Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

goldberry

Temporary Protected Status

Recommended Posts

Scarlett, calling someone a homeschooler is fine because that’s what they do. No one is “illegal,†no matter what illegal acts they might or might not commit. And even if that term were accurate, it wouldn’t only apply to undocumented people. Pretty much all of us would be “illegal†in some ways.

I dont understand how most of us would be illegal in some way but if we are ok. If you are illegal ypu are illegal... I don't understand what is so insulting about that. We all clearly know there are many compelling reasons to an illegal person.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand how most of us would be illegal in some way but if we are ok. If you are illegal ypu are illegal... I don't understand what is so insulting about that. We all clearly know there are many compelling reasons to an illegal person.

Have you ever jaywalked? Has a piece of paper ever flown out of your open car window? Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Were you "an illegal" when you did these things?

 

You just referred to " an illegal person." How does that work exactly? Their very existence is illegal? How are words that indicate that a person's very existence is invalid not dehumanizing?

 

Earlier you asked what happens to the "orphans" when the "illegal" gets thrown out. I suspect it is much easier to forget that the children are not, in fact, orphans when that thing being chucked out of the country is just "an illegal" rather than a flesh and blood mother or father who loves their children as much as you love yours. Assign a human term to a human being. Please.

 

eta here are some articles expressing this much more eloquently:

http://nohumanbeingisillegal.com/Home.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/06/illegal-immigrant-label-offensive-wrong-activists-say

http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/21/immigration-debate-the-problem-with-the-word-illegal/

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/why-you-shouldnt-use-the-term-illegals

Edited by bibiche
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever jaywalked? Has a piece of paper ever flown out of your open car window? Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Were you "an illegal" when you did these things?

 

You just referred to " an illegal person." How does that work exactly? Their very existence is illegal? How are words that indicate that a person's very existence is invalid not dehumanizing?

 

Earlier you asked what happens to the "orphans" when the "illegal" gets thrown out. I suspect it is much easier to forget that the children are not, in fact, orphans when that thing being chucked out of the country is just "an illegal" rather than a flesh and blood mother or father who loves their children as much as you love yours. Assign a human term to a human being. Please.

 

eta here are some articles expressing this much more eloquently:

http://nohumanbeingisillegal.com/Home.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/06/illegal-immigrant-label-offensive-wrong-activists-say

http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/21/immigration-debate-the-problem-with-the-word-illegal/

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/why-you-shouldnt-use-the-term-illegals

Do you agree or disagree with one of the articles you linked that a better term is undocumented immigrants? In your earlier post to Scarlett you used just immigrant. Is it acceptable to you to add the adjective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you agree or disagree with one of the articles you linked that a better term is undocumented immigrants? In your earlier post to Scarlett you used just immigrant. Is it acceptable to you to add the adjective?

In my head it is immigrant, or immigrant without papers, or immigrant in an irregular situation. But yeah, anything is better than "illegal." In fact, I think the term "illegal" is worse than a horrifyingly pejorative term like "wetback" because it is insidious - it gets in people's brains and they hear it and use it without realizing how absolutely dehumanizing it is. It is not shocking to people and it should be.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand how most of us would be illegal in some way but if we are ok. If you are illegal ypu are illegal... I don't understand what is so insulting about that. We all clearly know there are many compelling reasons to an illegal person.

A person can't be illegal — lack of legal immigration status does not take away someone's right to exist.

 

Someone who broke the law by coming here without the proper paperwork is no more "illegal" as a human being than someone who broke the law by speeding, or not paying their property taxes, or not filing the proper homeschooling paperwork for that matter.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scarlett, whether you understand it or not, calling somebody "an illegal" is considered a slur. You don't need to agree. You just need to have good manners.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a fair number of refugees at our school. Many would like to go back to their home country - when it's safe. Even some kids who have been raised here would like to return to their ancestral home - when it's safe. They don't have to - they are here legally and can stay forever. Some just want to, but not until it's safe.

 

But for the countries currently discussed with TPS, it's NOT currently safe and we're forcing their return for some reason or another. It's reminding me most of the MS St Louis (Jewish people from Germany) being returned in a way.

