# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  Berkeley Bans Use Of Illegal Immigrant

## St James

*Berkeley Bans Use Of Illegal Immigrant*November 11, 2013 by Ben Bullard 


The student government at the University of California at Berkeley student government has banned the term illegal immigrant, citing its implicit racism and negative cultural  associations.
Considered one of the Nations top public universities, a place of free intellectual discourse where boundless freedom exists for ideas to flourish or die on their own merits, Berkeleys student government nonetheless will not officially countenance use of the I-word in academic writing or in communications between faculty, students and staff.
The university is the second California school to ban illegal immigrant this year; the University of California at Los Angeles student government passed a similar resolution over the summer.
Berkeleys student government voted 18-0 to ban the term, with one student senator abstaining because he felt the resolution was toothless and unenforceable, and that supporters of the measure on campus had not afforded its opponents the respect they themselves were demanding.
According to _The College Fix_, which obtained minutes of the SGA meeting, the resolution stated the word illegal is racially charged, dehumanizes people, and contributes to punitive and discriminatory actions aimed primarily at immigrants and communities of color. The I word is legally inaccurate since being out of status is a civil rather than criminal infraction, the resolution also states.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/11/1...gal-immigrant/

this is a lib wetdream come true..............re-defining what free speech is...........and how it is "properly" used. and redefining what the law is..civil instead of criminal........bahhhhhhhhhh fuck a bunch of Liberals

----------


## indago

> *Berkeley Bans Use Of ‘Illegal Immigrant’*


Back to ​Illegal Alien

----------


## Calypso Jones

make that Damned Illegal aliens.

----------


## The XL

Lulz at Berkeley.

----------


## Brewski

> this is a lib wetdream come true..............re-defining what free speech is...........and how it is "properly" used. and redefining what the law is..civil instead of criminal........bahhhhhhhhhh fuck a bunch of Liberals


Libertarians would support this as well.  Maybe not the actual banning of the words "illegal immigrant", but they would believe that the Government has no right or authority to set up a border demarcating territory and preventing people from freely crossing that border.   They would believe that the illegals have just as much right to live and work here as anyone else.  They share in this progressive goal, but their approach is different.

----------


## St James

> Lulz at Berkeley.


yeah, a model liberal wet dream located in Pelosiland

----------


## fyrenza

hmmm ...  I thought that Hispanics were considered *white*, so how could it be _racist_? ...

----------


## fyrenza

Oh, yeah!  _THAT's_ right!  Because they, themselves, are RACIST against white folks!





is it obvious that i don't have an _intellectual_ Cali college education?

----------


## Coolwalker

Berkley is a pile of shit dispensing shit to shitheads.

----------


## KSigMason

Fine, let's just call them what they are: criminals.

----------

Perianne (11-11-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> *Berkeley Bans Use Of ‘Illegal Immigrant’*
> 
> November 11, 2013 by Ben Bullard 
> 
> 
> The student government at the University of California at Berkeley student government has banned the term “illegal immigrant,” citing its implicit racism and negative cultural  associations.
> Considered one of the Nation’s top public universities, a place of free intellectual discourse where boundless freedom exists for ideas to flourish or die on their own merits, Berkeley’s student government nonetheless will not officially countenance use of “the I-word” in academic writing or in communications between faculty, students and staff.
> The university is the second California school to ban “illegal immigrant” this year; the University of California at Los Angeles student government passed a similar resolution over the summer.
> Berkeley’s student government voted 18-0 to ban the term, with one student senator abstaining because he felt the resolution was toothless and unenforceable, and that supporters of the measure on campus had not afforded its opponents the respect they themselves were demanding.
> ...


Perhaps you should become acquainted with the law. "Illegal presence" is a civil infraction and a deportable offense. It is the entry, into the United States, without proper paperwork that violates  Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code. They must be caught in the act, or confess to it, to make that a prosecutable offense. Remaining in the country is not a repeated or current violation of Title 8. Those who enter legally, such as with a visa, and then remain after it expires have not committed a criminal act.

To call them "criminal aliens" as many conservatives are wont to do is a redefinition of speech. As is calling immigration an "invasion." I guess it's wrong for liberals to redefine speech, but when conservatives do it, it's a valid intellectual exercise?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Libertarians would support this as well.  Maybe not the actual banning of the words "illegal immigrant", but they would believe that the Government has no right or authority to set up a border demarcating territory and preventing people from freely crossing that border.   They would believe that the illegals have just as much right to live and work here as anyone else.  They share in this progressive goal, but their approach is different.


