such incidents will, in time, open a door to a progressive and orderly future, free of such suffering.
      – Do you understand? – No.
      We do not expect you to understand.
      However, we want you to understand the importance of our commission.
      That is why we insist that each claimant answer a few questions, so that we may, in time, better understand the physiognomy of human evil.
      The process is fair and impartial.
      All are treated equally.

  11. How come everytime I see “Human Rights” in an organization’s name, it turns out they’re a bunch of 1984 Fascists.

    1. Can you say Ministries of Truth, Peace, Love and Plenty?

      It is the nature of the beast to hide what it is behind the prettiest mask it can find.

      Consider the name of the American Fascist Party— Democrats

      1. Also, the party of Slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow.

        1. But since they were bad before twitter, you cannot use their past to condemn them today.

          1. It’s almost as if we should judge people on what they do and say now rather than what their predecessors in a political party did in the past.

            1. No, that’s not right either.

            2. They chose to join the same named Party of slavery that their ancestors were members of.

              They didn’t even try to change the name. I wonder why that is?

              Plus, they don’t want us judging them on what they are doing now either, which is why Lefties are fucking jokes.

              1. they don’t want us judging them on what they are doing now either, which is why Lefties are fucking jokes.

                Yes, and why we should be doing exactly that rather than preaching to the choir about what Democrats did many decades ago.

            3. Except for Democrats are trying to push thr Southern Strategy as reality and claiming modern GOP was the real KKK. Pointing out to Democrats how ignorant they are on history is not a bad thing.

              1. I love to ask that Lefties cite 5 Dixiecrats who became Republicans.

                They can’t because it never happened.

                Georgia had 1,877,963 residents vote for Hillary in Election 2016. Most of those are registered Democrats. Hundreds of thousands of those are old Democrats, like age 65+

                Citizen Voting-Age Population: Georgia,
                November 15, 2016

                1. Who is voting Republican, then?

              2. I don’t disagree with you there. This idea that the parties “switched sides” at some point is nonsense too. I’ve seen events where Democrats try to “claim” TR and Lincoln as honorary Democrats.
                They can have TR as far as I’m concerned, but still it’s pretty dumb.

                1. It’s an extension of their need to never be accountable for anything.

            4. We are judging them on what they are doing now: they are embracing ideologies and political parties that have consistently supported dividing people by race, practicing eugenics, and authoritarian control over the economy and social relations. That’s what Democrats and progressives used to be and that’s what they still are.

              1. Then let’s talk about what they are doing now rather than Jim Crow and Slavery.

                1. Dividing people into groups of victims and villains with guilt and grievance narratives?

                  Of course, it’s not entirely about race, sooooo………

                2. Your now/then distinction doesn’t make sense. Progressives and Democrats are pursuing largely the same self-serving objectives they did with Jim Crow and slavery, they have just adjusted their strategies and justifications a little.

  12. Do these people really think this is a good idea? For fuck sakes, the Daniel Pantaleos of the world will be out there enforcing this law.

  13. “use of the term ‘illegal alien,’ among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law.”

    Reality is no longer a valid defense?

    1. How many years have you been off planet?

      1. So maybe cryogenic hibernation is NOT science fiction?

  14. The Commission on Human Rights is likely running afoul of the First Amendment.

    Likely? This is comically anti-1A. Also, “illegal alien” is the term the feds use. It’s in federal law. These people are authoritarian nutjobs.

    1. Welcome to New York.

  15. For the 204,737th time. “1984” was a warning, not an instruction manual.

    1. Nah. It was an instructional Textbook.

    2. I’ve been wondering about Idiocracy, too.

  16. “use of the term ‘illegal alien,’ among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law.”

    Intent, is it?

    “I didn’t mean to demean, humiliate, or harass the wetback, your honor.”

    “Fair enough. In that case, you’re free to go.”

  17. NYC already did this with trannies- subjecting any employer or landlord who uses the (correct) incorrect pronoun to huge fines.

    What will they tackle next…

    1. Soon it will be like in Japan, where people exchange business cards before saying a word to each other, because they need to know the other person’s age and occupation before they know what forms of address to use.

    2. Minors who want to be referred to by a transgender pronoun that is not anatomically correct. Already in place in UK/ Canada…

  18. What’s the fine for calling Bill DeBlasio a “blithering idiot”?

    1. They send Robert De Niro to your apartment in the middle of the night to make your toilet run backwards.

      1. De Niro came to fix the air conditioning. The Central Service workers hooked it up to the sewer line.

        From the Irony 101 syllabus: they shot Tuttle in a no-knock raid in Houston after issuing a false affidavit.

        1. Division Chief: “Fuckin’ Goines, we told you to arrest Buttle!”

    2. Nothing, if you prepend it with “legal”.

  19. New York City’s Commission on Human Rights declared that using the term “illegal alien” pejoratively to describe an undocumented person violates laws designed to protect employees and tenants from discrimination, and could result in fines of up to $250,000.

