On 6/8/2010 7:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Don wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 21:19:13 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



The term "immigrant" doesn't refer to a person's legality, only to the
fact
that he has move somewhere to take up permanent residence. It never did
have
anything to do with legal status. You can look it up anywhere.

So "illegal immigrant" is a perfectly valid term. It describes their
status
perfectly.

Finally, the law does not have eyes. The people who write laws have the
eyes. And all of them descended from immigrants. They just took a look,
didn't like all those new people moving in, and decided it's time to pull
up
the ladder.

Illegal meant illegal before any new laws were written. Immigrants
willing to assimilate, learn English and pay taxes and respect our
laws are not the same as illegals who scoff our laws, our language,
and who come to take rather than join.

The question is not what's meant by "illegal," but what is meant by
"immigrant." Strabo and CalifBill are saying that they aren't immigrants if
they're illegal. That's a misuse or a misunderstanding of the word.



In truth what they are is foreign nationals. Their first act upon
crossing into the sovereign territory of the U.S. is to violate our
laws. So they are foreign nationals who are guilty of violating U.S.
law. That makes them foreigners that have committed a crime or crimes in
U.S. territory. So what does that have to do with immigration, whether
technically legal or not? And what do "documents" have to do with any of it?

Hawke