It's not that they have "as much right", it's that no one has the right to interfere in the movement, labor, or other actions of peaceful people, and that includes the issuance of permissions slips, or the de facto permission slip of citizenship, by government for such activities.

Libertarians would not give them benefits, however. While I would eliminate all government redistribution schemes, I am not opposed to limiting those schemes to citizens only.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Fine, let's just call them what they are: criminals.


Except that they aren't.

----------


## Calypso Jones

They are.  They broke the law entering this country.  If you did that in Mexico you'd be jailed.  at the very least.

----------


## Coolwalker

Twist illegal any way you wish but it still comes out illegal in the end...unless of course you live on The Left Coast, then it means _compadre,_ or _comrade_.

----------


## Dan40

> *Berkeley Bans Use Of Illegal Immigrant*
> 
> November 11, 2013 by Ben Bullard 
> 
> 
> The student government at the University of California at Berkeley student government has banned the term illegal immigrant, citing its implicit racism and negative cultural  associations.
> _Considered one of the Nations top public universities, a place of free intellectual discourse where boundless freedom exists for ideas to flourish or die on their own merits,_ Berkeleys student government nonetheless will not officially countenance use of the I-word in academic writing or in communications between faculty, students and staff.
> The university is the second California school to ban illegal immigrant this year; the University of California at Los Angeles student government passed a similar resolution over the summer.
> Berkeleys student government voted 18-0 to ban the term, with one student senator abstaining because he felt the resolution was toothless and unenforceable, and that supporters of the measure on campus had not afforded its opponents the respect they themselves were demanding.
> ...


Interesting that in Loony Liberal Land, "_Considered one of the Nations  top public universities, a place of free intellectual discourse where  boundless freedom exists for ideas to flourish or die on their own  merits",_ equals, *CENSORSHIP!* 

If Illegal Immigrants is no good, how about 'Fucking Illegal Immigrant Criminals?'  Just for the sake of accuracy.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> They are.  They broke the law entering this country.  If you did that in Mexico you'd be jailed.  at the very least.


If you drive you car 20 mph over the speed limit, in many jurisdictions that it s a criminal misdemeanor. Should those people who did that be called "criminal drivers" long after they slowed down?

The only criminal offense is crossing the border, and not everyone in the country illegally has done that. Many overstay their visa.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> If Illegal Immigrants is no good, how about 'Fucking Illegal Immigrant Criminals?'  Just for the sake of accuracy.


Except that it would be inaccurate, as they are not criminals. It is not a violation of any criminal code to be in the country illegally.  It is a civil violation.

----------


## RMNIXON

If I get this correct you are not a criminal for crossing the border illegally (or overstaying a visa) unless you get caught doing it.

At the same time being able to identify someone as an "illegal immigrant" is identifying the person for that very act. But we can't do that either.

In short, we already have a good notion who you are. But better keep our mouth shut!

12 to 20 Million people can't be wrong?  :Geez:

----------


## RMNIXON

As for the racism charge that is nonsense. 

If The United States had a major border with a poor Asian, African, or White European country, mass illegal border crossing would be the very same issue. National Sovereignty is rationally excepted all over the globe without much PC hysteria.

----------


## Dan40

> Except that it would be inaccurate, as they are not criminals. It is not a violation of any criminal code to be in the country illegally.  It is a civil violation.


8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien 



(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense,_ be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both,_ and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense,_ be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both._

----------


## fyrenza

> Perhaps you should become acquainted with the law. "Illegal presence" is a civil infraction and a deportable offense. It is the entry, into the United States, without proper paperwork that violates  Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code. They must be caught in the act, or confess to it, to make that a prosecutable offense. Remaining in the country is not a repeated or current violation of Title 8. Those who enter legally, such as with a visa, and then remain after it expires have not committed a criminal act.
> 
> 
> To call them "criminal aliens" as many conservatives are wont to do is a redefinition of speech. As is calling immigration an "invasion." I guess it's wrong for liberals to redefine speech, but when conservatives do it, it's a valid intellectual exercise?


I'll tell you what, @BleedingHeadKen ~

how's about let's do a little experiment :

We'll send YOU to some foreign country, let your visa run out,

and see if THEY think it's a "criminal offense," perpetrated by an ILLEGAL ALIEN.

STFU about "redefining" words/phrases, because it's YOU that is doing it.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien 
> 
> 
> 
> (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense,_ be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both,_ and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense,_ be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both._


As was discussed earlier, what you are treating two different issues as if they were one and the same.

