6 ms·

I agree. However, the manner in which the evidence of the illegal firearm was obtained is a serious issue. So, my question was, if they had a reasonable suspic

I agree. However, the manner in which the evidence of the illegal firearm was obtained is a serious issue. So, my question was, if they had a reasonable suspicion he was a drug dealer but not enough evidence to obtain a warrant, then why not let ICE handle the matter since he was an illegal immigrant anyway? And to be clear so people don't get it in their head I have something against immigrants, I'm all for people immigrating to wherever they want to live, but it's 100% unfair to those immigrants who did it legally to treat illegals like anything other than an illegal immigrant who should be deported. P.S. Is using the term undocumented immigrant supposed to be the PC way of saying illegal immigrant?

rayiner 12y ago
> So, my question was, if they had a reasonable suspicion he was a drug dealer but not enough evidence to obtain a warrant, then why not let ICE handle the matter since he was an illegal immigrant anyway? That effectively lowers the standard for searching homes of illegal immigrants from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. That's probably a harder political sell than trying to get enough evidence to find probable cause for violating of a gun control law.
- lsaferite 12y ago
  I worded it wrongly I guess. In the article it wasn't a question whether he was an illegal, they knew he was an illegal. I'll agree, letting ICE search the home would be a slippery slope and probably a bad idea as well. But at the very least, if they want to address the problem of him being a drug dealer then they should be able to use the fact that they know he is an illegal to at least deport him and solve the drug issue in a lateral manner, right?
talmand 12y ago
Yes, changing illegal to undocumented is just a language tactic to downplay the issue. I'm not sure it works that way because any negativity the change was likely to alter just gets transferred to the new word.
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  Pffft, you probably think of "retarded" as some sort of vicious insult too.
  - talmand 12y ago
    I reread my post to try to understand what you mean, but alas, I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
    - thaumasiotes 12y ago
      "Retarded", like "undocumented" of immigrants, originated as a euphemism meant to protect the people so labeled from the hurtful term in ordinary use for them (here, "stupid"). As you point out, it turned out not to be all that protective.
      - talmand 12y ago
        I understand this response, but can't still see how that relates to how you stated your first response.
        thaumasiotes 12y ago
        My first response is phrased as an argument against your point, using what I thought was a well-known example that strongly supports your point. It's facetious. I've read of a philosopher who made the argument, "the theory of evolution can't be true, because if it were true, that would imply that someone could make a lot of money by replicating images of Elvis Presley." My comment has the same structure, but I'm already aware that the evidence directly contradicts the stated point. So "your theory of terms having negative valence based on their meaning (instead of arbitrarily) is incorrect, as can be seen by how the slow of wit gained new respect from society when the socially-enlightened term 'retarded' replaced the old, denigratory 'stupid'. According to your model, 'retarded' would be an insult because of its negative meaning."
- 12y ago
Karunamon 12y ago
If I had to guess, because it's problematic because they wouldn't have had probable cause to determine his immigration status anyways. I.e. they can't just walk up to the guy's house and demand to see his green card just because. And yeah, that's pretty much exactly what it is. Some group of fools think that referring to immigrants with the qualifier "illegal" is somehow a slight against the person rather than their legal status.
- alasdair_ 12y ago
  I wondered about this since the green card (I have had one) states explicitly that it must be shown upon request to any police officer.
- refurb 12y ago
  they can't just walk up to the guy's house and demand to see his green card just because. Sure they can! All immigrants are required to have proof of status on them at all times. It's rarely enforced, but it is the law. Before I became a citizen I carried a copy of my green card with me at all times.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Being required to carry it at all times and being hassled on the grounds of your skin color because you might be here illegally are two different things. The reasonable suspicion standard and other rights don't stop applying just because someone is an immigrant.
happyscrappy 12y ago
>Is using the term undocumented immigrant supposed to be the PC way of saying illegal immigrant? Yes. But if you give them drivers licenses then they are documented.

rayiner 12y ago

> So, my question was, if they had a reasonable suspicion he was a drug dealer but not enough evidence to obtain a warrant, then why not let ICE handle the matter since he was an illegal immigrant anyway? That effectively lowers the standard for searching homes of illegal immigrants from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. That's probably a harder political sell than trying to get enough evidence to find probable cause for violating of a gun control law.

lsaferite 12y ago
I worded it wrongly I guess. In the article it wasn't a question whether he was an illegal, they knew he was an illegal. I'll agree, letting ICE search the home would be a slippery slope and probably a bad idea as well. But at the very least, if they want to address the problem of him being a drug dealer then they should be able to use the fact that they know he is an illegal to at least deport him and solve the drug issue in a lateral manner, right?

talmand 12y ago

Yes, changing illegal to undocumented is just a language tactic to downplay the issue. I'm not sure it works that way because any negativity the change was likely to alter just gets transferred to the new word.

thaumasiotes 12y ago
Pffft, you probably think of "retarded" as some sort of vicious insult too.
- talmand 12y ago
  I reread my post to try to understand what you mean, but alas, I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    "Retarded", like "undocumented" of immigrants, originated as a euphemism meant to protect the people so labeled from the hurtful term in ordinary use for them (here, "stupid"). As you point out, it turned out not to be all that protective.
    - talmand 12y ago
      I understand this response, but can't still see how that relates to how you stated your first response.
      - thaumasiotes 12y ago
        My first response is phrased as an argument against your point, using what I thought was a well-known example that strongly supports your point. It's facetious. I've read of a philosopher who made the argument, "the theory of evolution can't be true, because if it were true, that would imply that someone could make a lot of money by replicating images of Elvis Presley." My comment has the same structure, but I'm already aware that the evidence directly contradicts the stated point. So "your theory of terms having negative valence based on their meaning (instead of arbitrarily) is incorrect, as can be seen by how the slow of wit gained new respect from society when the socially-enlightened term 'retarded' replaced the old, denigratory 'stupid'. According to your model, 'retarded' would be an insult because of its negative meaning."
12y ago

Karunamon 12y ago

If I had to guess, because it's problematic because they wouldn't have had probable cause to determine his immigration status anyways. I.e. they can't just walk up to the guy's house and demand to see his green card just because. And yeah, that's pretty much exactly what it is. Some group of fools think that referring to immigrants with the qualifier "illegal" is somehow a slight against the person rather than their legal status.

alasdair_ 12y ago
I wondered about this since the green card (I have had one) states explicitly that it must be shown upon request to any police officer.
refurb 12y ago
they can't just walk up to the guy's house and demand to see his green card just because. Sure they can! All immigrants are required to have proof of status on them at all times. It's rarely enforced, but it is the law. Before I became a citizen I carried a copy of my green card with me at all times.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Being required to carry it at all times and being hassled on the grounds of your skin color because you might be here illegally are two different things. The reasonable suspicion standard and other rights don't stop applying just because someone is an immigrant.

happyscrappy 12y ago

>Is using the term undocumented immigrant supposed to be the PC way of saying illegal immigrant? Yes. But if you give them drivers licenses then they are documented.