FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: gyeonghwa on June 11, 2012, 03:36:34 pm
-
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-put-thousands-africans-detention-camp-184419459.html
Israel's interior minister said on Friday he hoped to soon start moving tens of thousands of illegal African migrants from Tel Aviv and elsewhere to a detention camp being built and a planned "tent city."
An Israeli court cleared the way on Thursday for the deportation of an estimated 1,500 South Sudanese, after ruling that their lives were no longer threatened in their homeland.
Interior Minister Eli Yishai told public radio 40,000 Sudanese and Eritreans were next in his sights.
"There are still about 15,000 from north Sudan and some 35,000 from Eritrea," he said. "I am not allowed to get them out at the moment."
He said he expected legal obstacles would be removed and that the government was also offering a grant to those prepared to leave voluntarily.
"They are close to being expelled either willingly or against their will," he said. "This is a number that threatens the Jewish identity."
Um isn't that the very definition of ethnic cleansing?
-
Um isn't that the very definition of ethnic cleansing?
Since they're not trying to get rid of Africans, but rather trying to deport illegal immigrants, no. No it is not.
-
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/kristallnacht-20-courtesy-of-start-up.html
This doesn't just include illegal immigrants but refugees as well.
-
I'm no fan of the Israeli government, but comparing removal of illegal immigrants to "apartheid" and "ethnic cleansing" is pure hyperbole.
-
Well I admit I jumped the gun on ethnic cleansing (though I think the fact that hey are removing them for race/ethnic reason is attempting the same thing), but tell me how it isn't apartheid? They socially and politically discriminate against Arabs, Ethiopian Jews, Yemeni Jews, Africans almost completely for ethnic reasons. They subject Palestinians into slums and give them sub-par services. There are those that would hunt down Jewish women to enter relationships with Arab men. Apartheid is a very apt description of Israel.
-
Well I admit I jumped the gun on ethnic cleansing (though I think the fact that hey are removing them for race/ethnic reason is attempting the same thing), but tell me how it isn't apartheid? They socially and politically discriminate against Arabs, Ethiopian Jews, Yemeni Jews, Africans almost completely for ethnic reasons. They subject Palestinians into slums and give them sub-par services. There are those that would hunt down Jewish women to enter relationships with Arab men. Apartheid is a very apt description of Israel.
What you are talking about is not the same thing as removal of illegal immigrants.
I'm not going to defend how the Israeli government treats Arabs or other ethnicities.
-
Umm, Largeham states some of them are refugee not illegal immigrant. (Furthermore I deplore the term illegal immigrant because it is racially motivated.) And anyways how is that Africans are considered illegal immigrants but Israeli occupying Gaza isn't? That's why I consider the move as Apartheid. It's separating people based on race.
-
Apartheid? No. Bad? Yes.
One of the big problems with the State of Israel is that because Israel itself has no history of systematic racial segregation, they aren't nearly as sensitive to discrimination when it does happen. To use a metaphor, imagine racial discrimination as a disease. The United States had a rather severe case about sixty years ago, and as a result, we are now more sensitive to it. Have we purged racism from our society? No. But we do try very hard to shut it down. Israel, on the other hand, lacks that history. And while you'd think that being subject to so much discrimination throughout history would make Jews sensitive, it's not so easy to recognize it when you're the perpetrator.
-
Apartheid? No. Bad? Yes.
One of the big problems with the State of Israel is that because Israel itself has no history of systematic racial segregation, they aren't nearly as sensitive to discrimination when it does happen. To use a metaphor, imagine racial discrimination as a disease. The United States had a rather severe case about sixty years ago, and as a result, we are now more sensitive to it. Have we purged racism from our society? No. But we do try very hard to shut it down. Israel, on the other hand, lacks that history. And while you'd think that being subject to so much discrimination throughout history would make Jews sensitive, it's not so easy to recognize it when you're the perpetrator.
