The Off Topic Topic

[celedhring]

I think undocumented is misleading. It makes it sound like the documents went missing or were for some inocuous* reason never granted. Hides the fact that these individuals were never given permission to reside on a permanent basis and in many cases not given permission to even enter the country.

I think illegal alien is a more accurate term though I understand concerns about how it makes it seem like individuals are illegal/criminals at their core and all that they do in the country is bad.

*or malicious as in government refused to give them permission they deserve.

It's a matter of what you want to emphasize. If the important thing is that they're breaking the law and that they don't belong, then yeah "illegal alien" is the best most accurate term. If the important thing is that they're immigrants looking to better their lives but they're doing it outside of the official system, then "undocumented immigrants" is a more accurate term.

Both terms are misleading in the sense that they focus on a particular perception of the people and obfuscating others through omission. Given that "illegal aliens" have been used consistently in political rhetoric for several decades to blame those individuals for a number of problems, and given that the term has been used primarily in contexts designed to rile up sentiment against them, I don't think "it's more accurate" is the most relevant argument in favour of the term.

Interesting, over here the term "undocumented immigrants" ("inmigrante sin papeles") has always been the preferred one in the media and politics.

[Brazen]

Except, as has been pointed out to me, he wasn't an orphan.

[Brazen]

It's my company Christmas do tonight, so I shoved the two outfits that still fit in my bag and haven't decided yet. Sparkly top and pencil skirt or star-print dress? Chinese silk jacquard trainers (gold on black) or heeled crocodile-embossed boots?

[lustindarkness]

I think undocumented is misleading. It makes it sound like the documents went missing or were for some inocuous* reason never granted. Hides the fact that these individuals were never given permission to reside on a permanent basis and in many cases not given permission to even enter the country.

I think illegal alien is a more accurate term though I understand concerns about how it makes it seem like individuals are illegal/criminals at their core and all that they do in the country is bad.

*or malicious as in government refused to give them permission they deserve.

It's a matter of what you want to emphasize. If the important thing is that they're breaking the law and that they don't belong, then yeah "illegal alien" is the best most accurate term. If the important thing is that they're immigrants looking to better their lives but they're doing it outside of the official system, then "undocumented immigrants" is a more accurate term.

Both terms are misleading in the sense that they focus on a particular perception of the people and obfuscating others through omission. Given that "illegal aliens" have been used consistently in political rhetoric for several decades to blame those individuals for a number of problems, and given that the term has been used primarily in contexts designed to rile up sentiment against them, I don't think "it's more accurate" is the most relevant argument in favour of the term.

For me they mean the same and they don't have any connotations. Of course,  I  don't have an agenda in the roof either way.

[Grey Fox]

Except, as has been pointed out to me, he wasn't an orphan.

They were wrong, he is. Padme died. It only takes 1 parent to die.

[DGuller]

I'm not sure what the bleeding eyes was in reference to.

The substitution of "undocumented immigrant" for "illegal alien."

You think using the term "illegal alien" is important?

I think not stepping on euphemism treadmill is important for honest discussion.  If there is one sin that the left is truly guilty of, it's of abusing the language to avoid honest debate.  Of course, it pales in comparison to a whole host of sins that the right is guilty of in pursuit of dishonest dialogue, but we should hold ourselves to higher standard.

[garbon]

Except, as has been pointed out to me, he wasn't an orphan.

They were wrong, he is. Padme died. It only takes 1 parent to die.

I see that some people use it that way. I'd actually suggest that someone could be an orphan even with no parents dead - simply if they parents had abandoned the child.

[Valmy]

Meh most of those 300,000 were clones anyway.

[Syt]

Meh most of those 300,000 were clones anyway.

I believe that the Empire had phased out Clones by that point. According to Rebels, most of the Clones seem to have retired after the war.

[DGuller]

I think undocumented is misleading. It makes it sound like the documents went missing or were for some inocuous* reason never granted. Hides the fact that these individuals were never given permission to reside on a permanent basis and in many cases not given permission to even enter the country.

I think illegal alien is a more accurate term though I understand concerns about how it makes it seem like individuals are illegal/criminals at their core and all that they do in the country is bad.

*or malicious as in government refused to give them permission they deserve.

It's a matter of what you want to emphasize. If the important thing is that they're breaking the law and that they don't belong, then yeah "illegal alien" is the best most accurate term. If the important thing is that they're immigrants looking to better their lives but they're doing it outside of the official system, then "undocumented immigrants" is a more accurate term.

