4 ms·

I hate the phrase 'undocumented immigrant.' It's not like she had some documents and—whoops!—lost them. She had documents from Mexico (presumably); she had ex

by wtbob 12y ago

I hate the phrase 'undocumented immigrant.' It's not like she had some documents and—whoops!—lost them. She had documents from Mexico (presumably); she had expired documents from the United States. She was an alien whose residence in the United States was illegal; the phrase 'illegal alien' is completely accurate. The phrase 'illegal immigrant' is also accurate in her case, since she intended to stay here for good. > “There is still the stigma that what we did is shameful,” she says. “I’m tired of being ashamed for pursuing my dream, for climbing up the ladder, and for having success.” She should be ashamed: she appears to have violated immigration, pension and tax laws. 'I'm pursuing my dreams and being successful' is not a valid counter-argument to 'you're breaking the law.' She's a criminal; she's literally a shameless criminal.

jrells 12y ago
> She should be ashamed: she appears to have violated immigration, pension and tax laws. She is an illegal immigrant, and a shameless criminal, but why should she be ashamed? Braking a law does not necessarily imply anything shameful, and sometimes it is shameful to obey unjust laws. I hope everyone can think of some laws (at least from history) that you'd be proud to break.
tdees40 12y ago
Crimes are what we decide they are! Criminalizing this sort of behavior is something that most Americans don't want [1]. Expecting someone to be ashamed for violating a law that isn't particularly popular seems silly. Should Uber be ashamed for violating taxi regulations, when those regulations are hated by consumers? [1] http://americasvoice.org/blog/fox-news-poll-confirms-path-to-citizenship-is-the-mainstream-position-in-immigration-debate/ http://americasvoice.org/blog/fox-news-poll-confirms-path-to...
- digitalneal 12y ago
  I'mma let you finish but let me twist your example a little further. Should Uber be ashamed that by violating taxi regulations, women have been raped/stalked because of how they operate?
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    > Should Uber be ashamed that by violating taxi regulations, women have been raped/stalked because of how they operate? Does following taxi regulations prevent these events from occurring? If no, then of course not. The separate question is, can a corporation experience shame?
toomuchtodo 12y ago
"Well, when we look back on history, the progress of Western civilization and human rights is actually founded on the violation of law. America was of course born out of a violent revolution that was an outrageous treason against the crown and established order of the day. History shows that the righting of historical wrongs is often born from acts of unrepentant criminality. Slavery. The protection of persecuted Jews. But even on less extremist topics, we can find similar examples. How about the prohibition of alcohol? Gay marriage? Marijuana? Where would we be today if the government, enjoying powers of perfect surveillance and enforcement, had -- entirely within the law -- rounded up, imprisoned, and shamed all of these lawbreakers? Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren't just ceding control of our rights to government, but our agency in determining our futures." ... "In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends." -- Edward Snowden [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_snowden_laura_poitras_and_glenn/courx1i https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_...
- jrells 12y ago
  I could spend my whole life correcting people who draw an equivalence between legality and morality, and that would be a life well spent.
- wtbob 12y ago
  Yes, unjust laws should be ignored. Is it unjust for a culture to attempt to regulate the rate at which it admits outsiders? I don't think so. As outsiders enter an organisation, they both alter it and are altered by it; if too many enter it before they are altered by it (i.e., assimilated), then the organisation fundamentally changes. We all know that this is true of startups; if a startup grows too quickly, it risks losing the culture which enabled it to succeed in the first place. Risk-takers are slowly drowned out by risk-avoiders, and eventually the startup loses its drive. Is it so crazy that the same would be true of states? I posit that there's nothing unjust about regulating the rate of influx into a society, and plenty unjust about flouting those regulations and cutting one's place in line. Incidentally, Edward Snowden should be hanged by the neck until dead; quoting him is hardly compelling.
wooyi 12y ago
She was a minor when she came over. She was just trying to survive and succeed and the laws made it difficult for her to do so. Up until the 1960s, blacks were not allowed basic rights and access to many thing, and doing so was considered "criminal". Ditto with gays until recently. So, anyone fighting against unjust laws are "criminals?
- ap3 12y ago
  From the article: "Just as she was graduating in 2001, a new law made it possible for undocumented Texas students to attend public universities at in-state rates." Actually this law made it easier for her to attend college as an undocumented immigrant. But then what ? what are undocumented immigrants that graduate from college supposed to do ? go back to working as cooks and maids ?
- wtbob 12y ago
  > She was a minor when she came over. She was just trying to survive and succeed and the laws made it difficult for her to do so. Her parents brought her in on a tourist visa at 11, which expired when she was 14. She was only here for three years legally; her family could—and should—have returned to Mexico. Mexico is not some third-world hellhole; it's a developed and civilised country (yes, there's drug violence in some parts; it's still one of the nicer countries in the world). It's hardly like they were refugees from the Sudan.
  - wooyi 12y ago
    We should walk in someone else's shoes first before judging what they could and should do. We have no idea what her personal circumstances were. But whatever her parents did or could do, she had little choice in it as a minor.