See Mugabe's Zimbabwe
-
Not all racial discrimination is apartheid. Though I would agree that the West Bank/Gaza stuff is getting there.
-
How is "illegal immigrant" a racial term? It just means someone who is in a foreign country without a visa/green card/whatever. A white American who moves to France without a visa would be an illegal immigrant, too.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-put-thousands-africans-detention-camp-184419459.html
Israel's interior minister said on Friday he hoped to soon start moving tens of thousands of illegal African migrants from Tel Aviv and elsewhere to a detention camp being built and a planned "tent city."
An Israeli court cleared the way on Thursday for the deportation of an estimated 1,500 South Sudanese, after ruling that their lives were no longer threatened in their homeland.
Interior Minister Eli Yishai told public radio 40,000 Sudanese and Eritreans were next in his sights.
"There are still about 15,000 from north Sudan and some 35,000 from Eritrea," he said. "I am not allowed to get them out at the moment."
He said he expected legal obstacles would be removed and that the government was also offering a grant to those prepared to leave voluntarily.
"They are close to being expelled either willingly or against their will," he said. "This is a number that threatens the Jewish identity."
Um isn't that the very definition of ethnic cleansing?
I recall someone once pointing out that the future Israel has three possibilities:
An open and Free Country. A Democracy. A Jewish State.
Unfortunately It can only be two of those things
-
How is "illegal immigrant" a racial term? It just means someone who is in a foreign country without a visa/green card/whatever. A white American who moves to France without a visa would be an illegal immigrant, too.
That is technically true, but in political discourse it most definitely refer to "people from that country/with that skin color that we don't like". By and large anti-Immigration discourse in the US, for example, target Mexicans while ignoring illegal immigration for places like Korea or Eastern Europe. Socially, illegal immigrant is a racialized term. It doesn't need to be but it is.
-
How is "illegal immigrant" a racial term? It just means someone who is in a foreign country without a visa/green card/whatever. A white American who moves to France without a visa would be an illegal immigrant, too.
That is technically true, but in political discourse it most definitely refer to "people from that country/with that skin color that we don't like". By and large anti-Immigration discourse in the US, for example, target Mexicans while ignoring illegal immigration for places like Korea or Eastern Europe. Socially, illegal immigrant is a racialized term. It doesn't need to be but it is.
That's because Mexicans make up the largest proportion of illegal immigrants (though Asians/Eastern Europeans come close).
Note also that the Mexican government is not very tolerant of illegal immigrants in their own country, even if they are of similar ethnic and religious makeup (most of them are from Central & South America).
-
Apartheid? No. Bad? Yes.
One of the big problems with the State of Israel is that because Israel itself has no history of systematic racial segregation, they aren't nearly as sensitive to discrimination when it does happen. To use a metaphor, imagine racial discrimination as a disease. The United States had a rather severe case about sixty years ago, and as a result, we are now more sensitive to it. Have we purged racism from our society? No. But we do try very hard to shut it down. Israel, on the other hand, lacks that history. And while you'd think that being subject to so much discrimination throughout history would make Jews sensitive, it's not so easy to recognize it when you're the perpetrator.
See Mugabe's Zimbabwe
A fair comparison, although Mugabe has done far worse. For instance, Israel's rulers don't engage in voter suppression, nor do they try to murder their political opponents.
Also, I'd like to address the frequent charges of racism against Israel, based on its treatment of the Palestinians. While there is a racist element, the principle issue that makes the Palestinian case far different from, say, Mugabe's treatment of whites, or recent European discrimination against Roma, is that the Palestinians are not Israelis, nor do they wish to be. I am not saying that this excuses Israeli abuses - it generally doesn't - but it makes the issue more complicated than simple racism.
-
Apartheid? No. Bad? Yes.
