Re: First Amendment. Try yelling fire in a crowded movie theater and see how fast you're arrested.
Not if there's a fire. That old cliche is wrong. It's not the word "fire" that's prohibited, it's certain types of
fraud, which in those narrow circumstances could be a public disturbance and safety issue.
You can say "Illegal alien", but not in a harassing way.
No you can't. Who would determine whether it was "in a harassing way" anyway? The directive makes it clear that you're only allowed to use the phrase at all under certain narrow circumstances (when required to ask such questions by federal law), because they assert that it creates a "demeaning" or "offensive" "atmosphere", and they suggest inane PC alternatives. That language is so broad it's easy to see them persecuting (and I do mean persecuting) someone simply for saying it.
Most of what you posted has nothing to do with this discussion. While federal law sometimes goes too far in regulating behavior too, in most of the country it's not illegal to say "illegal alien", and it's not "bigoted" regardless of where you are.
The NYC statist tools who imposed this edict admit it's about pushing an ideological agenda. This is about thought police trying to recondition society and marginalize reasonable opposition while shutting down debate, the opposite of why the USA was founded.
You didn't answer my question about other issues, like abortion, guns, etc.. Should business owners, students, employees, tenants, etc. (basically everyone) be prohibited from espousing positions you disagree with on those issues as well? If not why not? After all, they could certainly make some liberals uncomfortable (San Francisco's government even recently branded the NRA a "terrorist organization"). What's your limiting principle?
PS - Nothing you posted on Zimmerman changes the forensic and witness evidence in his justified shooting of his assaulter, Trayvon Martin.
reply
share
Keelai (32064)
5 years ago
It's a safety issue which is what I basically said since it would cause harm.
Would you refer to defendants awaiting trial as “convicted criminals”? "Illegal alien" is assuming they are a criminal before a trial or hearing takes place:
"The use of the term “illegal” is problematic for many reasons, including that it purports to assign guilt to a person before a fair trial. In 2009, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor became the first justice on the high court to opt for the term “ undocumented immigrant” in an opinion."
Yes, you can say illegal alien in NYC, but not to harass people based on national origin.
You didn't answer my question as to why you want to harass undocumented immigrants. Your questions had nothing to do with the directive and NYC. And you're conveniently forgetting that the directive is to enforce Federal laws against discrimination also.
You don't live in NYC, so why do you care? Live and let live.
Nevertheless, George Zimmerman was harassing someone who was minding his own business. Obviously, he's a kook who repeatedly gets into trouble. Is he your hero?
reply
share
krl97a (5619)
5 years ago
You mostly just stubbornly restate nonsense I've already dispatched as if you didn't understand my refutation enough to even address it.
But in case you missed it I'll remind you that I already pointed out that alien detainees typically aren't awaiting "trial". In a deportation hearing the burden of proof is on the detainee to prove he isn't in the US illegally, so your analogy fails (it fails for other reasons too, but that's enough for now).
The directive makes it clear that even saying the phrase "illegal alien" creates an offensive "atmosphere", which is why they provide PC alternatives for you to say instead. Your "problematic"/"Sotomayor" quote only reinforces what I said, so thanks for that I guess.
I don't want to "harass" anyone, including illegal aliens. What a lame straw man.
The directive explicitly and proudly defies federal policy on illegal aliens.
My question, which you dodged, is vital because it gets to the heart of why this is a free speech issue with implications way beyond immigration. Your inability to answer it reveals a lot and underscores why you're wrong on this. I'll repeat it:
Should business owners, students, employees, tenants, etc. (basically everyone) be prohibited from espousing positions you disagree with on other issues like abortion, guns, etc. as well? If not why not? After all, they could certainly make some liberals uncomfortable (San Francisco's government even recently branded the NRA a "terrorist organization"). What's your limiting principle?
On Zimmerman I was just correcting the factual record. But it's funny you're now doing what ultra earlier falsely used that as an example of conservatives supposedly doing, and supporting using violence in response to alleged harassment.
