http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/28/0...0.5qwylcsk.html

Really... please.  Just shoot me right now.  Put me out of my misery.  I can't bear to read statements like these.

o.O  I would say that is a bit extreme too.

Besides, how would our legal system handle something like this?  Where would we house these "criminals?"  It seems somewhat foolish to house and feed an illegal immigrant in jail/prison when you want them out of your country so damn bad that you want to try them as a criminal.

I saw it... but I didn't reply because I was unsure which meaning you meant. The one offered by the other two.. or the one about 'criminal' and 'illegal'.

I love word games, puns, and oxymorons... so I kinda of pick up on odd things like that... but no one else does, so I try to pick and choose.

But yes.. it's like saying an attempted suicide is punishable by death........ which I think I read somewhere.

I don't believe in natural selection.  I cite humanity as obvious proof of its invalidity.  ~

 That is most likely the dumbest argument ive heard on the immigration debate thus far. This would not make it illegal to be foreign your simply assuming everyone who immigrated to this country did so illegally which is not the case. The United States has more legal immigration on a yearly basis than every other country in the world combined ( according to an article i read awhile back in USA today ). You simply cannot have people coming and going without documentation with complete disregard for the law. Forget the terrorism issue the fact that the republic of Mexico refuses to extradite people who murder our citizens and flee to Mexico should be enough justification to close our borders. Lets not forget the Mexican army is in cahoots with drug dealers smuggling people across our borders. Many hard working immigrants became good American citizens because they obeyed the law and went through the proper channels when they came to this country legitimizing those who snuck under the fence would be spitting in their face.  And for the record anyone who entered and worked in this country illegally ( using public services without paying taxes, driving without insurance receiving medical care without paying ) is already breaking the law.

Let's say person P is walking around with (too much) drugs in his suitcase, but that P is unaware of this. The law tells us it is illegal to possess that amount of drugs.*

(* this happening in imaginary country C, or any country of your choice, as long as this will not devolve into a debate about specific laws and details)

I would not resist to P being called to be doing something illegal. It's right there in the law and he is currently the actor.

However, I would resist to P being called a criminal. The word, as I've stated before, has connotations (at least for the common audience - including a jury) that indicate that P is both aware of, and willfully doing, something illegal. He may be called ignorant or even stupid, but 'criminally stupid' or 'criminally ignorant' are not tautologies (although I agree that they should be, in some cases ).

To solve this twist, a few things could be done. The definition of legality could be adapted to the common notion, or alternatively, likewise for the definition of criminality. Or, a mass acknowledgement of the purely technical meaning of 'crime' and 'criminal' could be enforced and made exclusive. Since the latter is unlikely to happen, a fourth option may be useful: the use of words that lack the connotation of 'criminality', but have all the meaning of 'illegality'. We have such a words, for instance: 'illegal'. Why not use them, instead?

I stick to my (twice previously stated) opinion that it is silly to try and stick to purely technical meanings of words, since that's simply not what human beings do (and, I venture to boldy guess, nor do rational creatures that think themselves not to be human beings).

Tab what the hell are you talking about? We aren't talking about legal technicality's here were talking about very real very practical concerns. An Illegal immigrant is still causing a problem weather or not they know what they are doing is illegal ( and they do don't kid yourself ). Its not possible to avoid classifying them as criminals because thats what they are there isn't any way around it. Now thats not to say they are hardened violent thugs and i believe most people don't see them that way anyway but we cant pretend there isn't a problem. I can sympathize with these people most of them just come here for work to support their family but they need to obey our laws. The fact that they are breaking the immigration laws is only one concern. I get the feeling a lot of people are under the impression that we only want the border laws enforced because we are without pity and don't like impoverished brown people. Well  thats simply not the case.

Tab, I think we've established that you don't like the word criminal when it comes to minor infractions.  In a court of law, however, legal definitions are very strict and precise.  Someone who jaywalks is as much a criminal by definition as someone who guns down a schoolhouse in the sense that they are both violating a law.  The jaywalker however is not a felon, nor guilty of anything more than a minor misdemeanor (in the US anyway).  They broke the law, that is undisputable.  Was it a serious offence?  Not for the jaywalker.  Now I understand what you dislike is the stigma associated with the word criminal, but stigmas are assigned by society, not the dictionary.  I am not part of society, and I despise unwriten social rules.  However, I will take a moment to do an aside here.