One of the big problems with the State of Israel is that because Israel itself has no history of systematic racial segregation, they aren't nearly as sensitive to discrimination when it does happen. To use a metaphor, imagine racial discrimination as a disease. The United States had a rather severe case about sixty years ago, and as a result, we are now more sensitive to it. Have we purged racism from our society? No. But we do try very hard to shut it down. Israel, on the other hand, lacks that history. And while you'd think that being subject to so much discrimination throughout history would make Jews sensitive, it's not so easy to recognize it when you're the perpetrator.
See Mugabe's Zimbabwe
A fair comparison, although Mugabe has done far worse. For instance, Israel's rulers don't engage in voter suppression, nor do they try to murder their political opponents.
Also, I'd like to address the frequent charges of racism against Israel, based on its treatment of the Palestinians. While there is a racist element, the principle issue that makes the Palestinian case far different from, say, Mugabe's treatment of whites, or recent European discrimination against Roma, is that the Palestinians are not Israelis, nor do they wish to be. I am not saying that this excuses Israeli abuses - it generally doesn't - but it makes the issue more complicated than simple racism.
I understand that although maybe if back in 48 they grated Palestinians dual citizenship and suffrage it might have gone better.
-
Apartheid? No. Bad? Yes.
One of the big problems with the State of Israel is that because Israel itself has no history of systematic racial segregation, they aren't nearly as sensitive to discrimination when it does happen. To use a metaphor, imagine racial discrimination as a disease. The United States had a rather severe case about sixty years ago, and as a result, we are now more sensitive to it. Have we purged racism from our society? No. But we do try very hard to shut it down. Israel, on the other hand, lacks that history. And while you'd think that being subject to so much discrimination throughout history would make Jews sensitive, it's not so easy to recognize it when you're the perpetrator.
See Mugabe's Zimbabwe
A fair comparison, although Mugabe has done far worse. For instance, Israel's rulers don't engage in voter suppression, nor do they try to murder their political opponents.
Also, I'd like to address the frequent charges of racism against Israel, based on its treatment of the Palestinians. While there is a racist element, the principle issue that makes the Palestinian case far different from, say, Mugabe's treatment of whites, or recent European discrimination against Roma, is that the Palestinians are not Israelis, nor do they wish to be. I am not saying that this excuses Israeli abuses - it generally doesn't - but it makes the issue more complicated than simple racism.
I understand that although maybe if back in 48 they grated Palestinians dual citizenship and suffrage it might have gone better.
I presume you mean '67. In '48, Israel didn't have control of the West Bank and Gaza.
-
Apartheid? No. Bad? Yes.
One of the big problems with the State of Israel is that because Israel itself has no history of systematic racial segregation, they aren't nearly as sensitive to discrimination when it does happen. To use a metaphor, imagine racial discrimination as a disease. The United States had a rather severe case about sixty years ago, and as a result, we are now more sensitive to it. Have we purged racism from our society? No. But we do try very hard to shut it down. Israel, on the other hand, lacks that history. And while you'd think that being subject to so much discrimination throughout history would make Jews sensitive, it's not so easy to recognize it when you're the perpetrator.
See Mugabe's Zimbabwe
A fair comparison, although Mugabe has done far worse. For instance, Israel's rulers don't engage in voter suppression, nor do they try to murder their political opponents.
Also, I'd like to address the frequent charges of racism against Israel, based on its treatment of the Palestinians. While there is a racist element, the principle issue that makes the Palestinian case far different from, say, Mugabe's treatment of whites, or recent European discrimination against Roma, is that the Palestinians are not Israelis, nor do they wish to be. I am not saying that this excuses Israeli abuses - it generally doesn't - but it makes the issue more complicated than simple racism.
I understand that although maybe if back in 48 they grated Palestinians dual citizenship and suffrage it might have gone better.
I presume you mean '67. In '48, Israel didn't have control of the West Bank and Gaza.