    Oh, FFS! Let the lawsuits begin!

    1. I just sent an email to various NY City departments using the term “illegal alien” pejoratively.

      I have my fingers crossed that they will try to indict me and try to get Georgia to extradite me to NY.

      Please! Please!

      1. Careful what you ask for. Remember Bloomberg’s adventures in Virginia?

        1. We don’t care for those Northern States like Vermont and South Carolina!
          -Buford T. Calloway

          Haha.

    2. What about the law that requires employers to discriminate based on immigration status? I’m not a big fan of that law either, but it was there first.

  20. Sixth-grade girl recants accusation that white classmates cut her dreadlocks

    SPRINGFIELD, Va. — A northern Virginia girl has recanted her accusation that three classmates grabbed her and cut her dreadlocks on the playground of a northern Virginia private school.

    The Washington Post reports that the girl’s family issued an apology Monday to the boys, the school and the community.

    That story sounded fishy from the start.

    1. I trust she’s being charged with a hate crime, at least.

      1. For cutting her own hair!

    2. We’re not yet at the point white boys can be lynched just on the say-so of a woman of color, but they’re testing the waters on a regular basis.

    3. Something similar happened to my son in middle school. He decided at the last minute he wanted to wear a ghost costume on Halloween, so I cut a hole in a sheet and he stuck his head through it (no masks allowed). Despite the fact that the sheet was off-white and the lack of a hood, cross, or torch, a girl reported that he was dressed in a clan outfit and one of her friends reportedly told her that he had called her a nigger. He was called to the office and grilled by the principal.

      The phone call that I received was an explanation of events along with an apology to my son and myself for what occurred. The principal was unable to determine that the boy was even aware of the pejorative he was accused of using. As far as I know, the other students involved were never disciplined, but we let it go and counted ourselves lucky. If I had ever let him watch Blazing Saddles, which I had seen by the age of 12, he probably would have been expelled.

    4. Haha. Being a victim is so cool that people make stuff up to gain status. Awesome.

      1. Being a bully victim is a thing.

  21. New York has been pissing all over the Second Amendment for decades now; of course they’re going to piss all over the First. I expect them to go after the Fourth and Fifth next.

    1. The Fourth has pretty much been repealed nationwide by the federal courts.

  22. “New York City Declares Using the Term ‘Illegal Alien’ Can Result in a $250,000 Fine. The Commission on Human Rights is likely running afoul of the First Amendment.”

    Kudos to Comrade de Blasio. For too long the masses have been allowed to say what they think without thinking. Now is the time to correct the great unwashed in the ways of political correctness so our beloved betters can further oppress us for our own good. Free speech is not conducive to prudent and time-tested wisdom of socialist thought. One only needs to look at the politically homogenous wonderlands as Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s People’s Republic of China and Castro’s Cuba as paradigms of paradise. There was no such thing as free speech in those enviable societies because freedom only causes confusion, arguments and discord, and it all starts with the nefarious and contemptible concept of free speech.
    Ergo, for the sake of harmony and peace for the ruling elites who take the time and trouble to oppress us, let us discard the antiquated and socially suspicious idea of free speech.

  23. using the term “illegal alien” pejoratively

    What about lovingly?

    1. “Who’s my little illegal alien?”

      1. *blushes*

    2. I haven’t looked for it, but I suppose there is some kind of porn where those sort of terms are used as turn on talk. It certainly wouldn’t come close to the strangest thing I’ve ever seen.

  24. How about if I use the term “shithead” with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass Mayor deBlasio?

  25. “It’s important to note that this guidance does not affect all kinds of speech: The law covers workplace harassment, tenants’ rights, and public accommodation. Merely calling someone an illegal alien on the street, or threatening to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement on them, would not be illegal.”

    We’ll be getting to that in short order
    – Bill deBlasio, Mayor

  26. OK, I’ll just use “illegal”. Will I get fined only half as much? Those Liberal Socialist can’t stand free speech, eh?! Fuk NYC & CA. !

  27. “Sting” Hardest hit

  28. “Illegal Alien”
    – says me

  29. While I agree the law is completely off the reservation, at least get the story correct. You can be fined $250 for using term illegal alien. The $250,000 fine is for REPORTING an illegal alien to ICE. So not only are they overriding the 1st amendment, they are making assisting law enforcement illegal. The irony is these are peers of the same Federal, State and local olice they think are going to enforce their “assault weapon ban” if they are ever successful. Democrats: Lets hate and demonize cops until we need them to be our jackbooted stormtroopers!!!! They are all such idiots

    1. This is reminiscent of when NY Governor “Whiskey Al” Smith signed the law repealing New York’s ban on beer and “hard” stuff like The Demon Rum. It got him the nomination for president in 1928. The habit of exporting prohibitionist pseudoscience and coercion instead of laissez-faire toleration is wrecking neighboring economies more reliably than even aerial bombardment could accomplish.

