Judge Bans Use of “Illegal” and “Aliens”

This issue is coming to the US as a whole very soon now that we have a lopsidedly liberal government in control. Pretty soon anyone who’s against illegal immigration will be officiallhy against “human rights”.

Did the judge ban the term “illegal aliens” or the terms “illegal” and “aliens”? How are courts supposed to discuss “resident aliens” (the correct term for green card holders) when “alien” is banned? How in the name of anything holy are the courts supposed to go without saying “illegal”? It’s like trying to write a book without using the letter “T”. PC truely is the greatest barrier to thought in the western world.

The lefties always try to define our vocabulary 1984 style. We should do the same. From now on all non White immigrants to Europe and America and other White lands should be called ‘foreign invaders’ and non-White immigration (both legal and illegal) should be termed as ‘foreign invasion’.

Coming soon to a court near you:

Speeding: Personalized vectoring choice

Illegal drugs: Individual self-psycho remediation

Bank robbery: Informal monetary withdrawal

Shoplifting: Undocumented purchase

Rape: Non-reciprocated love

Entering and working in the USA illegally and off the books, while not paying taxes: Undocumented worker

Using threat and violence to force minority concerns on Whites: Civil Rights Worker

Questioning the use threat and violence to force minority concerns on Whites: Racism and bigotry

Using government money to organize protests designed to force the government to transfer money from one race to another: Community organizer

It further points out that no human being is illegal

A utter non sequitur and a contemptible assault on the English language. How this judicial officer lets these half literate rascals get away with this sort of linguistic legerdemain is beyond me. I suppose she’s banning the word “alien” because she thinks it means illegal entrants are from Mars instead of Mexico.

Now it starts. First ban free speech. Then let’s burn some books ( be sure to bring marshmallows). Then we throw a few people in jail. Then we all practice walking with our heads down, not daring to look someone in the eye. Welcome to our brave new world.

Where is the Chief Justice’s promise to ban “illegal alien” and other disliked immigration terms? In her letter to the Hispanic lawyers she states she will bring their “concerns” to the attention of Arizona state judges and employees, and thanks Los Abogados for bringing this to her attention. I think we should wait and see how this plays out, if Chief Justice McGregor issues an order banning the terms. I see nothing in the PDF to indicate she had done so. In other words, perhaps Judicial Watch is overreacting.

I’ll scream my head off along with everyone else if “illegal alien” is actually banned, but so far I don’t see it.

Of course, I prefer the term, “invader,” myself. :-)

Imagine, a judge not allowing the use of the word illegal in court to describe illegal behavior. No human being may be illegal but their actions are.

Our insanity only spreads.

More banning of free speech!

How can you deal with a reality if you ban all terms describing that reality? You are silenced!

It concludes with a list of acceptable and unacceptable terms relating to illegal immigration. Among those the group wants banned are; immigration crisis, immigration epidemic, open borders advocates, anchor babies and invaders. Among the acceptable terms are foreign nationals, unauthorized workers and human rights advocates.

In other words, they haven’t succeeded (yet) in erasing our laws that ban illegal immigration, so they want to erase the part of our language that describes it! They want to make “illegal” the term “illegal alien!” This is the next best thing. It will be the first step in eliminating those pesky laws defending our national borders! For how can we ban something that we can’t even describe? Thus muddling our thinking, they can proceed with the planned invasion.

It further points out that no human being is illegal

I have a word for this statement but it wouldn’t be allowed on this website. If indeed illegals are “human rights advocates,” I’m sure the Hispanic Bar Association won’t mind a few million “human rights advocates” from Guatemala swarming into Mexico? After all, “no human being is illegal,” right? As Jared Taylor pointed out, these arguments always fall to pieces the instant they are applied to any non-white nation.

Does the Hispanic Bar Association oppose the term “hate crime?” Of course not! Yet the very purpose of the term is to “attach a status to a person that establishes a brand of contemptibility while attempting to inflame sentiments against him or her!”