I thougth Israel took some land away from the natives in 48 my bad
-
I thougth Israel took some land away from the natives in 48 my bad
Well, '48 was the War of Independence. So the land they took was all annexed, and the people living there became Israeli citizens.
-
I thougth Israel took some land away from the natives in 48 my bad
Well, '48 was the War of Independence. So the land they took was all annexed, and the people living there became Israeli citizens.
Maybe tensions would have been better if in 67 they granted it suffrage
-
I thougth Israel took some land away from the natives in 48 my bad
Well, '48 was the War of Independence. So the land they took was all annexed, and the people living there became Israeli citizens.
Maybe tensions would have been better if in 67 they granted it suffrage
I've thought so as well. Actually, I've thought that perhaps what Israel should have done is annexed the land outright, and given the locals the choice between Israeli citizenship or leaving. It's morally questionable, but by essentially strangling the Palestinian nation in its cradle, much of the current conflict might have been avoided.
-
I've thought so as well. Actually, I've thought that perhaps what Israel should have done is annexed the land outright, and given the locals the choice between Israeli citizenship or leaving. It's morally questionable, but by essentially strangling the Palestinian nation in its cradle, much of the current conflict might have been avoided.
Isn't that pretty much what they did? Only most Palestinians decided to leave, found that no other neighbouring country would take them, then when they tried to return, Israel essentially said "no backsies".
-
Isn't that pretty much what they did? Only most Palestinians decided to leave, found that no other neighbouring country would take them, then when they tried to return, Israel essentially said "no backsies".
(Emphasis added)
This is why the Arab countries are partially responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The governments of the Arab countries have made it clear that although they hate Israel, they don't particularly value the lives and livelihoods of their fellow Arabs.
The Government of Jordan has been somewhat more sympathetic to their plight, and granted many Palestinian refugees Jordanian citizenship. Unfortunately most other Arab countries have not done so. The Arab League has taken the position that the refugees should not be granted citizenship in their destination countries, and in some places (such as Lebanon), they are outright discriminated against by the locals.
Just like so many other long-term political conflicts, many parties on both sides feel that they stand to gain more by keeping the conflict going rather than resolving it. Both sides are willing to use Palestinians (and indeed, other civilians) as pawns for their own political goals.
-
Isn't that pretty much what they did? Only most Palestinians decided to leave, found that no other neighbouring country would take them, then when they tried to return, Israel essentially said "no backsies".
(Emphasis added)
This is why the Arab countries are partially responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The governments of the Arab countries have made it clear that although they hate Israel, they don't particularly value the lives and livelihoods of their fellow Arabs.
The Government of Jordan has been somewhat more sympathetic to their plight, and granted many Palestinian refugees Jordanian citizenship. Unfortunately most other Arab countries have not done so. The Arab League has taken the position that the refugees should not be granted citizenship in their destination countries, and in some places (such as Lebanon), they are outright discriminated against by the locals.
Just like so many other long-term political conflicts, many parties on both sides feel that they stand to gain more by keeping the conflict going rather than resolving it. Both sides are willing to use Palestinians (and indeed, other civilians) as pawns for their own political goals.
The difference is the west has influence over Israel not over Arab countries so America probably should have made it clear to let them back in
-
The Palestinian refugees also want their property back. However, the problem is twofold. One, most of them have no documentation - no way to verify that they did own what they claimed. The Israelis are willing to return property to those who DO have documentation.
The other problem is that right after the War of Independence, the Arab nations expelled most of their Jewish populations. Most of them, as you might imagine, came to Israel. Israel's thinking was "well, we have this influx of poor refugees, and all these empty homes and abandoned land..." and now there are Israelis living there.
Also, to my knowledge, the Palestinians didn't try to return on their own. They were told "just crash here, and once we've wiped out the Israelis, you can return home". After three decades of trying, the Arab leaders switched to using the refugees as a bargaining tool. Assholes.
