Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: more post-election consequences ... this time re 'unauthorized workers'

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default more post-election consequences ... this time re 'unauthorized workers'

    the liberal judges certainly seem to have gotten a fresh dose of 'courage ' ...


    (snip)"LAW OF THE LAND
    Court: Quit saying 'illegal aliens'
    But critics say, 'Let's call drug dealers undocumented pharmacists'


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: November 08, 2008
    12:40 am Eastern

    © 2008 WorldNetDaily

    Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor stirred up a hornet's nest by endorsing a demand from the Hispanic Bar Association to censor words and phrases such as "illegal aliens" and "illegal immigrants" and substitute "foreign nationals" in court documents.

    Then, when a blog at Judicial Watch reported on the instructions, court officials threatened to sue the government-watchdog organization, prompting its release of a statement defending the story.

    The original report said the chief justice had agreed to forward to judges the Hispanic Bar's demands to alter the language in court opinions and documents.

    Judicial Watch said, "In a strongly worded letter to the chief justice, Los Abogados' [Hispanic Bar Association] 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."

    The letter, according to Judicial Watch, criticized the state's high court for using the term "illegals" in at least two opinions and the term "illegal aliens" in dozens of others.

    Judicial Watch said the letter concludes with a list of acceptable and unacceptable terms relating to illegal immigration. Among the terms the group wants banned are "immigration crisis,' "immigration epidemic,' "open borders advocates", "anchor babies" and "invaders."

    Acceptable terms are "foreign nationals," "unauthorized workers" and "human rights advocates," Judicial Watch said.

    The report almost immediately was followed with a response from the court, Judicial Watch reported.

    "The Arizona Supreme Court has threatened to sue Judicial Watch for revealing that its chief justice agreed to enforce a Hispanic Bar Association demand to ban the terms 'illegal' and 'aliens' in all of the state’s courtrooms," the organization said in a statement late today.

    "In a threatening phone call to Judicial Watch today, a spokesperson for Arizona's Supreme Court denied that Chief Justice McGregor had banned anything and accused Judicial Watch of 'slander.' Judicial Watch, however, stands by its story," the organization said.

    The letter, to which Judicial Watch provided a link, said McGregor took several steps to notify judges of the concerns raised by the bar association.

    She confirmed she had provided copies of the demands to judges and concluded, "If Judge Song Ong has not already done so, I request that the Commissionon on Minorities in the Judiciary consider whether any further distribution of your request would be helpful."

    The request from the Hispanic Bar Association, signed by Los Abogados President Lizzette Alameda Zubey and president-elect Salvador Ongaro, said it wanted McGregor to communicate "these points to all judges and court employees in Arizona so that none of these hurtful terms are used in Arizona court documents or proceedings again.

    "Putting this in greater perspective, even a convicted murderer is never referred to as an 'illegal' because of that conviction," the bar association letter said.

    "Those that use the terms as an instrument of hate know that it insults and incenses those that oppose their views," said the letter, which cited several court document uses of the terms.

    "We believe it essential to ongoing public dialogue to eliminate hate speech in all forms and to strip away all vestiges of perceived bias," the group said.

    It said acceptable terms are "undocumented immigrants," "foreign nationals," "persons without legal immigration status," "unauthorized workers" and "alleged or suspected undocumented immigrants."

    However, the association said "illegals," "illegal aliens," "aliens," "resident or non-resident aliens," "illegal immigrants," "scratchbacks or wetbacks," "armies of immigrants," "invaders," "reconquistadores" and "anchor babies" should be banned."(snip)

    from

  2. #2
    Featured Member flickad's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,860
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked 103 Times in 67 Posts
    My Mood
    Pensive

    Default Re: more post-election consequences ... this time re 'unauthorized workers'

    Can you conclusively link this to the election result?

    I'm also unsure that a change of terminology should really be considered problematic.

  3. #3
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: more post-election consequences ... this time re 'unauthorized workers'

    Can you conclusively link this to the election result?
    obviously not. However, the timing of this extremely 'liberal' ruling seems to follow the timing of vastly increased gun sales, the timing of US stock market declines, and a host of other 'purely coincidental' developments that have occurred since November 5th !!!

    I'm also unsure that a change of terminology should really be considered problematic
    are you referring to the 'undocumented pharmacists' or the 'undocumented immigrants' ??? I guess it really doesn't matter because both terms serve the same purpose ... to disguise the fact that people to whom these terms apply are committing a crime !

  4. #4
    Featured Member flickad's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,860
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked 103 Times in 67 Posts
    My Mood
    Pensive

    Default Re: more post-election consequences ... this time re 'unauthorized workers'

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    obviously not. However, the timing of this extremely 'liberal' ruling seems to follow the timing of vastly increased gun sales, the timing of US stock market declines, and a host of other 'purely coincidental' developments that have occurred since November 5th !!!



    are you referring to the 'undocumented pharmacists' or the 'undocumented immigrants' ??? I guess it really doesn't matter because both terms serve the same purpose ... to disguise the fact that people to whom these terms apply are committing a crime !
    I doubt the gun sales are coincidental, but the timing alone is a poor argument in linking most of these developments to the election. Australia's stock market has taken a downward turn at the same time, and you'd be pushing it to link that to Obama. There are more factors than the election with respect to the current state of the American and global economies. This, in addition, seems not to have a clear connection with the election, given that preparing, planning and organising the submission would have taken some time.

    I'm referring to terms like 'undocumented immigrants' and 'foreign nationals'. Firstly, I don't believe these people should be termed as offenders until properly convicted. Secondly, I find it a persuasive argument that murderers, thieves and rapists are not referred to as such in courts of law, and that uneven treatment should not be applied to those in breach of immigration laws.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 84
    Last Post: 12-21-2008, 12:02 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-05-2008, 12:48 PM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-29-2008, 03:18 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-28-2008, 07:53 AM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-11-2006, 05:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •