Death-panels, ho!

Chris, brother, fellow minister of the faith, what purpose does your continued expressions of anger serve?

Neil,

I’m not angry. Frustrated, disappointed, a bit miffed, and slightly annoyed but not angry.

Unless, Neil, you can write with a straight face that anti-immigration people would be as adamant as they are if 80% of “the illegals” were English.

It used to be Irish Catholics whom people were worried about taking over the country.

Yes, I do believe that there are people who use the term in a purposely and derogatory way, and there are politicians who take advantage of that. I still don’t think we need to make the jump in judging the motivation of everyone who uses the term is a racist. For one thing, I’ve actually heard Hispanic people who have legally immigrated to the US use that term to describe undocumented immigrants – are they being racist?

I don’t deny the term has been given a lot of baggage, and I don’t see anything necessarily wrong in trying to use an alternative when necessary. Like I said before, though, it does sometimes seem to come down to a power play with some people.

Unless, Neil, you can write with a straight face that anti-immigration people would be as adamant as they are if 80% of “the illegals” were English.

I would be… it’s got nothing to do with race and everything to do with the rule of law and the freebie-driven policy of post-WWII American government.

I agree. Civility, or the art of disagreeing without undue anger or emotion, is a dying art.

We could all improve in this area.

Shalom.

As for “illegals”, I consider it to be a broad term that applies to all illegal immigrants, whether Canadian, Mexican, Asian, Eastern European – wherever – and my use was in specific reference to the census tallying those illegally in the US. No offense intended.

I’m sorry, but accuracy has, well, nothing to do with whether something is offensive.

I can list a dozen slurs for homosexuals that are each highly accurate. Doesn’t mean they aren’t offensive.

And I’m not *comparing* it to racial slurs. It *is* a racial slur. It’s an easy way to dismiss, dehumanize, and demean Latinos. It’s an abstract way at addressing what is- at its core- a racial issue.

In that sense, it’s like busing, state’s rights, etc. (as Lee Atwater pointed out). In a society that has rejected blatantly racial appeals, respectable people have a coded way of talking about what is, ultimately, a racial issue.

Unless, Neil, you can write with a straight face that anti-immigration people would be as adamant as they are if 80% of “the illegals” were English.