-
Most of the other Arab countries did try to expel Palestinian refugees, except for Jordan, where they are now more or less quite integrated with the rest of society. (However, initially the Palestinian refugees viewed their stay as temporary, though over time they were allowed into more positions in the private and public sector. They are now a very important demographic in the country.) IIRC, Jordan had a bit of a problem in the 70s with the more militant Palestinian organizations that ran out of the refugee camps themselves. The refugee camps elected their own local government and were rather independent communities that didn't afraid of anything. Add to the fact that organizations like Hamas provide a lot of the social welfare for Palestinians (including schools), and you can see why they get a lot of support from the people. Well, these militant organizations started running guerrilla raids into Israel from across the Jordanian border, and Israel responded by bombing Jordan, destroying quite a bit of farmland. (This is a big deal for Jordan because only about 2% of its land is suitable for agriculture, which is an important export.) Jordan kicked out all the militant organizations from the country (this is when Black September happened), and most of those groups relocated to Lebanon (where they are not treated so kindly). However there is still an important Palestinian population there, and if a Palestinian in the occupied territories wants to fly abroad, they have to go to Jordan, where their passports are recognized.
I remember when my school had a speaker from each side of the conflict debate each other in the theater room. Although it did not end in fistfights, it did get pretty heated (one guy was an Israeli ex-special forces, and the other was a Palestinian-American who spent most of his life in the West Bank).
I've thought so as well. Actually, I've thought that perhaps what Israel should have done is annexed the land outright, and given the locals the choice between Israeli citizenship or leaving. It's morally questionable, but by essentially strangling the Palestinian nation in its cradle, much of the current conflict might have been avoided.
Due to Europe fucking around in the Middle East and attempting to colonize the place while drawing new boundaries, the Arabs have a very, very bitter taste in their mouth when it comes to anything that could compromise their national independence. (A unified Arab state was what the leaders of the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire intended, and they were implicitly promised British support in making this happen during WWI. Then Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Treaty behind the backs of the Arab leaders and divided up the lands themselves for their own purposes.) The pan-Arab nationalism leading up to the Yom Kippur War is pretty much the culmination of that, but it is still a major force in their politics. Jordan tried to annex the West Bank, and the action resulted in so much outrage that the Jordanian king was shot and killed by a Palestinian nationalist when he was parading through the streets of Jerusalem (IIRC) in a limo waving to everyone like a dumbass. If Israel had annexed Palestine outright, it simply would have started the same conflict, but sooner.
It's depressing, but when I learned about it, I "got" all the jokes about Israel and Palestine in the Onion publication Our Dumb World (it's a parody atlas), and it's pretty golden.
-
I've thought so as well. Actually, I've thought that perhaps what Israel should have done is annexed the land outright, and given the locals the choice between Israeli citizenship or leaving. It's morally questionable, but by essentially strangling the Palestinian nation in its cradle, much of the current conflict might have been avoided.
Or you know, not invaded in the first place?
-
I've thought so as well. Actually, I've thought that perhaps what Israel should have done is annexed the land outright, and given the locals the choice between Israeli citizenship or leaving. It's morally questionable, but by essentially strangling the Palestinian nation in its cradle, much of the current conflict might have been avoided.
Or you know, not invaded in the first place?
That was actually the other option. They could have withdrawn back to their previous borders (although I imagine they would have never considered just giving up East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights), and things would have been easier.
-
No, I meant in '48.
-
I've thought so as well. Actually, I've thought that perhaps what Israel should have done is annexed the land outright, and given the locals the choice between Israeli citizenship or leaving. It's morally questionable, but by essentially strangling the Palestinian nation in its cradle, much of the current conflict might have been avoided.
Isn't that pretty much what they did? Only most Palestinians decided to leave, found that no other neighbouring country would take them, then when they tried to return, Israel essentially said "no backsies".
Palestinians did not 'decide to leave'; the IDF ethnically cleansed them. The Arab nations chose not to accommodate them really well (but the Palestinians didn't want to be accommodated in any case). And then the Israelis stole all their land and gave it to German or Moroccan immigrants.