Both terms are misleading in the sense that they focus on a particular perception of the people and obfuscating others through omission. Given that "illegal aliens" have been used consistently in political rhetoric for several decades to blame those individuals for a number of problems, and given that the term has been used primarily in contexts designed to rile up sentiment against them, I don't think "it's more accurate" is the most relevant argument in favour of the term.

The "official system" is called the law.  We already have a word for things that our outside the law, rules, or regulations.  How is "illegal immigrant" misleading in any way?  They are immigrants, presumably in search of better life, and they did not follow the rules for immigrating, hence "illegal".  There is nothing being obfuscated nor omitted here.

[Valmy]

Meh most of those 300,000 were clones anyway.

I believe that the Empire had phased out Clones by that point. According to Rebels, most of the Clones seem to have retired after the war.

Huh. Weird. Why would the Empire do that? Maybe people were more eager to join up and fight for the glorious Empire than they were for the bloated and corrupt Republic

[Brazen]

They were wrong, he is. Padme died. It only takes 1 parent to die.

I see that some people use it that way. I'd actually suggest that someone could be an orphan even with no parents dead - simply if they parents had abandoned the child.
[/quote]I haven't seen a dictionary definition that defines the word other than someone both of whose parents are dead 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/orphan

[edit] OK, one non-British dictionary concedes less commonly it can mean one parent.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orphan

[garbon]

I think undocumented is misleading. It makes it sound like the documents went missing or were for some inocuous* reason never granted. Hides the fact that these individuals were never given permission to reside on a permanent basis and in many cases not given permission to even enter the country.

I think illegal alien is a more accurate term though I understand concerns about how it makes it seem like individuals are illegal/criminals at their core and all that they do in the country is bad.

*or malicious as in government refused to give them permission they deserve.

It's a matter of what you want to emphasize. If the important thing is that they're breaking the law and that they don't belong, then yeah "illegal alien" is the best most accurate term. If the important thing is that they're immigrants looking to better their lives but they're doing it outside of the official system, then "undocumented immigrants" is a more accurate term.

Both terms are misleading in the sense that they focus on a particular perception of the people and obfuscating others through omission. Given that "illegal aliens" have been used consistently in political rhetoric for several decades to blame those individuals for a number of problems, and given that the term has been used primarily in contexts designed to rile up sentiment against them, I don't think "it's more accurate" is the most relevant argument in favour of the term.

The "official system" is called the law.  We already have a word for things that our outside the law, rules, or regulations.  How is "illegal immigrant" misleading in any way?  They are immigrants, presumably in search of better life, and they did not follow the rules for immigrating, hence "illegal".  There is nothing being obfuscated nor omitted here.

Exactly. And oh btw, as some from a border state, I don't really use the term with some malicious intent. Illegal immigrants play a big role in economies like California (and thus the US) and I wish we could get serious on a plan that would confirm with the realities of the situation we are in (aka they are coming so how do we make sure they are then not exploited/can be integrated into society).

[Valmy]

Exactly. And oh btw, as some from a border state, I don't really use the term with some malicious intent. Illegal immigrants play a big role in economies like California (and thus the US) and I wish we could get serious on a plan that would confirm with the realities of the situation we are in (aka they are coming so how do we make sure they are then not exploited/can be integrated into society).

Yep. But that went nowhere. That was actually something I was foolishly hopeful Dubya was going to do something about, back when I thought the Republicans were about rational policies.

[Syt]

Meh most of those 300,000 were clones anyway.

I believe that the Empire had phased out Clones by that point. According to Rebels, most of the Clones seem to have retired after the war.

Huh. Weird. Why would the Empire do that? Maybe people were more eager to join up and fight for the glorious Empire than they were for the bloated and corrupt Republic

I think there was an EU explanation about the clone material degrading, or the cloning facilities getting destroyed or something.

From starwars.com:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/stormtroopers

After the declaration of the Galactic Empire, the clone troopers who'd served the Republic became stormtroopers obeying the will of the Emperor, defeating the Empire's enemies and enforcing its increasingly oppressive laws. Over time the stormtrooper ranks were filled not by clones but by recruits, trained for blind obedience and fanatical loyalty. On planets such as Lothal, stormtroopers became the face of the Empire, opposed by a brave few who dreamed of restoring freedom to the galaxy.