Let's throw religion into the picture because it usually ends up in the discussion anyway (but this time it's actually on topic!)  Let's replace the word "criminal" with "sinner".  Now, look at the ten commandments.  Here they are (catholicism has them in a slightly different order):

1) I am the Lord thy God and thou shalt not have other gods besides me.
2) Thou shalt not make for thyself any graven image.
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4) Remember the Lord's Day to keep it holy.
5) Honor thy Father and Mother.
6) Thou shalt not kill.
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10) Thou shalt not covet.

Now, let's say someone breaks a commandment.  That makes them a sinner, right?  You'd certainly say someone who murders or commits adultery is a sinner.  What about someone who says a little fib about the old lady next door?  What about the guy who is a little jealous because the guy up the street has a nicer lawn?  Surely that's not so bad.  But, according to the bible, Romans 3:23 says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."  This means severity is irrelevent as to what  defines a sinner - everyone is a sinner, no matter how major or minor their sin.  But let's say we define sinners only by those who don't break any of the ten commandments.  Let's leave out the minor infractions.  Well, that changes the whole focus of Christianity.  You no longer have to depend on Christ's sacrifice on the cross for redemption, now you just keep the 10 commandments and you get to heaven by your own account.  It's also carte blanche to go out and do whatever isn't serious.  The question to the believer, however, would be what God thinks of all this...  After all, it is God who gave the laws, and therefore God who defines what is and is not a sin.  Thinking that it's not a sin to do something minor does not absolve someone of guilt in God's eyes.

It's no different in the courtroom.  You see, it doesn't matter what a person thinks about a law, what matters is what those in authority will do if someone violates it.  This is where people fall into the trap of self-delusion.  "It's just a little pot" is something police officers and judges hear over and over in the US, where it is illegal to possess any amount.  Those who think it's not a crime get booked the same as those who know it is.  Whether we're talking about religious laws, or civil laws, those who have authority are the ones who set the rules.  Let's take your "imaginary country" for example, which is not so imaginary as all that.  I know you're allowed to possess a certain amount of pot in the Netherlands but only a certain amount.  I also know that in most countries ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it.  Like they say, "tell it to the judge".  That's how the law works here, it may be different there, I do not know.  Now if you get mad at me for saying this just remember that I didn't write the law, nor is it my goal to approve or disapprove of any country's laws in this thread.  I'm merely presenting how those who enforce it tend to behave toward those who break it, whatever their feelings might be.

The greater question in regards to illegally entering the United States is one of selective enforcement, or rather, selective lack of enforcement.  Now this is a discussion about linguistic concerns so your rant about stigmatizing with words actually spins back into the equation in a rather interesting way.  The entire gripe I had from the beginning with this whole situation is that it is already illegal to enter the country improperly.  What they are discussing is making illegal something that's already illegal in the first place.  If it's already against the law, why does it need to be made against the law again?  Now to further illustrate my point of how absurd this all is becoming, take a look the quote from this article:

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060329/...O-FENCE-DC.html

Catch the term "undocumented migrant" in this hypothetical scenario (as reported by Reuters).  Undocumented migrant?  What is an undocumented migrant, exactly?  Is that a goose that didn't get a leg band on its trip back to Canada?  This is the first time I've heard this little term.  It sure sounds a lot less harsh than "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien", which was the term before alien was changed to immigrant.  To be honest, I'm not sure when that happened either.  I seem to remember George Carlin having a rant about toilet paper being renamed to bathroom tissue without him being informed.  Doesn't anyone get it besides me?  In changing the language, in "softening" everything, the words lose their meaning!  The entire purpose of changing language is to affect how people think.  The whole purpose for changing how you think is to make you more receptive to events and circumstances you otherwise would not be.  If it sounds softer you might miss the point or won't raise objection as easily, which means those changing the language get their way.

It is a sick little mind control game, and I hope to hell people wake up to it.  The legacy of "political correctness" is thought control.  If I offend a few people in raising alarm over it, so be it.  Tab, you get upset when someone calls an illegal immigrant a criminal.  What happens when they start calling murderers "unadjusted individuals" or some other meaningless "Newspeak" term?  Think it's not coming?  They aready call rapists "sex offenders" here for God's sake!  Will anyone stop this madness?[/color]

Actually, my hands are raised. In my first post I was kind of under the impression that this was some sort of intuitive test, a double-bluff if you like, so I played the race card to see what the craic was I thought that the idea that the US government was incompetent was a given anyway. This just affirms that concept.

It's true that PC-ness is the biggest threat to freedom of opinion since McCarthyism. I find that all of these watered-down terms only serve to patronise rather than placate.

BTW Pho, the technical term where I'm from is "bog-roll"

  As for Natural Selection vs Intelligent Design, anyone got any BETTER explanantions?