And I don't think Syria or Jordon were in the wrong. Why should they pay to make the crimes of the Israeli state good? The Palestinian immigration problem should and will be fixed through compromise between Israelis and Palestinians (ie, for a Palestinian state based on the Green Line), not through Arabic capitulation.
-
Umm, Largeham states some of them are refugee not illegal immigrant. (Furthermore I deplore the term illegal immigrant because it is racially motivated.) And anyways how is that Africans are considered illegal immigrants but Israeli occupying Gaza isn't? That's why I consider the move as Apartheid. It's separating people based on race.
I'm no fan of Israel, but how in the world is "illegal immigrant" a racially motivated term? Anyone of any race can be an illegal immigrant. It's clear, plain meaning is an immigrant who is in a country illegally. The fact that the people who moan the loudest about illegal immigrants tend to only be worried about certain races or ethnicities doesn't change that.
Political correctness is not only unnecessary, it reduces clarity in speech within a society. The replacement term "undocumented worker" could just as well refer to a citizen who for what ever reason is working under the table, but when people start using it in place of "illegal immigrant" for political correctness purposes then it becomes harder to speak plain, short and to the point with clarity about a citizen who is in a literal sense an "undocumented worker" because people are so used to the term meaning "illegal immigrant".
-
Umm, Largeham states some of them are refugee not illegal immigrant. (Furthermore I deplore the term illegal immigrant because it is racially motivated.) And anyways how is that Africans are considered illegal immigrants but Israeli occupying Gaza isn't? That's why I consider the move as Apartheid. It's separating people based on race.
I'm no fan of Israel, but how in the world is "illegal immigrant" a racially motivated term? Anyone of any race can be an illegal immigrant. It's clear, plain meaning is an immigrant who is in a country illegally. The fact that the people who moan the loudest about illegal immigrants tend to only be worried about certain races or ethnicities doesn't change that.
Political correctness is not only unnecessary, it reduces clarity in speech within a society. The replacement term "undocumented worker" could just as well refer to a citizen who for what ever reason is working under the table, but when people start using it in place of "illegal immigrant" for political correctness purposes then it becomes harder to speak plain, short and to the point with clarity about a citizen who is in a literal sense an "undocumented worker" because people are so used to the term meaning "illegal immigrant".
I find that the people bitch about political correctness the most tend to be the most sexist/racist or what have. Oh sure, you may think you're being edgy and all by being politically incorrect, but in reality you're just coddling to old archaic ideals.
Let's recap. When we Americans use the term illegal immigrant, we really mean Mexican. We only target brown people with our policy. It's a fucking racial motivated term.
Also, why are you reviving this thread?
-
They socially and politically discriminate against Arabs, Ethiopian Jews, Yemeni Jews, Africans almost completely for ethnic reasons. They subject Palestinians into slums and give them sub-par services. There are those that would hunt down Jewish women to enter relationships with Arab men. Apartheid is a very apt description of Israel.
Point well taken as emphasized by this quote in the OP.
"This is a number that threatens the Jewish identity."
Let's not forget Israel's support for Apartheid-era South Africa! (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Israel_SAfrica.html)
What's the thing that "threatens Jewish Identity" according to the state of Israel? Methinks he meant "non-white people"!
-
Umm, Largeham states some of them are refugee not illegal immigrant. (Furthermore I deplore the term illegal immigrant because it is racially motivated.) And anyways how is that Africans are considered illegal immigrants but Israeli occupying Gaza isn't? That's why I consider the move as Apartheid. It's separating people based on race.
I'm no fan of Israel, but how in the world is "illegal immigrant" a racially motivated term? Anyone of any race can be an illegal immigrant. It's clear, plain meaning is an immigrant who is in a country illegally. The fact that the people who moan the loudest about illegal immigrants tend to only be worried about certain races or ethnicities doesn't change that.
