University:Berkeley student govt bans use of term “illegal immigrant”
19 Replies to “What’s The Opposite Of Diversity?”
What a halfway measure, “banning use of the term” only covers externalities.
Surely anyone even thinking of the term when they speak against its use, even
without saying the two exact words, should also be banned.
Are they going back to calling them Wetbacks?
I heartily support this move and hereafter vow to simply call them ‘illegals’.
If they ban that term, I’ll just call them criminals.
If they ban ‘criminals’, I’ll laugh. A lot.
“drop the I-word” campaign, deeming the term “racially charged,”
How does anyone construe the term as “racially charged”? The term is determinedly neutral, any reference to “race” is in the mind of the racist beholder.
Yes, WETBACKS works just fine.
Another unintended consequence of liberal thinking and caring.
Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna’s revenge, bit by bit.
while the abolishment of speech like this is misguided, it is not nearly as ridiculus as the notion a person can be illegal.
The person isn’t illegal; it’s their presence in the country that’s illegal.
Indeed, to think that the term “illegal immigrant” implies the person so labelled is of a certain race or not of any cetain race is racist.
Anyway, it’s a good idea to stop using the term illegal immigrant since it contains the suggestion that the person in the country illegally is any kind of immigrant. How about illegal migrant or illegal visitor.
More likely the kid’s daddies insisted they go back to calling them what they used to: “cheap labor”, since daddy is likely footing the bills…
well they don’t have the proper legal documents, so with out papers works for me, or shortened, WOPS, and to identify them farther WOP WETBACKS, there fixed that:-)))))
Doug, children should be seen , not heard!!!!!!
That restriction would last about twenty nanoseconds in a court. Not only is UC Berkeley a public institution and, as such, required to honor the free speech rights of its students and employees, but, thanks to a statute passed by the California state legislature in 1992 and known as the Leonard Law, all colleges and universities in California are required to do so.
“Criminal immigrant” works fine for me.
Banishing the words “nigger” and “black” and replacing them with “African-American” did not change anything. Neither will this bit of PC stupidity.
I thought they were “illegal aliens”. When did it change to “illegal immigrants”? As George Orwell pointed out, language is important. Oh well.
UC Berkly is the home of the “free speech” movement. I’m wondering how Mario Savio would view this. Would he see a contradiction?
P.S. It only applies to Student Government publications, not to the University per se …. at least as I read it.
You must, you must , ban everything said against socialism or Islam.
Even if they say it. People have to be protected from thinking.
It might cause an allergic reaction to reality.
That’s because they are Illegal Aliens.
As in Non-Resident Alien, who has entered the country Illegally.
If no one is Illegal crossing borders without proper health and criminality inspections, why has the US spent billions of dollars securing South Korea’s borders from North Korea?
Canadian’s need a passport to enter the US legally, do any law abiding Canadian’s wanna dare going across without one?
@Dave, your question “I thought they were “illegal aliens”. When did it change to “illegal immigrants”? ”
I think it was after the movie E.T. came out.
What a halfway measure, “banning use of the term” only covers externalities.
Surely anyone even thinking of the term when they speak against its use, even
without saying the two exact words, should also be banned.
Are they going back to calling them Wetbacks?
I heartily support this move and hereafter vow to simply call them ‘illegals’.
If they ban that term, I’ll just call them criminals.
If they ban ‘criminals’, I’ll laugh. A lot.
“drop the I-word” campaign, deeming the term “racially charged,”
How does anyone construe the term as “racially charged”? The term is determinedly neutral, any reference to “race” is in the mind of the racist beholder.
Yes, WETBACKS works just fine.
Another unintended consequence of liberal thinking and caring.
Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna’s revenge, bit by bit.
while the abolishment of speech like this is misguided, it is not nearly as ridiculus as the notion a person can be illegal.
The person isn’t illegal; it’s their presence in the country that’s illegal.
Indeed, to think that the term “illegal immigrant” implies the person so labelled is of a certain race or not of any cetain race is racist.
Anyway, it’s a good idea to stop using the term illegal immigrant since it contains the suggestion that the person in the country illegally is any kind of immigrant. How about illegal migrant or illegal visitor.
More likely the kid’s daddies insisted they go back to calling them what they used to: “cheap labor”, since daddy is likely footing the bills…
well they don’t have the proper legal documents, so with out papers works for me, or shortened, WOPS, and to identify them farther WOP WETBACKS, there fixed that:-)))))
Doug, children should be seen , not heard!!!!!!
That restriction would last about twenty nanoseconds in a court. Not only is UC Berkeley a public institution and, as such, required to honor the free speech rights of its students and employees, but, thanks to a statute passed by the California state legislature in 1992 and known as the Leonard Law, all colleges and universities in California are required to do so.
“Criminal immigrant” works fine for me.
Banishing the words “nigger” and “black” and replacing them with “African-American” did not change anything. Neither will this bit of PC stupidity.
I thought they were “illegal aliens”. When did it change to “illegal immigrants”? As George Orwell pointed out, language is important. Oh well.
UC Berkly is the home of the “free speech” movement. I’m wondering how Mario Savio would view this. Would he see a contradiction?
P.S. It only applies to Student Government publications, not to the University per se …. at least as I read it.
You must, you must , ban everything said against socialism or Islam.
Even if they say it. People have to be protected from thinking.
It might cause an allergic reaction to reality.
That’s because they are Illegal Aliens.
As in Non-Resident Alien, who has entered the country Illegally.
If no one is Illegal crossing borders without proper health and criminality inspections, why has the US spent billions of dollars securing South Korea’s borders from North Korea?
Canadian’s need a passport to enter the US legally, do any law abiding Canadian’s wanna dare going across without one?
@Dave, your question “I thought they were “illegal aliens”. When did it change to “illegal immigrants”? ”
I think it was after the movie E.T. came out.