 

If anyone wanted to return, by all means, return. No one is stopping them. To force someone to return under the conditions that still exist is not something I want any part of, esp when these folks have PROVEN they'd be great citizens here. Then I go further and admit that since they've proven they are great residents here, feel free to stay and become citizens even if it IS safe in your own country. We need more terrific folks staying here. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to tell them they need to pack up and move at this point. With a criminal record, sure. Without one and with jobs, etc - why?

To me, the difference is in them being here illegally in the first place. In this case, it is sort of a “lucky†coincidence that their home country is deemed unsuitable for return, making them temporarily protected from deportation. Why should a person not here legally to begin with be surprised when that temporary ends? It’s like a student who cut class being furious when the teacher does not give him a retroactive excused absence.

 

I am 100% in favor of providing generous avenues for legal immigration from all countries, including the troubled ones. I think there should be clear rules governing TPS, and there should be a path to citizenship provided within TPS designation. It should certainly not be the case that someone can be here for decades under TPS and then, one morning, a new administration can rescind the status and chuck them out. But, I also agree with Garga in that if one is here illegally, it makes no sense to behave as though the future is not going to one day be the present.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand how most of us would be illegal in some way but if we are ok. If you are illegal ypu are illegal... I don't understand what is so insulting about that. We all clearly know there are many compelling reasons to an illegal person.

In many countries it is illegal for people to practice your religion. When the Chinese government declares these people “illegal†rather than human, and then declares their children “orphans†how does that feel?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned this above, but I don’t think it’s well-known how TPS got started. Some of this helps explain why Central Americans are in a unique position to need TPS.

 

Nearly a million Central Americans tried to seek asylum in the US during the 1980s. For a variety of complicated political reasons that aren’t important here, Central Americans didn’t qualify for asylum under the 1980 Refugee Act even though Guatemala and El Salvador were in the middle of legimate civil wars. People from Iran and those fleeing communism, for example, often had their asylum requests approved but many Central Americans basically had no chance of getting asylum. Churches in the US started providing sanctuary for these asylum seekers (yes, you could also call them undocumented people and some might focus on the illegal nature of their actions, but asylum seeker is the best term in my opinion). Sometimes they tried to continue on to Canada who did recognize their asylum claims, but often they were protected by churches for years in the US. If they did get deported, it was to a country at war.

 

In 1985, INS started to crack down on churches and secular groups who were providing sanctuary and around ten people, included two Catholic priests, were indicted and convicted of smuggling “aliens.†But the public advocacy of the sanctuary movement and a general distaste for convicting priests for helping people began to change opinions about the way the Refugee Act was being interpreted. In 1990, Congress established TPS specifically with Central Americans in mind. People from other parts of the world have benefited from it too, but they can usually claim asylum so they have other options that aren’t temporary. Central Americans have been one of the primary groups receiving TPS.

 

Personally, I find this history fascinating and inspiring. Those supporting the sanctuary movement said they supported international laws and norms, and given what was going on in Central America in the 1980s, it’s difficult to argue that Central Americans shouldn’t have qualified for asylum. It’s an interesting and somewhat forgotten example of civil disobedience.

Edited by Amira
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a number of friends and relatives who had kids in the US and then moved with their kids to their mother country.  And US families who move from one country to another due to their chosen career.  None of them have presented it as if it was a terrible experience or terrible injustice.

 

I am guessing they are not choosing to go to countries that are overrun with violence and poverty or other disasters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the difference is in them being here illegally in the first place. In this case, it is sort of a “lucky†coincidence that their home country is deemed unsuitable for return, making them temporarily protected from deportation. Why should a person not here legally to begin with be surprised when that temporary ends? It’s like a student who cut class being furious when the teacher does not give him a retroactive excused absence.

 

I am 100% in favor of providing generous avenues for legal immigration from all countries, including the troubled ones. I think there should be clear rules governing TPS, and there should be a path to citizenship provided within TPS designation. It should certainly not be the case that someone can be here for decades under TPS and then, one morning, a new administration can rescind the status and chuck them out. But, I also agree with Garga in that if one is here illegally, it makes no sense to behave as though the future is not going to one day be the present.

