Gunner
It isn't. That's why, if they are apprehended and determined to be illegally in the country, they are merely deported.
Can you name a country that shoots undocumented aliens out of hand? I've never heard of it, and I don't believe any country in Europe, North and South America, and most of Asia would do it; certainly not any country that a reasonable person would want to break INTO.
I don't really care what an online dictionary says. Dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Dictionaries, for example, will appear to endorse the use of "healthy" to mean "healthful", as in "I eat healthy food." No - one eats *healthful* food, in the hope of being healthy.
"Illegal alien" is a nonsense. The alien is a person, and a person cannot be illegal; his status can be, or an act he has commited can be, but not the person.
That is not why I use it. I use it because it's more accurate, and because it is linguistically correct.
"Folks"? You have just admitted that your source is crap.
I don't believe we should be spending that money on them at all. They should, however, be given refunds of any Social Security and Medicare taxes that have been withheld, if it's possible to determine what they've paid into it when and if they are deported. If it isn't possible, then I would chalk that up in the "it's a shame" category; they *did* violate the law in coming here, and not getting some Social Security and Medicare withholdings back is a small price.
Understand this: I do not advocate fully open borders, and I don't have a problem with gradually identifying and expelling illegal aliens. I do know, however, that if it magically could be done all at once, the results would be catastrophic, for us.
I don't believe that, either, although I do think that local police departments that announce they will not arrest undocumented immigrants solely on immigration charges are doing the right thing, and engaging in sound policy.
I'm not playing any semantic games at all.
