So ... Are they hot?

strathcona: So ... Are they hot?

It's kind of hard to tell when you can only see their eyes.

i realize it's just a word, but when i hear illegal used as a noun, it makes me feel icky -- like it's a new n-word.

They never thought to deport Osama himself. And to those who say they didn't know he was there....I've got a bridge to sell you.

So they gave them a free ride home so they could be with their family?

Now that OBL isn't forking over truckloads of US $100 bills why would they let the family stay?

FlashHarry: i realize it's just a word, but when i hear illegal used as a noun, it makes me feel icky -- like it's a new n-word.

Oh, it's super icky. Using a noun to describe someone, in general, seems to invite wrongheadedness. Though maybe I'd make an exception for professions.

Pakistan, after being coddled by Republican leaders in the USA, finally sees the light.

Three widows?! See, I told you chicks dig assholes.

FlashHarry: i realize it's just a word, but when i hear illegal used as a noun, it makes me feel icky -- like it's a new n-word.

Now you're getting it.

hillbillypharmacist: FlashHarry: i realize it's just a word, but when i hear illegal used as a noun, it makes me feel icky -- like it's a new n-word.

Oh, it's super icky. Using a noun to describe someone, in general, seems to invite wrongheadedness. Though maybe I'd make an exception for professions.

what? seriously? if i recall, a noun is a specific person, place or thing. but we can't use nouns to refer to people without being politically incorrect?

i guess we can't even be american anymore.

philthpig: hillbillypharmacist: FlashHarry: i realize it's just a word, but when i hear illegal used as a noun, it makes me feel icky -- like it's a new n-word.

Oh, it's super icky. Using a noun to describe someone, in general, seems to invite wrongheadedness. Though maybe I'd make an exception for professions.

what? seriously? if i recall, a noun is a specific person, place or thing. but we can't use nouns to refer to people without being politically incorrect?

i guess we can't even be american anymore.

Put a capital "A" on that proper noun, soldier.

just to clarify, so this doesn't turn into a PC flame fast, i'll explain proper application of the word illegal, as i see it:

in the context above, illegal is short hand for illegal immigrant. the word illegal here is an adjective, describing their legal status for residence.

to properly apply illegal to a person, ask a simple question:
are they residing in their present location legally?

if yes, you cannot call them an illegal immigrant

if no, you can call them an illegal immigrant, or if you're being lazy, an illegal.

philthpig: but we can't use nouns to refer to people without being politically incorrect?

i guess we can't even be american anymore.

Did you mean a 'murrican? 'Cos what you used was what the grammar nazis call an adjective.

philthpig: if no, you can call them an illegal immigrant, or if you're being lazy, an illegal.

The point is that, in removing "immigrant", you're removing some of the humanity of the term. I don't think that people do it intentionally, but I'm still not entirely comfortable with it. When an article uses the term repeatedly, it always comes across as dismissive at best and hateful at worst.

I'm not going to make a big stink about it if others do it, but you won't catch me using the term "illegals" to describe them.

thurstonxhowell: philthpig: if no, you can call them an illegal immigrant, or if you're being lazy, an illegal.

The point is that, in removing "immigrant", you're removing some of the humanity of the term. I don't think that people do it intentionally, but I'm still not entirely comfortable with it. When an article uses the term repeatedly, it always comes across as dismissive at best and hateful at worst.

I'm not going to make a big stink about it if others do it, but you won't catch me using the term "illegals" to describe them.

In the medical community, they've done a pretty good job of institutionalizing not referring to patients by their infirmities - there are no "diabetics", "schizophrenics", or "amnesiacs" anymore, they're "people with..." or "sufferers of..." or "those affected with..."

We, as a culture, have also (Donald Trump notwithstanding) moved away from using the construction "a black" to refer to a black person. Seems like mutable characteristics, or those we choose (like nationality, religion, and profession) are OK to use as reference points, but not immutable ones (like a disease or racial classification).