  30. Hey call em unlegal or nonlegal Cant fine ya for saying illegal

  31. Well, I declare that pursuant to the first amendment, DeBlabbermouth and the entirety of the bureaucracy of New York City can go fuck themselves sideways with full-grown Saguaro cacti.

    My freedom of speech isn’t negotiable.

    -jcr

  32. Silver lining alert! Shikha could run for office in New York and, by the looks of it, get elected on the strength of past writings. This is an excellent opportunity to get someone sympathetic to many libertarian positions into a salaried decisionmaking position where there is good to be done near the border with Canada.

  33. Is the song ‘Illegal Alien’ by Genesis banned now?

  34. It’s worth noting this Wop-Kraut shitstain was running TO BE PRESIDENT and what does he do? Directly attacks and assaults free speech as Mayor. Imagine if he became President the crap this socialist deadbeat would try and pull in the name of Gaia-Wokeness.

    Never mind the city is mandating retrofitting buildings which can easily become problematic.

    Keep up the Marxist-Leninist dream Comrade Fuckhead!

    So. Are conservatives who attack this measure ‘snowflakes’?

    1. Yes, because most of them are proud of their noble Republican history of banning private discrimination, which is arguably very comparable to restricting “discriminatory” speech.

  35. In other news:
    Michael Bloomberg announces: The Chinese are not Dictators!
    then…a protestor shot in Hong Kong
    then…Wall Street Democrats announce that if Warren gets the nomination they will sit out the election or vote for Trump, dammit.

    Global Cronyism trumps TDS virtue signaling!

  36. The libs can wipe out a legitimate business model because you personally don’t like it, declare the NRA a terrorist organization, accuse a gay Asian journalist and a SC judge of crimes based on nothing and fine people 250 grand for using a term used by the federal government, but hey look, Donald Trump!

    1. Exactly.
      Makes the Donald seem to be a calm and reasonable politician with a comprehensive and effective plan.

  37. I was happily reading this article thinking of the alarmingly authoritarian code of cities like New York and enjoying myself as I remembered that I live in rural Virginia and not New York until I came across this line: “…it may very well be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.”

    Can some one please tell me what the first amendment had to do with a random city law? Before lecturing me on the values of free speech (which I uncompromisingly defend), perhaps you should take the time to read the actual first amendment. The first word is “Congress.” That’s right, the federal congress of the United States government.

    So, where does the first amendment address state and local free speech, you ask. The answer may surprise you; it may cause much discomfort and induce disbelieving shock, but nonetheless, the fact of the matter is this.

    The First Amendment does not protect free speech on a state and local level.

    This is why state constitutions and governments actually do matter. This is why we should care about what state we choose to live in. As for myself, the Virginia state constitution Bill of Rights does indeed protect speech, and it is the job of the Virginia Supreme Court to make sure the Virginia government doesn’t forget it. Here it is.

    “That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.”

  38. Wow, so ya mean there is even yet another reason to not do any kind of business whatsoever in the big apple?

    guess why people are moving outta that S—hole as fast as they can.

  39. This has little to do with political correctness. It has everything to do with the hunt for taxes…in this case fines, but money still the same. Socialist NYC has a big problem being underfunded in the pensions-we-need-to-pay promise area and like other entities is ramping up the hunt for money using any silly, stupid and outlandish method the Marxists can dream up. This won’t be the end of the insanity.

  40. This has little to do with political correctness. It has everything to do with the hunt for taxes…in this case fines, but money still the same. Socialist NYC has a big problem being underfunded in the pensions-we-need-to-pay promises area and like other entities is ramping up the hunt for money using any silly, stupid and outlandish method the Marxists can dream up. This won’t be the end of the insanity.

  41. is it still okay to call border jumping canadians “frostbacks”?
    what about pilipinos? can we use buk buk?

    but really folks it is greatly pleasing that NY has solved all the other problems they face and have gotten to abridging free speech and outlawing terms that are found in legislation. arrogant blowhards

  42. such a law is the use of public offices and processes to create the pretense of valid public operations for the purpose masking the government employees who are now aiding and abetting and protecting illegal aliens in their illegal alien criminal – felony illegal alien enterprises : undertakings.

    As I recall, he RICO statutes of the state and federal governments stipulate that when you aid and abet a criminal enterprise you become a criminal in the illegal aliens conspiracy : with your current band of illegal alien Hench Women.

    This is simulation of legal processes specifically to abet criminal activities.

  43. Don’t all those millennials and younger persons who favor socialism even see what this means for their desired socialist future?

Please to post comments