At the time of entry, *IF* they violated that rule, they would have committed an act defined as a crime. However, that is not what makes them "illegal aliens" any more than reckless driving makes a person an "illegal driver" after they've stopped recklessly driving. 

"Illegal aliens" constitutes a class of people larger than just those who crossed a border illegally. What makes them illegal aliens is their continued "unlawful presence" under Title 8 of the USCIS, and that may come about even if they never violated section 1325. Continued "Unlawful Presence" in the United States is a civil violation, not criminal. An illegal alien is not a criminal, and may not have even committed a statutory crime before becoming an illegal alien.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I'll tell you what, @BleedingHeadKen ~
> 
> how's about let's do a little experiment :
> 
> We'll send YOU to some foreign country, let your visa run out,
> 
> and see if THEY think it's a "criminal offense," perpetrated by an ILLEGAL ALIEN.
> 
> STFU about "redefining" words/phrases, because it's YOU that is doing it.


Been there, done that. Not only did they not care, they welcomed me back several times. Most countries I've been to treat visa violations as little cause for concern, unless they see a reason to throw a person out.  Only authoritarian nations, like Russia, China, the US and probably North Korea care a great deal about the expiration of a government permission slip.

As for your emotional outburst, I am simply stating the facts. If you believe facts are to be ignored, you are welcome to continue to live your xenophobic fantasy world. However, US LAW does not make it a CRIME to be in the United States unlawfully. It is ONLY a CIVIL violation. If you don't like that FACT go complain to your congressidiot and demand that he/she change it from a CIVIL code to a CRIMINAL statute.

I don't know why conservatives complain about liberals changing facts and words to suit their agenda. Yours is a PERFECT example of how conservatives do exactly the same thing, and then get in a HISSY FIT when presented with the fact and then ATTACK the messenger.

As an off side, how do you decide which words to capitalize? I was just doing it randomly. Yours seemed random, but is there a pattern you follow? Maybe a rulebook somewhere on which words to put in all CAPS to underline your unhappiness with reality and to EXPRESS the hope that BIG words will chase away those undesirable facts?

----------


## fyrenza

*THIS*!!!

HOW could you think that entering a country without permission, or staying there,

does NOT constitute a CRIMINAL OFFENSE?!?

Cripes.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> *THIS*!!!
> 
> HOW could you think that entering a country without permission, or staying there,
> 
> does NOT constitute a CRIMINAL OFFENSE?!?
> 
> Cripes.


It's not about thinking, it's about fact. "Staying there" is not defined as a crime and does not carry criminal penalties.

----------


## fyrenza

How would you feel if someone just moved themselves into your house?

Hey!  You weren't really USING that room, so wtf would you want a squatter, who was just "looking for a better life," to be ousted?

Would you call the police about it?
Would you consider it an INVASION of YOUR space?
Would you resent it, if you were FORCED to allow them to stay?

----------


## Perianne

> The student government at the University of California at Berkeley  student government has banned the term “illegal immigrant,” citing its  implicit racism and negative cultural  associations.


Can we still use the term "wetback"?

----------


## fyrenza

*THIS* "house" belongs to us/US ~

WE pay for it, and keep it in good repair,
and we don't need any squatters with NO INVESTMENT nor responsibility
to come in and fucking WRECK it.

----------


## fyrenza

> Can we still use the term "wetback"?


*WE* damned sure can!  lol

----------

Perianne (11-11-2013)

----------


## fyrenza

How do you feel about "Beaner?"  rofl

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> How would you feel if someone just moved themselves into your house?
> 
> Hey!  You weren't really USING that room, so wtf would you want a squatter, who was just "looking for a better life," to be ousted?
> 
> Would you call the police about it?
> Would you consider it an INVASION of YOUR space?
> Would you resent it, if you were FORCED to allow them to stay?


How would you feel if you wanted to invite dinner guests to your home, and the government tells you that some of the guests are not allowed? That's what you propose. You don't care about private property, I do.

We aren't talking about homes here, yet you seem to believe that my home , and everything around it is your home and you can tell me who I can have in it, who I can hire for labor, and with whom I may otherwise associate.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> *THIS* "house" belongs to us/US ~


Spoken like a true socialist. Well, now at least we know where you are coming from.