I disagree with Garga since it lays the blame on these folks for not preparing for a plan B. Of course, I believe in personal responsibility but I also believe in compassion and amnesty for folks like the ones under TPS.  The thing that gets me the maddest is I truly believe that the current one in charge of our country is doing this for vindictive reasons and to undo every single thing his predecessor has done. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with Garga since it lays the blame on these folks for not preparing for a plan B. Of course, I believe in personal responsibility but I also believe in compassion and amnesty for folks like the ones under TPS. The thing that gets me the maddest is I truly believe that the current one in charge of our country is doing this for vindictive reasons and to undo every single thing his predecessor has done.

I don’t think you are wrong about that, along with racism in general.

 

But the thing is, if you came here illegally, it is obvious that you can’t simply settle in. If your country was deemed with TPS, that is just a coincidence somewhat in your favor. It makes sense that one would have a Plan B because having Plan A in the first place was not legal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re language:

 

"Illegal" is an adjective, which modifies actions.  Jaywalking is illegal, speeding is illegal, littering is illegal, rolling stops at crosswalks are illegal, trespassing is illegal.  I have done each of these things over the course of my time on earth -- for which I am not particularly proud -- but mixed in with the whole of the rest of my actions, these actions certainly do not define me as a whole person.

 

To render it as a noun, it first reduces a person -- as a matter of grammar -- to that single element.  (So, too, does "homeschooler" or "auto worker" or "mother" -- which for some people is fine, if a single role is so expansive and self-defining to the person that they ARE comfortable identifying themselves that way.  That difference -- self-identification with a label rather than having it thrust upon you -- matters.)

 

But even more fundamentally, the usage of "illegal" as a noun also -- as a matter of logic -- makes no sense.  It is not illegal to exist, yet that is just what its usage embeds.  Try making it the subject of sentences and see how nonsensical it sounds:

 

"The illegal sings in the church choir."  

"The illegal picked up her son from school, then stopped for milk."  

"The illegal took her baby in for a DPT vaccine."  

"The illegal swept the steps and sidewalk outside her house."

 

This language is jarring not just because it's dehumanizing -- though it incontrovertibly IS dehumanizing in the very worst degree, just as surely as "swarming locust" or "wetback."  It's jarring because the actions that follow the subject, "illegal," ARE NOT ILLEGAL, just the ordinary actions of all the rest of us as we go through our ordinary lives.

 

That's why the term, used as a noun, is nearly always in the COLLECTIVE plural, and functioning grammatically as OBJECT.  As in, "Get the illegals out of here."  

 

The same construct as "Take the garbage out."

 

 

 

 

re history of TPS

I mentioned this above, but I don’t think it’s well-known how TPS got started. Some of this helps explain why Central Americans are in a unique position to need TPS.

Nearly a million Central Americans tried to seek asylum in the US during the 1980s. For a variety of complicated political reasons that aren’t important here, Central Americans didn’t qualify for asylum under the 1980 Refugee Act even though Guatemala and El Salvador were in the middle of legimate civil wars. People from Iran and those fleeing communism, for example, often had their asylum requests approved but many Central Americans basically had no chance of getting asylum. Churches in the US started providing sanctuary for these asylum seekers (yes, you could also call them undocumented people and some might focus on the illegal nature of their actions, but asylum seeker is the best term in my opinion). Sometimes they tried to continue on to Canada who did recognize their asylum claims, but often they were protected by churches for years in the US. If they did get deported, it was to a country at war.

In 1985, INS started to crack down on churches and secular groups who were providing sanctuary and around ten people, included two Catholic priests, were indicted and convicted of smuggling “aliens.†But the public advocacy of the sanctuary movement and a general distaste for convicting priests for helping people began to change opinions about the way the Refugee Act was being interpreted. In 1990, Congress established TPS specifically with Central Americans in mind. People from other parts of the world have benefited from it too, but they can usually claim asylum so they have other options that aren’t temporary. Central Americans have been one of the primary groups receiving TPS.