Send them to America - we will feed, clothe and get them the best darn education our taxpayers dollars can afford....and maybe one day, with Allah's blessings, they too can be President of the USA.

karnal: Send them to America - we will feed, clothe and get them the best darn education our taxpayers dollars can afford....and maybe one day, with Allah's blessings, they too can be President of the USA.

they're probably almost socially conservative enough to be republicans, too.

karnal: Send them to America - we will feed, clothe and get them the best darn education our taxpayers dollars can afford....and maybe one day, with Allah's blessings, they too can be President of the USA.

HUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRR

thurstonxhowell: philthpig: if no, you can call them an illegal immigrant, or if you're being lazy, an illegal.

The point is that, in removing "immigrant", you're removing some of the humanity of the term. I don't think that people do it intentionally, but I'm still not entirely comfortable with it. When an article uses the term repeatedly, it always comes across as dismissive at best and hateful at worst.

I'm not going to make a big stink about it if others do it, but you won't catch me using the term "illegals" to describe them.

your panties too tight?

Subliterati: philthpig: ...
i guess we can't even be american anymore.

Did you mean a 'murrican? 'Cos what you used was what the grammar nazis call an adjective.

my point was that in the proper long-hand illegal immigrant, illegal is also an adjective, but when used in the common shorthand illegal, it's a noun for sake of convenience. but i was directing my remarks to the distaste expressed specifically for using a noun to refer to a person...

it was sloppily put together, but i think valid.

thurstonxhowell:The point is that, in removing "immigrant", you're removing some of the humanity of the term. I don't think that people do it intentionally, but I'm still not entirely comfortable with it. When an article uses the term repeatedly, it always comes across as dismissive at best and hateful at worst.

I'm not going to make a big stink about it if others do it, but you won't catch me using the term "illegals" to describe them.

i see your point - i'm just really frustrated with political correctness in general and i was arguing what hillbillypharmacist said - literally that it's wrong to use a noun to refer to a person. it's practically impossible not to.

i know it invites bigotry to draw upon someone's race or religion if it is not relevant, but there are times when it just comes up - as with legal residency status. in the context of this article and headline, the use of "illegal" was obviously meant as the adjective describing their legal status as residents in pakistan. the use of this shorthand, as you point out, may seem insensitive, but it is accurate and appears used without malice.

i'm never going to argue that it is not impolite to say "blacks" in place of "black people" and you have a valid point about "illegal" vs "illegal immigrant/resident". but it does sound more forgiving than "criminal occupant".

Headso

karnal: Send them to America - we will feed, clothe and get them the best darn education our taxpayers dollars can afford....and maybe one day, with Allah's blessings, they too can be President of the USA.

they're probably almost socially conservative enough to be republicans, too.

Yeah...but seeing they are going to apply for the Ousted Islamist Militant's Wives and Dependent Welfare Program - I think we all know how they will vote this November.

karnal: Headso

karnal: Send them to America - we will feed, clothe and get them the best darn education our taxpayers dollars can afford....and maybe one day, with Allah's blessings, they too can be President of the USA.

they're probably almost socially conservative enough to be republicans, too.

Yeah...but seeing they are going to apply for the Ousted Islamist Militant's Wives and Dependent Welfare Program - I think we all know how they will vote this November.

If they are anything like typical poor republicans they'll utilize the social services the whole time they are deriding them, plus they probably think the earth is 6000 years old too, the similarities are endless.

Subliterati: Did you mean a 'murrican? 'Cos what you used was what the grammar nazis call an adjective.

Linking Verbs

I can't tell anymore if people are stupid or pretending to be stupid. Either way, they're a waste of my time.

philthpig: what? seriously? if i recall, a noun is a specific person, place or thing. but we can't use nouns to refer to people without being politically incorrect?

It has nothing to do with being politically correct. It has everything to do with the limits of human language.

Pick up some Wittgenstein.

I certainly didn't expect this thread to go full-blown grammar Nazi in 25 comments.