And nobody outside of the leftist bubble takes the NY Times seriously.
You don't live in NYC, so why do you care? Live and let live.
I care about others' lives and freedom too. Leftists being unwilling to live and let live is the problem.
reply
share
Keelai (32064)
5 years ago
You know nothing about the immigration process. There is no trial. It's a hearing. The hearing is not to prove if an undocumented immigrant is in the U.S. legally since even a green card holder can be deported. If he or she wants to stay in the U.S., then a reason is presented like asylum as well as a supporting argument. Like I wrote, I used to work for Immigration and Naturalization.
You have an issue with reading comprehension. Neither do you understand legal terminology or the Constitution or you would understand what the issue is with "illegal alien".
Your question has nothing to do with Federal laws against discrimination therefore not relevant. The "limiting principle" is clearly explained on the Federal and NYC sites. Once again, I can't help you with your reading comprehension deficiency. Try RIF.
Zimmerman is your hero. I wonder why:
"The man George Zimmerman was convicted of stalking is now demanding that Zimmerman's ability to carry a concealed weapon in public be prohibited, citing his erratic mental state and penchant for violence, and he claims the state of Florida failed to follow its own laws.
Warren was on the receiving end of a barrage of threatening messages during the process, including over 185 text messages, which contained threats on his life and his family.
Zimmerman was eventually criminally charged with stalking and pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor offense earlier this month. He was sentenced to 12 months supervised probation and ordered to stay away from Warren and his family for 10 years.
Warren claims that Zimmerman's conceal carry license should have been temporarily suspended when he was criminally charged with stalking back in March 2018 and then revoked until the year 2022 upon his conviction earlier this month.
reply
share
Keelai (32064)
5 years ago
Warren believes Zimmerman is a continued danger to the community, and sending him out in public with the ability to conceal a loaded weapon could be fatal. He included 7 documented incidents of violence involving Zimmerman, including physical altercations, since the 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
He also says, "Mr. Zimmerman's propensity for violence, coupled with his self proclaimed mental health issues and financial issues, should give rise for further close evaluation and scrutiny as to any possible future eligibility to obtain a concealed weapons permit," adding that the revocation should extend beyond the mandatory 3-year period.
Warren says the letter has been sent to the office of the Commissioner, who faced massive criticism earlier this year after it was discovered his department failed to run national background checks on applications for concealed weapons permits for one year resulting in the revocation of nearly 300 permits. He has not yet heard back on a decision."
reply
share
krl97a (5619)
5 years ago
You know nothing about the immigration process. There is no trial. It's a hearing.
Your reading comprehension sucks, moron. That's repeatedly been
my point from the beginning, to refute your argument that they shouldn't be called "illegal aliens" because, like defendants awaiting trial for other types of crimes, they haven't been convicted yet. Your analogy was flawed. Once alienage is established the burden of proof is on the alien to show he's here legally. So "alleged" isn't needed.
They're illegal aliens if they're in the nation in violation of law. If they're granted asylum or permission to stay later then that changes their status.
Like I wrote, I used to work for Immigration and Naturalization.
That's truly disturbing. At least it's past tense. Hopefully you don't work in government, education, or anything that has you wielding power over people's lives.
The rest of your post is some irrelevant off topic accusations about George Zimmerman (LOL!) and you dodging my pertinent questions on freedom of speech like the cowardly dunce you are.
Your cop-out is telling. Even a non-answer can be a kind of answer.
reply
share
[deleted]
5 years ago
You've been pwned by keelai, once again. All your conservative conspiracy 'cut and paste' bullshit you blanketed this thread with has blown up in your face.
I actually almost feel bad for you. Embarrassing yourself once again.
reply
share
Keelai (32064)
5 years ago
"Once alienage is established"
That's not established by a jerk on the street, slumlord or employer.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act doesn't recognize the term "illegal alien". Illegal alien usually refers to an alien who committed a felony under the U.S. Code.