----------


## fyrenza

> How would you feel if you wanted to invite dinner guests to your home, and the government tells you that some of the guests are not allowed? That's what you propose. You don't care about private property, I do.
> 
> We aren't talking about homes here, yet you seem to believe that my home , and everything around it is your home and you can tell me who I can have in it, who I can hire for labor, and with whom I may otherwise associate.


FIRST LINE ~ Bull shit.

These AREN'T folks that ANYONE "invited," pal ~

they BROKE IN, and now, refuse to leave, 
and cry and whine about how MEAN we are
to want to have what WE bought and paid for and are responsible for keeping up;
it should just be GIVEN to them.

NO.

THEY can earn it, just as easily as I,

so LET THEM.

----------


## Roadmaster

They broke the law and Berkley can't take away freedom of speech unless they allow it.

----------


## fyrenza

> Spoken like a true socialist. Well, now at least we know where you are coming from.


Are you SO miscombuberated that you can't tell a socialist from a libertarian???

Go and move your mouth to the Low Info folks ~

I'm SURE you'll look like some sort of _genius_.

----------


## Roadmaster

> How would you feel if you wanted to invite dinner guests to your home, and the government tells you that some of the guests are not allowed? That's what you propose. You don't care about private property, I do.
> 
> We aren't talking about homes here, yet you seem to believe that my home , and everything around it is your home and you can tell me who I can have in it, who I can hire for labor, and with whom I may otherwise associate.


How would you feel if you had a reservation for many years and studied English only to be turned down because many broke the law and stepped in front of you. That's what they are doing to many that want to be a American. Many of these don't care for our laws and don't respect the land.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Are you SO miscombuberated that you can't tell a socialist from a libertarian???




A libertarian who uses socialist/nationalist language about how the country is "our house" and believes that the peaceful movement, presence, or labor of others constitutes aggression and is therefore a crime?

Yeah, that's not libertarian. Not by a long shot. Even the chickenhawk libertarians that I know wouldn't use language like that.

----------


## fyrenza

Haven't been to a decent college?  It shows.

It was an ANALOGY, pal.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy

Of course, when you can just Make Up the definitions of words ...

p.s.  Welcome to Ignore, for I refuse to "Feed The Trolls."

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> How would you feel if you had a reservation for many years and studied English only to be turned down because many broke the law and stepped in front of you. That's what they are doing to many that want to be a American. Many of these don't care for our laws and don't respect the land.


I would say that two wrongs do not make a right. Demanding that government punish a class of people because some of those people are given privileges by that same government is wanting to use a wrong to correct a wrong in the hopes of making it right.

Also, we are talking about immigration here, not naturalization. There is a difference.Since the Constitution gives authority to the government to determine naturalization rules, I really have nothing to say on the subject other than that they should be fair. If someone wants to work here, or visit friends or family, or stay and enjoy his/her property for years, that is not your business nor mine.  Becoming a citizen should be difficult.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Haven't been to a decent college?  It shows.
> 
> It was an ANALOGY, pal.
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy
> 
> Of course, when you can just Make Up the definitions of words ...
> 
> p.s.  Welcome to Ignore, for I refuse to "Feed The Trolls."


Yes, I understand that it's an analogy. However, your analogy implies that my property and your property is a common good, rather than under the sovereign ownership of each of us. 

I'm sorry you cannot handle truth and I accept your surrender. I'll still respond to your utterly ridiculous pronouncements.

----------


## fyrenza

"Ignore" means that I won't ever have to see your drivel, unless someone chooses to quote you,

but odds of that happening are pretty slim, AND I can scroll pretty fast, despite my advanced years.

----------


## Roadmaster

> If someone wants to work here, or visit friends or family, or stay and enjoy his/her property for years, that is not your business nor mine.  Becoming a citizen should be difficult.


 That's where you are wrong. We have laws now that require you to learn English and become a citizen the correct way. It's not like a long time ago and our laws should be respected and there is no excuse for this. Many people come here the correct way from different countries.

----------


## fyrenza

Oh, wow, man!  Don't have a freakin' STROKE!

(just noticed that you'd responded TWICE, in the time it took me to post.
I won't "feed" you, anymore,
so attacking me, or trying to <cough!> debate with me is MOOT, at this point.)

Go find someone that will throw you some crumbs, in the way of responses,

'cuz Stick A Fork In Me ~ I'm DONE.

Later daze.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> That's where you are wrong. We have laws now that require you to learn English and become a citizen the correct way.


Again, there is a difference between naturalization, which is becoming a citizen, and immigration. A person can immigrate and work and travel and etc. and never become a citizen. I have no issue with making naturalization a difficut process that rewards the very best and is not given out easily.