Personally, I find this history fascinating and inspiring. Those supporting the sanctuary movement said they supported international laws and norms, and given what was going on in Central America in the 1980s, it’s difficult to argue that Central Americans shouldn’t have qualified for asylum. It’s an interesting and somewhat forgotten example of civil disobedience.

 

All of this, except, morally, the complicated political reasons ARE important.

 

If you break it, you own it.  

 

 

We are inextricably bound to Central America and its ghastly problems whether we know the sordid history or not, accept it or not, want to see it or not.  

 

What we perceive as our problems are interwoven with theirs. It's not going to get better for us until it gets better for our neighbors.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the difference is in them being here illegally in the first place. In this case, it is sort of a “lucky†coincidence that their home country is deemed unsuitable for return, making them temporarily protected from deportation. Why should a person not here legally to begin with be surprised when that temporary ends? It’s like a student who cut class being furious when the teacher does not give him a retroactive excused absence.

 

 

Quill, I see it differently and not a lucky coincidence, because the TPS is an acknowledgement that they fled for other reasons than (as SKL put it) it kinda sucks here and it's better over there.  

 

They were here illegally, yes, but that is because if you believe your life or children are in immediate danger of harm, you don't plan or consider, you just GO.  It is right to acknowledge that is different from "kind of sucks here".  The TPS acknowledged that fact.  It was not a coincidence.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the difference is in them being here illegally in the first place. In this case, it is sort of a “lucky†coincidence that their home country is deemed unsuitable for return, making them temporarily protected from deportation. Why should a person not here legally to begin with be surprised when that temporary ends? It’s like a student who cut class being furious when the teacher does not give him a retroactive excused absence.

 

I am 100% in favor of providing generous avenues for legal immigration from all countries, including the troubled ones. I think there should be clear rules governing TPS, and there should be a path to citizenship provided within TPS designation. It should certainly not be the case that someone can be here for decades under TPS and then, one morning, a new administration can rescind the status and chuck them out. But, I also agree with Garga in that if one is here illegally, it makes no sense to behave as though the future is not going to one day be the present.

 

And I see it totally differently.  The only reason these folks came here illegally is because there WAS no legal route and they legitimately feared for their lives, in many cases due to the US disrupting their country.  If I were in a situation where I feared for my kids' lives and/or my own, you bet I'd be doing whatever I could and not caring about laws of man.  (This could even be speeding or jaywalking or whatever.)

 

I know the exact same thing that happened to them could have happened to me had I been in their spot in the birth lottery or if history had been slightly different.  I can't fault folks who choose to do exactly what I would have done in their situation.  My brain can never embrace the attitude of "I've got mine - sucks to be them."  I've met IRL too many refugees and undocumented immigrants.  They are often wonderful people who were just unlucky with the birth lottery. They are no less human I am.  They have similar hopes and aspirations for life and their kids.  I can't turn my back on them.  The few who aren't, fine, do whatever, but don't lump all of us homeschoolers in with the wackos and don't do the same with any sort of immigrant.

 

SKL likes to think they should have "just gotten in line."  Um, there was and is no line to get into, except for some who married a citizen or similar.  Plenty of people think that who know nothing of the actual situation.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand how most of us would be illegal in some way but if we are ok. If you are illegal ypu are illegal... I don't understand what is so insulting about that. We all clearly know there are many compelling reasons to an illegal person.

 

Scarlett, I still use the word illegal on occasion, but only as an adjective to describe the immigration.  An illegal immigrant. Or illegal immigration.  Not an "illegal".  Some people still find that distasteful and prefer undocumented immigrant.  But I think either option is better than using illegal as a noun.  I can see that as insulting.

Edited by goldberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I hear these stories of the individual humans trapped in impossible situations I am just sick to my stomach.

 

 

One thing I can't wrap my mind around....when you have illegals who now have American citizen children....are they going to kick the illegal out and allow the child to,stay? Is there a plan for getting enough foster parents to care for these orphaned American citizens?