I bet they move to

Skarekrough: philthpig: hillbillypharmacist: FlashHarry: i realize it's just a word, but when i hear illegal used as a noun, it makes me feel icky -- like it's a new n-word.

Oh, it's super icky. Using a noun to describe someone, in general, seems to invite wrongheadedness. Though maybe I'd make an exception for professions.

what? seriously? if i recall, a noun is a specific person, place or thing. but we can't use nouns to refer to people without being politically incorrect?

i guess we can't even be american anymore.

Put a capital "A" on that proper noun, soldier.

You too, Soldier.

Well that's real Muslim of them. Not like she was taking legals' jobs anyway. Positions as 'terrorist wife' were still available.

FlashHarry: i realize it's just a word, but when i hear illegal used as a noun, it makes me feel icky -- like it's a new n-word.

Uninvited sexual parters would love you

One of the problems with the term "illegal" is the implication that the person entered the country illegally with the intent to circumvent U.S. immigration laws. That might be true some of the time, but far more often "illegals" are people who entered the country legally and have made a good faith effort to integrate into American society. What you'll see happening is that people will either be taken in by shady hucksters claiming to be attorneys or immigration experts, thereby screwing the one chance they have to get their residency straightened out, or they may make an effort on their own to gain permanent legal status but will fall through the cracks of the byzantine immigration system.

Quasar: Three widows?! See, I told you chicks dig assholes.

I know you're kidding, but I still feel the need to point out that none of these women probably had any choice. This is what happens when you set up a society so that a few rich men get to bogart all the women, Besides being really rotten for the women, it leave a lot of young men at their hormonal peak unable to release that energy though sex. In other words, you create a great source of cannon fodder, along with the necessity of disposing of those young men so they will not be a resource for the women to turn to instead of a less attractive older man.

The same sort of thing happens in a society where single men vastly outnumber available young women. In this case, the women do have more choice (or their parents can be a lot pickier about choosing a husband who financially benefits the whole family), and the excess men have to redirect their energy elsewhere. China will be really interesting to watch over the next couple generations.

hillbillypharmacist:Pick up some Wittgenstein.

if you can provide a quote from tractatus logico philisophicus that validates your distaste for using a noun to refer to a person, i'll crap a golden brick.

thurstonxhowell: philthpig: if no, you can call them an illegal immigrant, or if you're being lazy, an illegal.

The point is that, in removing "immigrant", you're removing some of the humanity of the term. I don't think that people do it intentionally, but I'm still not entirely comfortable with it. When an article uses the term repeatedly, it always comes across as dismissive at best and hateful at worst.

I'm not going to make a big stink about it if others do it, but you won't catch me using the term "illegals" to describe them.

I think you've explained exactly what's going on. I also feel that using just "illegals" is an under-the-radar slur. It's like I have no problem saying "That guy over there. The black guy." but I would never say "That guy over there. The black." because yikes. As an adjective, illegal is kind of so-so, since it's a judgement call, but I'm okay with it. As a noun, hell no.

qorkfiend: I certainly didn't expect this thread to go full-blown grammar Nazi in 25 comments.

Even worse- Grammar Nazis fighting with the PC Butthurt Patrol.

strathcona: So ... Are they hot?

dammit!

unlikely: Now that OBL isn't forking over truckloads of US $100 bills why would they let the family stay?

That would imply that Al Qaeda is running on US currency, wouldn't it?

It's not impossible to believe, but knowing where that money came from and why lends a nuanced irony to the post-9-11 American overreaction: As the stage was being dressed for that big Washington production "Security Theater!", I said to nobody in particular, "I refuse to give OBL credit for something we do to ourselves."

unlikely: Now that OBL isn't forking over truckloads of US $100 bills why would they let the family stay?

They're called PetroDollars.
Remember that when you fill up your tank or vote for a Republican.

jaylectricity: So they gave them a free ride home so they could be with their family?