You're incorrectly repeating the purpose of the hearing. It's not to establish if someone is here legally. The immigration judge is deciding deportability or inadmissibility. Either way, you're oversimplifying the process.
Your NRA rant has nothing to do with the NYC directive.
You're the one who brought up Zimmerman. That sociopath is your hero, not mine.
reply
share
krl97a (5619)
5 years ago
Alienage is a fact. It doesn't matter who establishes it. "Illegal alien" is used throughout the federal government in law, by the executive branch, and in court decisions. It's logical and correct in the context of broader terminology.
"Undocumented immigrant" is a relatively recent stupid PC invention of liberal activists that doesn't fit into the constellation of existing terminology, like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and that has the logical deficiencies I outlined above.
Your commentary on hearings has been incoherent, pointless nonsense from the beginning. It's astonishing that you got so confused in your previous post that you thought I had said the opposite of what I actually had, and then you went on to agree with my point, which supported my position, not yours.
I posted no "rant". I asked you a reasonable, pertinent question on the right to freely discuss political issues that forms much of the foundation of this country and is what this leftist NY edict threatens. Your cowardly refusal to answer after multiple posts speaks volumes.
ultra brought up Zimmerman, not me. You can't even get that simple fact right.
reply
share
Keelai (32064)
5 years ago
"Alienage is a fact. It doesn't matter who establishes it."
Of course, it does. There is a difference between a bigot and a judge or an immigration officer.
"Illegal alien" is used throughout the federal government in law..."
Not really. The term "alien" is used in the INA. The U.S. Code uses it in reference to an alien who committed a felony.
If you don't like the term "undocumented immigrant" then don't use it, but stop dictating how people in NYC should live and speak.
I repeatedly answered, but your lack of reading comprehension prevents you from knowing that.
"ultra brought up Zimmerman, not me."
You mentioned Zimmermann in your comment to me:
"PS – Someone might want to let ultraviolet know that George Zimmerman..."
You're the one who can't get a simple fact right.
reply
share
krl97a (5619)
5 years ago
You've proven woefully unqualified to judge anyone else as a "bigot", not that it matters to this discussion anyway.
Yes, "illegal alien" is used throughout the different federal branches as I said, and in various states. It's also logically correct.
I explained why "undocumented immigration" is stupid and deficient on sheer definitional grounds, but I'm not calling for the government to make using it a crime. I support free speech. You and the liberal NYC government are the ones who oppose free speech.
You never answered the crucial question about whether other political views and/or terminology you find offensive should be banned in public, for example a business owner posting a Pro Life or NRA poster. You're still dodging like a coward.
You're the one who brought up Zimmerman.
"ultra brought up Zimmerman, not me."
You mentioned Zimmermann in your comment to me:
"PS – Someone might want to let ultraviolet know that George Zimmerman..."
You're the one who can't get a simple fact right.
LOL! You prove me factually right in your very quote. I was responding to what
ultra said about Zimmerman, doofus. I only corrected his factual errors and refuted the point he tried to make, which was at least somewhat on topic. All that other Zimmerman stuff about recent events you posted is completely off topic, lol.
Again, you frequently can't even get simple facts right and you conceptually lose the plot.
reply
share
Keelai (32064)
5 years ago
You're the one who is emotionally devastated because you don't feel free to call someone "illegal alien" in a city where you don't live. That qualifies you as a bigot and lunatic.
Name some federal statutes where the term is used.
"You never answered the crucial question about whether other political views and/or terminology you find offensive should be banned in public, for example a business owner posting a Pro Life or NRA poster."
You're stereotyping. I never said I found prolife or the NRA offensive. I couldn't care less about an NRA or prolife poster in a store window. BTW, smart business owners wouldn't put a political poster in their store window.
