Judge Bans Use Of “Illegal” and “Aliens”

Friday, 07 November 2008 06:17
Corruption Chronicles
Arizona’s Supreme Court Justice has agreed to enforce the Hispanic Bar Association’s demands of banning the terms “illegal” and “aliens” in all of the state’s courtrooms. Claiming that the terms are inflammatory, the president of Arizona’s Hispanic Bar Association, (known as Los Abogados) has asked state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor to stop using them at trials or hearings because they create perceptions of judicial bias.

(for full story)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...gal-and-aliens

(to see the entire list as well as Chief Justice McGregor’s promise to enforce the requests)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/documen...egorLetter.pdf

[canUCme?]

The term illegal alien has been used for years and years. Now because it's resented by the spanish some judge bans the use of either word.
Unbelievable.
(That's a lot nicer than most of the names they have for us!)
"C"

[JD1974]

Originally Posted by canUCme?

The term illegal alien has been used for years and years. Now because it's resented by the spanish some judge bans the use of either word.
Unbelievable.
(That's a lot nicer than most of the names they have for us!)
"C"

Everything is becoming so pc nowadays it is scary. Almost everything you say can now be attributed to be against someone. Heck I swear I am afraid to say Merry Christmas during christmastime and Bless You if someone sneezes anymore, I am afraid someone will sue me LOL

[juliekan]

Originally Posted by OvrAndOvrAgn

Friday, 07 November 2008 06:17
Corruption Chronicles
Arizona’s Supreme Court Justice has agreed to enforce the Hispanic Bar Association’s demands of banning the terms “illegal” and “aliens” in all of the state’s courtrooms. Claiming that the terms are inflammatory, the president of Arizona’s Hispanic Bar Association, (known as Los Abogados) has asked state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor to stop using them at trials or hearings because they create perceptions of judicial bias.

(for full story)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...gal-and-aliens

(to see the entire list as well as Chief Justice McGregor’s promise to enforce the requests)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/documen...egorLetter.pdf

So is the use of the term "aliens" inflammatory to umm...aliens?

And they are illegal so...ummm...the problem is....

[Details]

JMO - but I think we're freaking out here without reason. Normally - yeah - illegal alien is a correct term. But in a court of law, when referring to an individual on trial, or to a witness - I can see it as being a prejudicial term, until someone is convicted of being here illegally.

You can't call a thief a thief in court - not until they've been formally convicted - and often not after - you can just ask if they've been convicted, and for the charge name.

So not being able to refer to a defendant, witness, or victim as an illegal - that I can see.

[LisaM22]

Originally Posted by blues_cat

And, I'm afraid too of saying "Happy Holidays" or I'll be accused of being godless

Geez, can't we all relax.

lol, no kidding

[Hey Paula]

Political correctness has destroyed this Country. Attempts to minimize problems (or substituting euphemisms) serve only to magnify them. Attaching positive language to negative behavior ("illegal") or status ("alien") doesn't change the behavior or status. It is what it is and they are whom they are.

Illegal = unlawful/in violation of the law

alien.. = noncitizen

IMO

[Carol25]

Originally Posted by OvrAndOvrAgn

Friday, 07 November 2008 06:17
Corruption Chronicles
Arizona’s Supreme Court Justice has agreed to enforce the Hispanic Bar Association’s demands of banning the terms “illegal” and “aliens” in all of the state’s courtrooms. Claiming that the terms are inflammatory, the president of Arizona’s Hispanic Bar Association, (known as Los Abogados) has asked state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor to stop using them at trials or hearings because they create perceptions of judicial bias.

(for full story)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...gal-and-aliens

(to see the entire list as well as Chief Justice McGregor’s promise to enforce the requests)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/documen...egorLetter.pdf

AND I JUST WROTE HER GIVING HER A PEICE OF MY MIND!

[Carol25]

Whoops, piece and no caps. sorry. Guess I was a bit miffed.

Originally Posted by Details

JMO - but I think we're freaking out here without reason. Normally - yeah - illegal alien is a correct term. But in a court of law, when referring to an individual on trial, or to a witness - I can see it as being a prejudicial term, until someone is convicted of being here illegally.