Is there any better evidence than this story that this country has gone mad?

“It further points out that no human being is illegal and that a national Hispanic journalism association has roundly criticized the reference for dehumanizing a segment of the population.”

This is a silly manipulative ploy. Of course no human is illegal but if they are in the country illegally, they are here illegally and thus illegal.

There is going to come a time when no one is willing to listen to or obey the institutions of the federal government. Why? Because they are too weak to supply their primary purposes.

If a court can’t or won’t put a criminal in jail, why should anyone respect its authority? Governments, especially large governments like ours, do not force compliance, so much as they rely on the majority of people, spending the majority of their effort, cooperating, most of the time.

That is very close to coming to an end. As the economy collapses and social order breaks down, people have little reason to respect the rule of law. Our government has little to fear from armed insurrection….and everything to fear from simply being ignored.

I’d like to ban all AmRen posters named ‘Mike B.’

Wait - actually, I would like to ban the ENTIRE English Language, along with Western Civilization because it ‘offends’ my delicate sensibilities.

Can someone get to work on that please? I’d do it, but I’m slightly busy working 88 hrs. a day to support my local illegal aliens (aka ‘human rights advocates’)

Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this sensitive matter…

Illegal aliens is a little strong, as if from another planet. How about wet backs or mojados?…or perhaps not entering illegaly? (Law) is not always wrong, I think our; (los abogados)…(the(law)yers) might sympathize with this idea?

How about banning the Hispanic Bar Association for being illegal?

“Judge Bans Use of “Illegal” and “Aliens””

I live in South Africa and all I can say is that you people are in serious trouble and you are going to take the rest of the Western world with you. You always have.

It would seem to me that if a group of people wanted to avoid being stigmatized as criminals, they would simply refrain from breaking the law. It is illegal to enter the U.S. without permission. It is NOT illegal to hold racialist/race-realist views. Therefore, if the former group is considered “protected”, certainly race-realists should also be “protected” and there should be a ban on the use of the terms “racist”, “bigot”, “white separatist”, “white supremacist” or “nativist”.

So what? Use other synonyms… However, they too will likely be banned. But just how ridiculous is this judge and people like him prepared to go in banning “offensive language” in a land where free speech is a protected right?

… no human being is illegal? Are these people real? I thought that was an idiotic line when Hillary Clinton used it (“no woman is illegal”); and these are supposed to be trained lawyers?

Since presumably most of the business of the courts arises out of formerly “illegal” acts, what will they now do for a living? Adjudicate charges of redistribution activism? The word “guilty” has such negative connotations. How about “inadvertent proximate causation” instead? Sheesh!

Before the Obama term is over, our courts will be full of judges who favor rulings such as this.

Wait - actually, I would like to ban the ENTIRE English Language, along with Western Civilization because it ‘offends’ my delicate sensibilities.

Mike B. you are going to have to submit your request in some language other than English in order for it to go forward.

How about for now, if we start by banning all English, written and spoken, in the courtroom when an undocumented human rights advocate is present? Any evidence written in English, banned. If the witnesses only speak English, banned. If the victim only speaks English, banned.

Heed the warnings of the person above from South Africa.

In twenty years things may be unrecoginizable in this country.

“Governments, especially large governments like ours, do not force compliance, so much as they rely on the majority of people, spending the majority of their effort, cooperating, most of the time.”

Yes, this is the problem. In a homogeneous society, people feel kinship with one another, and thus cooperate. In a society made up of numerous divergent squabbling tribes, there is little cooperation between members of the different ethnic groups, each of whom generally distrusts the other. This is why diversity (=differences)in one form or another has been at the basis of nearly all wars.