by wtbob 12y ago

jrells 12y ago

> She should be ashamed: she appears to have violated immigration, pension and tax laws. She is an illegal immigrant, and a shameless criminal, but why should she be ashamed? Braking a law does not necessarily imply anything shameful, and sometimes it is shameful to obey unjust laws. I hope everyone can think of some laws (at least from history) that you'd be proud to break.

tdees40 12y ago

Crimes are what we decide they are! Criminalizing this sort of behavior is something that most Americans don't want [1]. Expecting someone to be ashamed for violating a law that isn't particularly popular seems silly. Should Uber be ashamed for violating taxi regulations, when those regulations are hated by consumers? [1] http://americasvoice.org/blog/fox-news-poll-confirms-path-to-citizenship-is-the-mainstream-position-in-immigration-debate/ http://americasvoice.org/blog/fox-news-poll-confirms-path-to...

digitalneal 12y ago
I'mma let you finish but let me twist your example a little further. Should Uber be ashamed that by violating taxi regulations, women have been raped/stalked because of how they operate?
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  > Should Uber be ashamed that by violating taxi regulations, women have been raped/stalked because of how they operate? Does following taxi regulations prevent these events from occurring? If no, then of course not. The separate question is, can a corporation experience shame?

toomuchtodo 12y ago

"Well, when we look back on history, the progress of Western civilization and human rights is actually founded on the violation of law. America was of course born out of a violent revolution that was an outrageous treason against the crown and established order of the day. History shows that the righting of historical wrongs is often born from acts of unrepentant criminality. Slavery. The protection of persecuted Jews. But even on less extremist topics, we can find similar examples. How about the prohibition of alcohol? Gay marriage? Marijuana? Where would we be today if the government, enjoying powers of perfect surveillance and enforcement, had -- entirely within the law -- rounded up, imprisoned, and shamed all of these lawbreakers? Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren't just ceding control of our rights to government, but our agency in determining our futures." ... "In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends." -- Edward Snowden [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_snowden_laura_poitras_and_glenn/courx1i https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_...

jrells 12y ago
I could spend my whole life correcting people who draw an equivalence between legality and morality, and that would be a life well spent.
wtbob 12y ago
Yes, unjust laws should be ignored. Is it unjust for a culture to attempt to regulate the rate at which it admits outsiders? I don't think so. As outsiders enter an organisation, they both alter it and are altered by it; if too many enter it before they are altered by it (i.e., assimilated), then the organisation fundamentally changes. We all know that this is true of startups; if a startup grows too quickly, it risks losing the culture which enabled it to succeed in the first place. Risk-takers are slowly drowned out by risk-avoiders, and eventually the startup loses its drive. Is it so crazy that the same would be true of states? I posit that there's nothing unjust about regulating the rate of influx into a society, and plenty unjust about flouting those regulations and cutting one's place in line. Incidentally, Edward Snowden should be hanged by the neck until dead; quoting him is hardly compelling.

wooyi 12y ago

She was a minor when she came over. She was just trying to survive and succeed and the laws made it difficult for her to do so. Up until the 1960s, blacks were not allowed basic rights and access to many thing, and doing so was considered "criminal". Ditto with gays until recently. So, anyone fighting against unjust laws are "criminals?

ap3 12y ago
From the article: "Just as she was graduating in 2001, a new law made it possible for undocumented Texas students to attend public universities at in-state rates." Actually this law made it easier for her to attend college as an undocumented immigrant. But then what ? what are undocumented immigrants that graduate from college supposed to do ? go back to working as cooks and maids ?
wtbob 12y ago
> She was a minor when she came over. She was just trying to survive and succeed and the laws made it difficult for her to do so. Her parents brought her in on a tourist visa at 11, which expired when she was 14. She was only here for three years legally; her family could—and should—have returned to Mexico. Mexico is not some third-world hellhole; it's a developed and civilised country (yes, there's drug violence in some parts; it's still one of the nicer countries in the world). It's hardly like they were refugees from the Sudan.
- wooyi 12y ago
  We should walk in someone else's shoes first before judging what they could and should do. We have no idea what her personal circumstances were. But whatever her parents did or could do, she had little choice in it as a minor.