You can't call a thief a thief in court - not until they've been formally convicted - and often not after - you can just ask if they've been convicted, and for the charge name.

So not being able to refer to a defendant, witness, or victim as an illegal - that I can see.

But those are not the only words they dont want used in courts through out Arizona or on any Arizona court documents;
Anchor Babies
Illegal Immigration
Immigration Epidemic
Immigration Crisis
Open Border Advocates
They are trying to claim that these terms are derogatory in my opinion there is nothing derogatory about them.

Originally Posted by Carol25

AND I JUST WROTE HER GIVING HER A PEICE OF MY MIND!

After Judicial Watch posted this information on their site the judges office called them and threatened to sue Judicial Watch for slander when JW had the letter written to the judge and the judges reply. JW responded to the threat and posted their reply on their web site. It seems as if the judge was hoping that this wouldn't get out as quick as it did.

[juliekan]

Originally Posted by Details

JMO - but I think we're freaking out here without reason. Normally - yeah - illegal alien is a correct term. But in a court of law, when referring to an individual on trial, or to a witness - I can see it as being a prejudicial term, until someone is convicted of being here illegally.

You can't call a thief a thief in court - not until they've been formally convicted - and often not after - you can just ask if they've been convicted, and for the charge name.

So not being able to refer to a defendant, witness, or victim as an illegal - that I can see.

As Popeye would say, "I yam what I yam."

If you are here illegally from another country, you ARE an illegal immigrant. No other way to put it unless you want to go all pc and sugarcoat it. It's in the laws of our country. Why would it be said any different in a court of law.

[Jayne]

WOW...I guess nothing surprises me much anymore. Bandwagon "legal?" group demanding to change wording that has been used for years, and not disparagingly (at least not legally)? Some of the posts here and comments at the link site are telling...many find this entirely ridiculous.

My ancestors were immigrants...became citizens soon thereafter. And, they came here legally. No doubt many people have used the term "immigrant" in nasty ways but it is what it is and many many families are proud that they emigrated to the US and became productive citizens here...immigrant wasn't a nasty word, it was something to be thankful for and proud of.

If a person comes into the US without documentation and going through the legal channels, they are both undocumented and illegal, if they were a citizen they wouldn't need such paperwork, etc. If they are not a citizen they can "pledge allegiance" and be a "national". Non citizens, aliens, can be here legally if going through the correct channels. Those who do not are here "illegally". It's clearly, to me, a black and white..no grey area..either legal or non-legal/illegal. Maybe non-legal is a "nicer" word? And maybe the term "black and/or white" will be stricken as well, even though it has no racist tones or meaning for the intended use? What then? "this or that"? "one side or the other"?

jmo
j

[Details]

Originally Posted by juliekan

As Popeye would say, "I yam what I yam."

If you are here illegally from another country, you ARE an illegal immigrant. No other way to put it unless you want to go all pc and sugarcoat it. It's in the laws of our country. Why would it be said any different in a court of law.

In a court of law, only facts that are proven in a court of law can be used, and not in overly prejudicial terms. For example - if you steal, you ARE a thief. But if you are in court, giving testimony, and you haven't been found guilty of whatever degree of theft you are charged with, the attorneys cannot refer to you as a thief. Even if you've been convicted, unless that's related somehow to the case, they still can't refer to it. If you offered sex for money, and were convicted of such, often they won't let the attorneys refer to you as a "*****" - but instead require them to ask you what you were convicted of, to avoid the prejudicial impact of the word "*****". Doubly so, if that was once upon a time, and now you are in court as a rape victim.

The public can, your victim can refer to you as a thief - but in court, we are far more careful. This doesn't eliminate those terms for the public, for the media, for anyone or anything other than in court. Do we want to see an innocent convicted, because the jury was subtly influenced by the fact the person charged is an illegal? Do we want to see the guilty go free because someone decides not to believe a witness because the attorney is able to label them as an illegal?