Diversity is very dangerous, and can explode into violence at any moment. That is why our nation spends billions of Dollars each year trying to convince us that everything is fine and diversity is good. From pre-school through graduate school, from the pulpit to the White-house, from billboards to box office — we are constantly bombarded with images of happy races working together. But, if diversity was actually a good thing, then none of this constant brain-washing would be needed. The fact that every company, government agency, and university in America has an “Office of Diversity Concerns” proves that diversity is not our Greatest Strength (TM), but a great danger that must be countered by massive, constant, and intense cradle-to-grave Orwellian social manipulation.

How about calling them “criminal invaders”. That would be more accurate.

—Allan

“…and these are supposed to be trained lawyers?”
Posted by AnalogMan at 1:28 AM on November 11.

Great points, AnalogMan. Not just lawyers, but pandering politicians as well. Make that a perfect triple play if the politician in the black robe is also a lawyer competing in the election process. Then you have all the corruption of a judge, lawyer and politician in one foul package. And it’s a home run if they are a liberal activist judge to boot. Makes me wonder if the true criminal, and the greater danger to society, might be behind the bench instead of the one in handcuffs.

“…because they create perceptions of judicial bias.”

Changing the centuries old clear meaning and intent of standard English and legal terms because of a ‘perception of bias’? Must be newspeak for the true agenda of elevating judicial bias to absurd new levels.

Seems fair and appropriate that we likewise ban the biased term ‘honorable’ from their title.

Here’s an update on this matter.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008/nov/court-threatens-sue-judicial-watch

My hat’s off to the people at Judicial Watch for having the spines (unlike most other Whites) to disseminate stories like this in the face of Orwellian opposition from the government.

How about “person who illegally immigrated” or similar verbiage? Now we’re describing someone as a “person” (who can be offended at that?) and describing the CRIME they committed.

Next you’ll tell me that “murderer” is an unfair term, and we should call it something like “carbon-footprint reducer for the human race.”

I’m only 31, but I’ve known for a long time that this country is all about words and paperwork. There’s no action and there’s no follow through. (I’m glad Bush did something about the fact that we got bombed on 9/11. Every president has to take up the slack of the one before. I’m no diehard Bush-supporter.)

We should vote on a representative’s stand with no media intervention, just a list at the poles with no name.

The white men in this country who should be leading should be ashamed of themselves, opening the floodgates and letting third-world minorities take over this once great land. This is a country of excuses. There’s too much political correctness. No one says what everyone knows. If we offend people or push them away, so be it. Documents are not interpreted to suit your specific case. You follow the laws of the land or you’re not part of this country. Period.

If Newt Gingrich could get past all of his indiscretions, I’d take him as a leader. Palin is a straight-shooter. I don’t care if she’s female.

(I went off the subject, but I don’t participate in writing much anymore.)

“No Human Being is Illegal”-very cute. Sounds like a pol-
itical slogan, but is it true? No, many are illegal. Whites in
South Africa, Salvadoran without proper papers in Mexico, and
Mexicans without proper documentation in America. Perhaps we
should change from illegal alien to undocumented invader. Or there is the old standby, undesirable alien that can be used
once they have taken root.

Why does anyone, much less a judge, listen to a rotten group such as the Hispanic Bar Association? They should be laughed out of the country even their members are here legally.

“In a strongly worded letter to the chief justice, Los Abogados’ president says attaching an illegal status to a person establishes a brand of contemptibility, creates the appearance of anti-immigrant prejudice and tarnishes the image of courts as a place where disputes may be fairly resolved.”

Where do I start?:

a)Entering the country illegally is a contemptible act.

b)The American public is rightly prejudiced against people who broke our laws to come here illegally.

c)Use of the words “illegal” and “alien” are unrelated to immigrants [a class of people here legally] and has no bearing whatsoever on the court’s ability to fairly resolve disputes.

The Los Abogados’ president, however, through these accusations, has amply displayed his own self-deluded resistance to resolving disputes - either fairly or logically.

How about the ultimate PC definition.

Disadvantaged persons forced by a racist society to enter informally?