Are you having trouble making the distinction?




> It's not like a long time ago and our laws should be respected and there is no excuse for this.


You asked me how I feel about it, not what the law is. It's like asking me how I feel about marijuana, and then when I say it's not a problem by me, reminding me that government makes possession of it a crime.

Why should laws be respected when they are not respectable?  Laws that prevent or restrict the travel of peaceful people disrespect the natural rights of citizens and all other human beings. Therefore, you ask me to respect something that anti-rights.  Should I also have respect Jim Crow laws? How about laws that protected human "property" from being transported away from their owners?

----------


## Roadmaster

You are giving them reason to break the laws. Do you really think it will end if we give them amnesty. It didn't work with Reagan and it won't work now. We have yet to build a wall and won't build one also the job market is bad. How can you say you like Americans and give away jobs to people who are not. We can't support other countries.

----------


## Roadmaster

Isn't it funny that we can build a wall border in other countries, defend it and spend 10X the cost we spend on our own. Bring it up here and they say we don't have the money. It's going to pass and never had plans for it not to.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Isn't it funny that we can build a wall border in other countries, defend it and spend 10X the cost we spend on our own. Bring it up here and they say we don't have the money. It's going to pass and never had plans for it not to.




  This is about the fifth walk. Most blacks are not bi-lingual and feel the democratic party is selling them out. These will get government loans the black people can't get and won't hire them and have already pushed them out of their some  own neighborhoods. It is dividing and causing killings.

----------


## fyrenza

Sorry, but NOT.

Hispanic is considered _WHITE_ for any sort of preferential treatment;

THAT is what the change on the 2010 census was all about.

----------


## indago

*From the Federation for American Immigration Reform:*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illegal Immigration is a Crime — Each year the Border Patrol apprehends hundreds of thousands of aliens who flagrantly violate our nation's laws by unlawfully crossing U.S. borders. Such illegal entry is a misdemeanor, and, if repeated after being deported, becomes punishable as a felony.  ...Apologists for illegal immigration try to paint it as a victimless crime, but the fact is that illegal immigration causes substantial harm to American citizens and legal immigrants...  ...While most illegal immigrants may come only to seek work and a better economic opportunity, their presence outside the law furnishes an opportunity for terrorists to blend into the same shadows while they target the American public for their terrorist crimes. Some people advocate giving illegal aliens legal status to bring them out of the shadows, but, if we accommodate illegal immigration by offering legal status, this will be seen abroad as a message that we condone illegal immigration, and we will forever be faced with the problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


article


*ALIEN:*  belonging to a foreign country or nation; a foreigner, esp. one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living : an illegal alien.


*ILLEGAL:*  contrary to or forbidden by law, esp. criminal law; an illegal immigrant.

----------

St James (11-12-2013)

----------


## Dan40

> As was discussed earlier, what you are treating two different issues as if they were one and the same.
> 
> At the time of entry, *IF* they violated that rule, they would have committed an act defined as a crime. However, that is not what makes them "illegal aliens" any more than reckless driving makes a person an "illegal driver" after they've stopped recklessly driving. 
> 
> "Illegal aliens" constitutes a class of people larger than just those who crossed a border illegally. What makes them illegal aliens is their continued "unlawful presence" under Title 8 of the USCIS, and that may come about even if they never violated section 1325. Continued "Unlawful Presence" in the United States is a civil violation, not criminal. An illegal alien is not a criminal, and may not have even committed a statutory crime before becoming an illegal alien.




_ be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both,_ and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, _be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both._ 

Close enough for me.

Read the rest of the law and overstaying is also treated in a similar manner.

----------

St James (11-12-2013)

----------


## St James

> *From the Federation for American Immigration Reform:*
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Illegal Immigration is a Crime  Each year the Border Patrol apprehends hundreds of thousands of aliens who flagrantly violate our nation's laws by unlawfully crossing U.S. borders. Such illegal entry is a misdemeanor, and, if repeated after being deported, becomes punishable as a felony.  ...Apologists for illegal immigration try to paint it as a victimless crime, but the fact is that illegal immigration causes substantial harm to American citizens and legal immigrants...  ...While most illegal immigrants may come only to seek work and a better economic opportunity, their presence outside the law furnishes an opportunity for terrorists to blend into the same shadows while they target the American public for their terrorist crimes. Some people advocate giving illegal aliens legal status to bring them out of the shadows, but, if we accommodate illegal immigration by offering legal status, this will be seen abroad as a message that we condone illegal immigration, and we will forever be faced with the problem.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> article
> 
> 
> ...