In general use - it's an accurate term. In general, someone deciding they don't like you much because you're an illegal is a natural and reasonable consequence of your decision to live here without our permission. But in court they generally try to keep the jury's focus merely on the facts of the case, without anything that might add a bias - whether it's something in the past, past or current criminal acts unless they relate to the case, jobs some people dislike (whether IRS agent or Escort Service manager), etc. This is just one more of those things.

[Details]

Originally Posted by OvrAndOvrAgn

But those are not the only words they dont want used in courts through out Arizona or on any Arizona court documents;
Anchor Babies
Illegal Immigration
Immigration Epidemic
Immigration Crisis
Open Border Advocates
They are trying to claim that these terms are derogatory in my opinion there is nothing derogatory about them.

Oh boy - that last is derogatory! Call me a scum-sucking worm before you call me an Open Border Advocate!

Anchor Baby - is both a real issue and derogatory - it implies someone coldly and callously decided to have a child here just to get money and citizenship. Very derogatory to the parents. Even if often that is true - sometimes it is not - it's simply a child they wanted to have that happened to come when they were here. Using that term implies something that is most likely not proven.


In general talk - it's appropriate. But in court, we have to be excessively cautious, to protect justice. The Phil Spector case is a great example - the defense attorneys are casting a main witness as an illegal alien to discredit him (even though he was here legally, but made the mistake of working illegally, when his visa didn't allow that). It likely enough did help to get him off.

[Carol25]

As part of the silent majority, I am beginning to become ashamed of myself. We, as citizens, should begin making posters and protest around that courthouse for endless days for the mockery they make of the judicial system.

Some Judges do not interpret the law any longer, they try to cultivate new ideas of a society they find appropriate in their own fantasy worlds!

[Jayne]

Originally Posted by blues_cat

I agree with -- Open Border Advocate - I would have thought this would be considered a positive term and that is one I jst cannot udnerstand.

I can see "anchor baby" as derogatory and unacceptable if used in court, but is it ever used in court. Maybe, I don't know. I just can't think of a case where it would come up since it's not a legal issue.

I can't see anyone in a court using "anchor baby" unless it's some calloused attorney or witness.

Open Border Advocate?

I guess I don't know the background of the Hispanic Bar Association demanding not using "the" terms..how were they being used? To describe someone who is in the US illegally? Or to describe someone of Hispanic origin..without any consideration as to whether they were legally in the US or not?

Open Border Advocate - says to me, it is someone, regardless of their citizenship (but more likely an actual US citizen, sympathetic to immigration across the border regardless of it being legal or illegal)..who advocates the US allow the border to be "open" to any and all (or perhaps limited?) to anyone who wants to come into the US? To use that term to describe a person who enters the US through the border without proper documentation and legal workings would, IMO, be ridiculous and even disparaging to those who immigrated and became citizens or are in the US "legally and responsibly" who truly Do Advocate for it. It would be like denoting a burglar or home invader as an "Open House Advocate". Sure..you could enter my house "legally" as "invited"..but as an "open house advocate" it means you can enter my house even if "uninvited" or not within legal rights to be in my home? Of course..it certainly would seem that any individual who wants to cross the border (and can't or chooses not to do so legally) would prefer the term "Open Border Advocate"...has a nice "American Freedom" or Human/Civil Rights ring to it to certainly make them appear much less "guilty" or much less "not following the rules"..they are advocating..for themselves and others in their same or like positions. All power to them to advocate...just do it legally, imo, don't hide behind the phrase. I actually think there would be more among these open border advocates who entered "legally" on work permits, temporary status, etc. who became citizens or nationals..who worked their tails off..who put their children through schools and didn't depend on state/federal support (I've known quite a few)..and would advocate for people "LIKE THEM" to have the same opportunity..even if not having a "ready at the outset" green card at the time because they know others just like them who weren't as fortunate. To me..such individuals are not "illegal" nor were they ever...they did it the right way and are now "open border advocates" as in "open" it to people just like them.

