Illegals Everywhere!

[ Posted Tuesday, November 18th, 2014 – 16:39 UTC ]

"President Obama is an illegal!"

No matter what the president soon announces on the subject of immigration reform, you probably won't hear that line being used against him. There's no real reason why it shouldn't, though, if you follow the logic of those opposed to what they call "amnesty." Instead of: "President Obama is acting illegally," or: "President Obama's actions are illegal," there's no reason -- again, using their logic -- why they shouldn't also be saying: "President Obama is an illegal!" And the reason has nothing to do with his birth certificate.

Within the immigration reform debate, there is a sub-debate on terminology. Those in favor of immigration reform have objected to the term (still used on government forms): "illegal alien." There are two objections to this term, the first stemming from the fact that nobody in America (at least, that we know of) is from Far Arcturus or Alpha Centauri or even our solar neighbor Mars -- and, therefore, "alien" is not the correct noun to use. Robin Williams was not an alien, but he did play one on television, to put this another way (there actually was an episode of Mork And Mindy where Mork had a run-in with the immigration service, but I digress...). The second objection was over the adjective "illegal," since it too was deemed offensive. The very-politically-correct term "undocumented immigrant" was suggested in place of "illegal alien" to solve the perceived linguistic problem.

Opponents of immigration reform refuse to use the new term, of course, and much prefer "illegal alien." Somewhere along the way, however, the adjective got "noun-ized," and they started shortening the phrase to just "illegals," as in: "There are too many illegals in the country." They define this new nounification as, roughly: "People who have broken the law and are in America illegally."

But why should it stop there? Why not an even more succinct definition: "People who have broken the law," without further qualification? After all, shouldn't there be consistency -- shouldn't all lawbreakers be equally called "illegals"? This brings us back to where we began. If Republicans truly believe that Obama is about to break the law (and they do, never mind that Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush did the same thing...), then why wouldn't they use the formulation: "President Obama is an illegal"? It stands to reason, at least by their reasoning.

In fact, why stop there? Why not start using the term in a generic way to describe all lawbreakers as illegals? This would bring a new appreciation of the sanctity (or lack thereof) of the "rule of law" among the general populace, would it not?

It would certainly liven up political conversations. "There are too many illegals in public office," one might remark at a Washington cocktail party. "President Nixon was the biggest illegal ever!" it could honestly be said, and a rejoinder might be: "Yeah, and he had that notorious illegal Spiro Agnew as his vice president!" There is a long list of such folks to choose from, in fact. Comparisons might be made between illegals who left office as a result of being exposed (Newt Gingrich, Jesse Jackson Jr., Rod Blagojevich, Eliot Spitzer, Bob McDonnell, to name but a few) and those who either did not or who later made a political comeback (David Vitter, Marion Barry, Rob Ford).

Of course, this wouldn't be limited to just politicians, there are plenty of lawbreakers in government jobs that would also fall under the new definition. "The National Security Agency is a hotbed of illegals," a liberal might complain while a libertarian moaned about "all the illegals at the F.B.I." Defenders of the rules of warfare would no doubt complain about the illegals at the C.I.A. who participated in torturing prisoners.

Since making the term generic would widen it considerably, there's no reason to stop at governmental wrongdoing, either. Wall Street and the "too big to fail" banks certainly have no shortage of illegals in their ranks, all the way up to the executive suites. Since corporations are now citizens (as the Supreme Court tells us), the new definition of the noun could also be used collectively, as in: "Bank of America is an illegal, I refuse to do my banking there."

The possibilities are indeed almost limitless. Police registries of sex criminals could be expanded enormously (since all court cases are public records), and instead of just listing pedophiles and whatnot, could also list everyone in every neighborhood convicted of any infraction of the law. Why not? It's public information, so why shouldn't I be able to tell who on my street has ever paid a fine of any sort to my local government, from a parking ticket up to a major crime?

Even without a handy online registry, it'd be pretty easy to lump quite a few people into the "illegal" category: "On my commute today, something like 90 percent of the cars around me were being driven by illegals -- I mean nobody was doing the speed limit!" Drivers exceeding the legal limit are, by definition, breaking the law. So, by definition, they should also be called "illegals," right?