open the doors to everyone.............yep, that's a mighty fine ideir. Like you pointed out, ya let one in, ya got to let 'em all in

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> Perhaps you should become acquainted with the law. "Illegal presence" is a civil infraction and a deportable offense. It is the entry, into the United States, without proper paperwork that violates  Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code. They must be caught in the act, or confess to it, to make that a prosecutable offense. Remaining in the country is not a repeated or current violation of Title 8. Those who enter legally, such as with a visa, and then remain after it expires have not committed a criminal act.
> 
> To call them "criminal aliens" as many conservatives are wont to do is a redefinition of speech. As is calling immigration an "invasion." I guess it's wrong for liberals to redefine speech, but when conservatives do it, it's a valid intellectual exercise?





The rule of law is the law of the rulers.   This is not self-government by the many, this is government for the selfish few.  Our self-appointed ruling class of thieves and traitors must be dispossessed and deported.   This invasion serves their designs:  cheap submissive labor, harassment and humiliation of the majority, and fulfilling business contracts with nations they betray us to.

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

(Look below if you want something to look up to)

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> Except that it would be inaccurate, as they are not criminals. It is not a violation of any criminal code to be in the country illegally.  It is a civil violation.


I also prefer not to use the word "criminals."   I prefer to use the word "targets."  Criminal have rights, invaders don't.

----------


## patrickt

My god, if Berkeley has banned the use of illegal immigrants what are the liberals going to do. Who will garden, clean, cook, and raise their kids. This is a crisis.

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> How would you feel if someone just moved themselves into your house?
> 
> Hey!  You weren't really USING that room, so wtf would you want a squatter, who was just "looking for a better life," to be ousted?
> 
> Would you call the police about it?
> Would you consider it an INVASION of YOUR space?
> Would you resent it, if you were FORCED to allow them to stay?


Worse than that, it's someone who's already burned his own house down and now wants to stay uninvited at yours.  In order not to offend him, you also have to honor his cultural identity by letting him play with matches.

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> You are giving them reason to break the laws. Do you really think it will end if we give them amnesty. It didn't work with Reagan and it won't work now. We have yet to build a wall and won't build one also the job market is bad. How can you say you like Americans and give away jobs to people who are not. We can't support other countries.


Confiscate the property of any business that hires them and sell it to anyone who thinks he can earn money without betraying his country.   I'd even give citizenship to any illegal who participated in the sting.

----------


## Dan40

> My god, if Berkeley has banned the use of illegal immigrants what are the liberals going to do. Who will garden, clean, cook, and raise their kids. This is a crisis.


They will pay undocumented, non-citizen workers, LESS than those now extinct illegal immigrants.

----------


## teeceetx

> My god, if Berkeley has banned the use of illegal immigrants what are the liberals going to do. Who will garden, clean, cook, and raise their kids. This is a crisis.


Bizerkeley is no stranger to servants.  The area is VERY wealthy, and sadly all of them are radical liberals, and yes, they do have illegal aliens as "employees".  But they see themselves as better than the average person, and they would likely argue they pay their servants well.  They are rank hypocrites.

----------


## patrickt

> They are.  They broke the law entering this country.  If you did that in Mexico you'd be jailed.  at the very least.


Not true, at the very least. Normally you're ignored, as they are in the U.S. If you're a nuisance you get deported. Minor criminals get deported and serious criminals, such as pedophiles, get deported after prison.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> _ be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both,_ and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, _be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both._ 
> 
> Close enough for me.
> 
> Read the rest of the law and overstaying is also treated in a similar manner.


If you aren't caught crossing the border, you aren't guilty of a crime. Unlawful presence is a civil violation. It may be "close enough" for you, but the truth is, it's not a crime to be an immigrant in this country while lacking documentation, and to call those people criminals is wrong. 

What I know from threads like this is that conservatives a) care very little for the truth and eat up rhetoric as unabashedly as any liberal and b) think that presumption of innocence is hogwash, especially if the person is brown.

----------


## Dan40

> Yes, I understand that it's an analogy. However, your analogy implies that my property and your property is a common good, rather than under the sovereign ownership of each of us. 
> 
> I'm sorry you cannot handle truth and I accept your surrender. I'll still respond to your utterly ridiculous pronouncements.


Today, you believe in personal property rights?

Another day you did not believe in personal property rights.

----------