What, you think they plotted 9/1 instead of him? I really doubt the wives had a real leadership position in the organization, and the kids are kids, you think they should have been chained to each other and forced to march across the desert, perhaps? Besides, it's Pakistan footing the bill, not the US, so I'm not worried there. I personally think we should nuke the place because I don't believe that nobody "knew" he was there, but I don't hold ill will against kids, and I don't especially hold it against wives who are treated more like property than citizens.

Headso

karnal: Headso

karnal: Send them to America - we will feed, clothe and get them the best darn education our taxpayers dollars can afford....and maybe one day, with Allah's blessings, they too can be President of the USA.

they're probably almost socially conservative enough to be republicans, too.

Yeah...but seeing they are going to apply for the Ousted Islamist Militant's Wives and Dependent Welfare Program - I think we all know how they will vote this November.

If they are anything like typical poor republicans they'll utilize the social services the whole time they are deriding them, plus they probably think the earth is 6000 years old too, the similarities are endless.


What? When did Young Earth Nutism and GOP become interchangeable?

philthpig: in the context above, illegal is short hand for illegal immigrant.

I wonder what other slurs were once only considered "shorthand" for a larger word that was apparently too inconvenient to convey.

FlashHarry: i realize it's just a word, but when i hear illegal used as a noun, it makes me feel icky -- like it's a new n-word.

Well, then make a replacement word that is equally short. "Person who immigrated into a country in violation of that country's immigration laws" is too damned long.

ThisSideofSteinway: One of the problems with the term "illegal" is the implication that the person entered the country illegally with the intent to circumvent U.S. immigration laws. That might be true some of the time, but far more often "illegals" are people who entered the country legally and have made a good faith effort to integrate into American society. What you'll see happening is that people will either be taken in by shady hucksters claiming to be attorneys or immigration experts, thereby screwing the one chance they have to get their residency straightened out, or they may make an effort on their own to gain permanent legal status but will fall through the cracks of the byzantine immigration system.

Um, if you violate the law, you violate the law. Intent is no excuse.

Now, you can make an argument that American immigration laws need to be changed (I personally would make that argument), but people who are here illegally are, by definition, criminals who are breaking the law as it currently stands.

Geotpf: Um, if you violate the law, you violate the law. Intent is no excuse.

Now, you can make an argument that American immigration laws need to be changed (I personally would make that argument), but people who are here illegally are, by definition, criminals who are breaking the law as it currently stands.

Then stick with "illegal immigrant". There is no need to turn it into a slur. You are not so busy that you don't have time to say three extra syllables.

Geotpf

FlashHarry: i realize it's just a word, but when i hear illegal used as a noun, it makes me feel icky -- like it's a new n-word.

Well, then make a replacement word that is equally short. "Person who immigrated into a country in violation of that country's immigration laws" is too damned long.


Q. Is it illegal to sneak into the USA?
A. Yes

What if we just called them criminals?

crim·i·nal /ˈkrɪmənl/ adjective
guilty of crime.

karnal: What if we just called them criminals?

Sure, if you call everyone who has ever broken any law criminal. Which is roughly everyone.

If you confine your use of 'criminal' or 'illegal' to a certain subset of people who have broken the law, then you're not trying to relay a fact. It's just a slur.

I see that the money has tried up then.

/Pakistan: your friend until the check bounces

hillbillypharmacist


karnal: What if we just called them criminals?

Sure, if you call everyone who has ever broken any law criminal. Which is roughly everyone.

If you confine your use of 'criminal' or 'illegal' to a certain subset of people who have broken the law, then you're not trying to relay a fact. It's just a slur.


What? I think you have been taking too many of your own pharmaceuticals, hillbilly.

illegal
adj.
1. Prohibited by law.
2. Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
3. Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.
n.
Offensive
A person who is not legally authorized to live and work in a country.

The American Heritage Dictionary allows that "illegal" is a noun, but defines it as an offensive noun.

karnal: What?

This is not hard to understand.