If this neologism caught on in a much wider sense than it is being used today, then the true picture of lawlessness in this country might be exposed for all to see. Because the truth is, there are illegals all around us, all the time. They ignore the law in high governmental offices, they ignore the law in fancy boardrooms, they ignore the law in all sorts of positions of power. If we're going to noun-ize a perfectly good adjective, then we should not shrink from using the new term consistently. If people who have overstayed their visa are illegals, then other lawbreakers should also be included. After all, if breaking the law causes such high dudgeon among conservatives, why would anyone want to limit it to just one particular law? If we're going to travel that high road, then let's at least point out the drivers up there who break the law on a daily basis, to put it another way. Anything less would be mere moral relativism -- something conservatives are supposed to hate anyway.

When when you go looking for illegals using the new definition, it's actually not that hard to find them. Anyone sneaking a smoke where they shouldn't, anyone lying to get a medical marijuana card, anyone who cheats on their income taxes, anyone not making a full three-second stop at an intersection, anyone spitting on the subway platform (or who jumped the turnstile to get on that platform), anyone breaking a noise ordinance with a loud party, anyone shooting off unsanctioned fireworks on Independence Day, anyone cheating in the carpool lane, anyone parking in a handicapped spot without a placard, any parent falsely swearing their kid is under 12 to get a reduced price, any cop using excessive force, any politician taking a bribe or dipping into the campaign chest for personal reasons -- they're all illegals. If we're going to start using the term in our political discussions, then there is simply no reason not to include them all. Because when you take a look around, there are actually illegals everywhere!

-- Chris Weigant


Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant


10 Comments on “Illegals Everywhere!”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    You forgot to mention my favorite illegals - the ones who hire the undocumented immigrants.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    You forgot to mention my favorite illegals - the ones who hire the undocumented immigrants.


    JFC and I completely and unequivocally agree!!!

    What are the odds!!???

    Yea... Those who hire illegals should be body-slammed to the mat with the full extent of the law....

    And, if THAT doesn't deter them, then make the law even harsher!!!

    That's how Eisenhower solved the immigrant criminal problem...


  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    John From Censornati -

    That's an interesting addition! Well done...


  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    OK, I'm trying to picture Robin saying "Holy testicle Tuesday, Batman!" but somehow just can't...



  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    General Comment

    OK, I've answered all comments back to last Monday (the SiX) article. Sorry for the delay, I'm trying to keep up better, I swear!

    Anyway, lots of great comments, so go check back for my responses.

    Oh, and someone pointed out it is almost Fund Drive Season, so if anyone has a photo of their cat in a holiday setting, send it to me and I will include it (with or without attribution, your choice) in our annual shameless "kittens so cute they guilt you into sending me money" push.



  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I've answered all comments back to last Monday (the SiX) article. Sorry for the delay, I'm trying to keep up better, I swear!

    Anyway, lots of great comments, so go check back for my responses.

    I wasn't sure if you go back and check the responses to the responses to the responses.. :D

    "Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed"
    -Austin Powers

    Anyways, I wanted to make sure ya saw this. :D

    Didn't see it. Was it as bad as the Fox football robot? [Shudder]

    Hay!! That robot is kewl!!! :D

    Naw, it was this....

    Now doesn't that just freak you out!!! :D


  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    We haven't had a LABEL THE PHOTOGRAPH contest here in a while...


    My label wouldn't be appropriate for mixed company.. :D


  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:


    I got a label!!!



  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Obama is not going to wait until 11 Dec....

    Which means the GOP will have a chance to stop him...

    The American people are fully and completely behind the GOP in that effort..

    About the only thing that can save Obama and this country is if Obama forestalls implementation for 6 months or so...


  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    With the White House poised to grant executive amnesty any day now despite the American people’s staunch opposition, on Sunday President Obama was asked about the many, many statements he made in the past about his inability to unilaterally change or ignore immigration law. His response was astonishingly brazen: “Actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress.”

    This is a flagrant untruth: “In fact, most of the questions that were posed to the president over the past several years were about the very thing that he is expected to announce within a matter of days,” reported The New York Times. “[T]he questions actually specifically addressed the sorts of actions that he is contemplating now,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker agreed, awarding President Obama the rare “Upside-Down Pinocchio,” which signifies “a major-league flip-flop.” Even piled on.

    It's funny...

    The movement that pretty much created a cottage industry on the meme, "BUSH LIED!!" is completely and utterly silent when REAL, ACTUAL and FLAGRANT lies are tossed about like candy from a pinata...

    Which can only lead to one inescapable conclusion..

    Ya'all don't really mind it when a POTUS lies...

    As long as it's a POTUS with a '-D' after his name...


Comments for this article are closed.