Political correctness is not only unnecessary, it reduces clarity in speech within a society. The replacement term "undocumented worker" could just as well refer to a citizen who for what ever reason is working under the table, but when people start using it in place of "illegal immigrant" for political correctness purposes then it becomes harder to speak plain, short and to the point with clarity about a citizen who is in a literal sense an "undocumented worker" because people are so used to the term meaning "illegal immigrant".
I find that the people bitch about political correctness the most tend to be the most sexist/racist or what have. Oh sure, you may think you're being edgy and all by being politically incorrect, but in reality you're just coddling to old archaic ideals.
Let's recap. When we Americans use the term illegal immigrant, we really mean Mexican. We only target brown people with our policy. It's a fucking racial motivated term.
Also, why are you reviving this thread?
Sorry I didn't look at the date.
I am an "I" not a "we". When I say "illegal immigrant" I mean exactly what it means in the dictionary. I don't care what morons use the term for.
It's not about being edgy. Political correctness distorts clarity in speech. You can't say that you are being "mentally challenged" by a crossword puzzle anymore because of a new assigned meaning in spite of the fact that the "r word" was initially a euphemism itself back when "idiot", "imbecile", and "moron" were medical terms.
Besides right-wingers are just as guilty of pushing political correctness with terms like "extraordinary rendition" for what should be called "outsourced torture".
Why all the euphemisms to muddle up language when we could just speak plainly and clearly and all understand what each other are saying? If I only had a dime for every time I got confused in a conversation because people chose not to speak clearly.
Here's a good example of my opposition to PC having nothing to do with anything remotely related to "conservatism", I think that when animal control makes decisions about killing pets they should have to use those technically correct words not "put down" and not "put to sleep". Euphemisms distort critical thinking and should be avoided. Same when lawmakers discuss that stupid breed-specific legislation. Maybe it wouldn't pass.
Euphemisms are bad. Free speech, we can't ban them, but it would help our society if they were socially disapproved of.
-
Let's recap. When we Americans use the term illegal immigrant, we really mean Mexican. We only target brown people with our policy. It's a fucking racial motivated term.
I call bullshit on this.
You do realize that technically "illegal immigrant" refers to anyone who enters any country illegally, right?
To suggest that Americans mean "Mexicans" when talking about illegal immigration is itself racist (and Americentric, to boot).
-
Let's recap. When we Americans use the term illegal immigrant, we really mean Mexican. We only target brown people with our policy. It's a fucking racial motivated term.
I call bullshit on this.
You do realize that technically "illegal immigrant" refers to anyone who enters any country illegally, right?
To suggest that Americans mean "Mexicans" when talking about illegal immigration is itself racist (and Americentric, to boot).
THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT. None of our anti-immigration policy targets illegal immigration from places like eastern Europe or similar places. Fuck we gave amnesty to an illegal German couple who wanted to teach Creationism to their kids. They all target Latin American, namely Mexico, despite the fact that immigration (legal and illegal) from that area of the world has reached net zero. Our political rhetoric specifically targets Latinos, to the point where Hispanic Americans with full citizenship are still arrested by border patrol and sent back. And that's why when we say "illegal immigrant" we really mean Mexican.
AND why did we even revive this thread? (and why is that when someone points out racism, they get called racist. Fuck that shit.)
It's not about being edgy. Political correctness distorts clarity in speech.
Oh god, you're naive. It doesn't work that way. Invariably, when someone complain about PC, it's because they're afraid that they're racist/sexist/whatev tendencies are going to be called out. They make the whole shit about their feelings. Except that, "politically incorrect" discourse sustain and perpetuates harmful (and sometimes deadly) institutions by making people complacent to them.
And the free speech angle is disingenuous. You can be politically incorrect all you want, just don't be surprise when people call you out and make you look like an ass when you do it.