You had no business mentioning your hero Zimmerman in a comment to me since I'm not ultra.
reply
share
krl97a (5619)
5 years ago
What about things you do find offensive, apart from the legally and logically correct term "illegal alien"* I mean? Surely even you're not too ignorant to know that many people are offended by other things. If that's the basis for banning "illegal alien", then why not ban other words or images some find offensive? What's to stop NY or other governments from doing that in the future.
I didn't feel like typing a separate reply to ultra, and there was nothing wrong with me addressing that there. I also never said the registered Democrat Zimmerman was my "hero". I simply corrected some factual inaccuracies and refuted a flawed argument.
You're such a lunatic moron that it's an open question how many of your false claims are lies and how many are just insanity.
*What's funny is that even the NYC directive says the federal government frequently uses that term.
reply
share
Keelai (32064)
5 years ago
You couldn't find any federal statutes with "illegal alien" in them. Case closed.
Nevertheless, you brought up Zimmerman, and worst, repeatedly defended a dangerous sociopath. Case closed.
You're focusing on a term but missing 99.99% of the picture which is about discrimination and harassment against people based on their national origin. Both a federal and local crime. Case closed.
reply
share
krl97a (5619)
5 years ago
You already literally admitted "illegal alien" appears in law code, lol, though more importantly, as I've repeatedly said, it's used in routine government business (by the executive branch) and in court decisions (ones not written by radical leftist activist Sotomayor).
Even your leftist propaganda sources don't deny that "alien" has been firmly established in law since the 1700s and in British common law before that. Even if "illegal" didn't appear as an adjective in legislation, it would logically and practically be a necessary descriptor for types of aliens here illegally.
In the legislative examples you're dismissing because they tend to focus on incarcerated aliens, an example of the language is "shall reimburse a State for the costs incurred by the State for the imprisonment of any illegal alien or Cuban national who is convicted of a felony by such State" (8 U.S. Code § 1365) where context makes clear that "illegal" refers to the type of alien being incarcerated, unless you're arguing that "Cuban national" also only refers to someone convicted of a separate felony, lol. The law goes on to clearly define "illegal alien": https://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/illegal-alien-proper-terminology
I'm not aware of "undocumented immigrant" appearing in federal legislation.
The semantic push against "illegal alien" is about undermining the law by conditioning people into not seeing illegal entry as illegal. It's propaganda. Period.
You're fine with trampling freedom of speech and thought, and have failed to offer any limiting principle that would prevent citizens' speech and thought from being violated on other issues as well.
In this one DOJ document alone the term "illegal alien" occurs 13 times.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1069281/download
You've been humiliated on Zimmerman, as on the other topics, by not even getting the basic facts right, including who brought him up here and why.
You lose the case.
reply
share
Keelai (32064)
5 years ago
You appear ignorant in your desperation to continue using an outdated term.
Your link to the anti-immigration website is irrelevant. It's a hate group! Not my thing, but right up your alley.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2012/08/10/how-do-we-know-fair-hate-group
Do you have a man crush for Zimmerman?
Of course Trump who separates children from their mothers and places them in cages would use such a term. He's a sociopath and bigot. What's your excuse?
reply
share
krl97a (5619)
5 years ago
You're definitely ignorant in your rejection of history, practice, and basic logic. Your disregard for essential freedom, like the right to freely discuss political issues, is disgusting.
There was nothing remotely hateful about the calm, fact based, rational site I linked to. SPLC is a real hate group.
"SPLC’s tactics inspired a Politico piece wondering whether, in an era when the group’s “biggest fights seemed to be behind it,” it was “overstepping its bounds.” “There is a desperate need for more objective research on hate crimes and domestic extremism,” J. M. Berger, a researcher on extremism and a fellow with the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism at the Hague, told Politico. He said that “the problem partly stems from the fact that the [SPLC] wears two hats, as both an activist group and a source of information.” Progressive journalist Ken Silverstein, who in Harper’s compared SPLC’s practices to those of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, told Politico, “The organization has always tried to find ways to milk money out of the public by finding whatever threat they can most credibly promote.”