Inasmuch as I am sure there are many people who enter through the borders illegally, do so out of a true desire to become a US citizen, but because they didn't (or couldn't) go through the proper channels they are "classified" and even "sent back"...if one knew the true mindset of those particular individuals, I think any decent person would refrain from using any term that is derogatory - being in a derogatory fashion. But if someone were "on trial" and also being in the US illegally..for having committed a crime (other than that..), I can perhaps see the Bar Group being up in arms against using "the term(s)" when the "intent" of the person in Entering the US was "good intent". If on trial for a US federal or state crime, however, wouldn't the person's prior acts, if relevant, be admissible? As in fraud, perjury, among others? Would the prosecutors (or any attorneys) be prohibited from asking whether the individual was a citizen? legally in the US? And, if the Wrong answer is given, be prohibited from giving countering proof that the person was an "illegal immigrant" or "undocumented alien"?

I could never understand (yet I had to give deference to the "Union") for declaring a child born in this country to have automatic citizenship...isn't that way in other countries..or the ones I used to be familiar with (don't know if their laws changed)..but one parent had to be a "citizen" of that country..be it Greece, France, Switzerland, etc. I should have..but haven't looked into the "history" of it..but my guess would be..it dates way back...to early or maybe not so early immigration..where families emigrated here to become US citizens..but had a "child on the way" who was born before their citizenship became "law"...rather than grandfathering it in, the child would automatically be a citizen, expecting the family would as well? I should know this...but I don't remember the background of it...does anyone?

jmo...and thanks for any answers...

J

[Annie143]

How can you write to the judge ? Is there an address in the article ? I am sick of Hispanics dictating what is right and wrong in this country.

eta is anyone else having a problem accessing the site through those links ? I keep getting "page not found"

[withay]

This is really nothing new; when I worked for the government and we first started seeing non-english speaking folks without citizenship documentation, we were forbidden to call them illegal aliens even if they identified themselves as such. We had to use the term "undocumented aliens". And make no mistake, there are folks here from all over the globe who are not in the USA legally....it is not just coming from our southern neighbors.
I always found it amazing that people would come into a government agency and tell the agency that they were here illegally and then get angry when they were told they were not eligible for benefits!


And I am all for legal immigration. But it's just not fair to the folks who go through legal channelsto immigrate to have another amnesty program, IMHO. Are we going to just have another one in 10 more years? When does it stop?

[Rangerx1]

People are people and illegal is illegal. Maybe if they would refrain from commiting illegal acts they would not be refered to as illegal? Shockingly simple isn't it?

[Rangerx1]

Originally Posted by SuzzannaSuch

What is shocking to me is the ongoing hatred toward your fellow man.
They commit no more "illegal" acts than citizens of this nation. They are here for survival purposes. What is the reason of criminal activity associated with the those who are born here and participate in gangs?
They deal drugs and kill for territorial purposes.
What is the excuse of the KKK and their criminal acts of rape, hanging and cross burning?
Is it for survival of their families? I think not. It is fear and hatred.

Show me where I said I hated them? I only expect them to follow our laws and they are then welcome. I know it's easier if you can equate this to hatred to say it's so wrong, but it's only trying to cloud the issue. So guess what, those that were born here and commit illegal activities are also wrong and should face the consequences that fit their actions. Why should those coming from another country be different?

Originally Posted by SuzzannaSuch

What is shocking to me is the ongoing hatred toward your fellow man.
They commit no more "illegal" acts than citizens of this nation. They are here for survival purposes. What is the reason of criminal activity associated with the those who are born here and participate in gangs?
They deal drugs and kill for territorial purposes.
What is the excuse of the KKK and their criminal acts of rape, hanging and cross burning?
Is it for survival of their families? I think not. It is fear and hatred.

It is shocking to me how you can bring "hate" into this issue. No One on here has ever said that they hate anyone illegally in our country. We have laws in place in this country for a reason and if any American citizen or legal immigrant breaks the law they are punished. Also the KKK is a very small group compared to the 20 to 30 million illegal immigrants who are breaking the law. I cant remember the last time I read a story of the KKK burning a cross or hanging anyone or raping anyone but there are plenty of stories of illegal immigrants raping and killing in this country every single day.