The SPLC is, as Philanthropy Roundtable put it, “Hate, Inc.,” or “The Anti-Hate Group That Is a Hate Group.” Its shameful attacks on Smith, Sommers, Ali, Carson, Paul, Krikorian, and others are simply scaremongering for suckers. It may portray itself as a justice-minded team of Atticus Finches. In reality it’s more like a goon squad of David Brocks."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/southern-poverty-law-center-bias-hate-group-labels-scam/
"In 2014 the FBI, under President Obama no less, said they would no longer use the SPLC criteria of hate groups as its own. There is a reason for that.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has become a leftist mouthpiece and, guided by its progressive evolution, a hate group."
https://townhall.com/columnists/joshgoldstein/2017/07/26/splc-hate-group-n2360208
Of course it was Obama, not Trump, who put "children in cages", though the federal government rightly used "illegal alien" routinely then too, as always. It's accurate. Your "bigotry" charge is an empty lie pushed for political propaganda reasons.
Do you have a man crush for Zimmerman?
Do
you, lol? You're the one who keeps obsessively raising him for some unexplained reason.
reply
share
Keelai (32064)
5 years ago
Yep. You're a bigot. I thought so. That explains your desperation to use an insult against undocumented immigrants.
Great T-shirt slogan:
"No one is illegal on stolen land."
The irony is the people crying "illegal" are Europeans complaining about immigrants with obvious indigenous ancestry.
My favorite youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEiCbalBy2w
You still have Obama Derangement Syndrome years after he left office.
"Do you, lol?"
You're the one defending him like a love sick puppy.
reply
share
krl97a (5619)
5 years ago
No, but you're revealing some of your bigotry. You clearly have an anti-white chip on your shoulder. That guy in your video was a raging, truly hate-filled bigot and moron who also sounded a little drunk, judging by his slurred speech. And you felt linking to that and endorsing that as your "favorite youtube video"(!) would help your cause, lol? He was literally attacking the US flag and was angered by the sight of it.
At least we can drop the pretense that you care about the law or have anything but disdain for America. You just hate white people, Keelai, because, like your youtube champion, you're shallow and ignorant of history. You don't understand how the world works, the brutal realities of Amerindian societies (contrary to your dumb friend's assertion that they "should" have opposed white settlers, the first Jamestown settlers were met with unprovoked arrow storms on the beach; hardly the last display of Indian hostility towards whites), or the benefits gained from Western Civilization and the USA in particular despite you hypocritically enjoying them on a daily basis.
You still have Obama Derangement Syndrome years after he left office.
LOL! I only mentioned Obama because you falsely accused Trump of something Obama did.
You're the one defending him like a love sick puppy.
Whom are we talking about again, lol? Oh wait, you mean Zimmerman, the Hispanic guy who defended himself against Martin, whom you keep bringing up for some unexplained reason.
PS - Is it "alien" you find offensive or just the adjective "illegal"? Do you also stridently oppose, to the point of wanting to torch the First Amendment, the plethora of long established legal terms like "legal alien", "resident alien", etc.?
reply
share
Keelai (32064)
5 years ago
"No one is illegal on stolen land."
Still applies.
I hit a nerve so you must have been in the crowd.
You didn't deny being a love sick puppy and you're still mentioning HIM.
reply
share
krl97a (5619)
5 years ago
No, but you've been exposed as a racial bigot, Keelai, who hates America and would prefer that it not exist. We've also established that you want to scrap the First Amendment and have the government ban viewpoints you disagree with.
Quite a productive exchange.
reply
share
Keelai (32064)
5 years ago
ad hominem much?
reply
share
krl97a (5619)
5 years ago
You were also destroyed on substance, but it's good to establish where you're coming from, bigot.
PS - You forgot to mention "Zimmerman", lol.
reply
share