 

 

I have a 17 year old. I can't imagine someone telling him, hey I know you have been in this country since you were an infant, but you need to go now. Sorry if you don't speak your native tongue and sorry if your country of birth is a gang infested dangerous place.

 

The above are my posts where I hope it is very clear how horrible I  believe it is for anyone to go through this stuff.  And yet all anyone can do is pick on my offensive language. 

 

A child who does not have his parent is an orphan whether that parent wanted to abandon them or not.  My point was how horrible it must be to have to make a choice of leaving your children behind, orphaned, or take them back to a dangerous country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scarlett, I still use the word illegal on occasion, but only as an adjective to describe the immigration.  An illegal immigrant. Or illegal immigration.  Not an "illegal".  Some people still find that distasteful and prefer undocumented immigrant.  But I think either option is better than using illegal as a noun.  I can see that as insulting.

 

 

Yes.  I can see many people seem to agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans are very, very lucky, and anomalous to much of the rest of the world.  We do not carry historical memory of fleeing for our lives.

 

(Well, white Americans don't.)

 

 

 

UNHCR currently counts over 65 million people displaced refugees (ETA: not counting the Central Americans who don't count, as per amira's post above).  Some of those people have been in camps since 1991 -- on now to the third generation of people who've lived their full lives with no meaningful access to education or work.  

 

Restless, poorly educated, bitter, nothing to lose -- eventually the angriest young men make their way out or are thrown out, with neither the documents nor the skills to live "legitimately," and -- well: what do we think will happen next?  We are sowing in this generation the seeds of instability for the next.

 

 

Just as surely as we did with Central America back in the 1970s and 1980s, when we refused to name their civil wars as wars, their refugees as refugees, or our own role in financing and training and arming their wars.  We and they are paying high prices now. We are financing and arming their current conflicts, now, just through a different set of doors.  

 

It will not stop until we stop pretending, and we are not ready yet to do that.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Pam in CT
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orphans can be children whose parents have abandoned them.

No they are not. Children who have lost both parents to death are orphans. I have never heard anyone in the adoption or foster care communities refer to a child with a living parent as an orphan. It is very important as reputable agencies take great pains to determine the status of the children on their care. It is important that they determine the child does not have any family willing/able to care for them. Biological family is very much respected and given priority in the adoption and foster care communities. Many foster and adoptive families work very hard to maIntain relationships with biological families through the years of their child’s life as well.

 

I find it troubling that you seem to assume that parents will “abandon†their children as they return to their home countries. Why do you think that? In reality, it is much more likely that the parents will bring their US citizen children with them (this assumes they could get the appropriate immigration status for them). Another possibility is that they would arrange with family and friends that are staying in the US to care for their children through a guardianship arrangement if they must leave them behind. It is incredibly amazing to me that you would jump to child abandonment. Please consider what you are saying but more importantly, why you are saying it. Why do you jump to such a heinous conclusion? What does that reveal about your beliefs and attitudes towards other people?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many countries it is illegal for people to practice your religion. When the Chinese government declares these people “illegal†rather than human, and then declares their children “orphans†how does that feel?

 

 

 

 

I don't think it bothers me. It is the injustice that is horrible.  Not the term of the day. Terms that were acceptable now are not.  Like alien.  It is a real word with a real definition that means 'from another country', but one day it became offensive to call anyone an alien, even if they were indeed from another country.  

 

Declare their children orphans?  If they no longer have their parents, for whatever reason, their children would be orphans. Is orphan now another offensive word.

 

Good grief.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they are not. Children who have lost both parents to death are orphans. I have never heard anyone in the adoption or foster care communities refer to a child with a living parent as an orphan. It is very important as reputable agencies take great pains to determine the status of the children on their care. It is important that they determine the child does not have any family willing/able to care for them. Biological family is very much respected and given priority in the adoption and foster care communities. Many foster and adoptive families work very hard to maIntain relationships with biological families through the years of their child’s life as well.

 

I find it troubling that you seem to assume that parents will “abandon†their children as they return to their home countries. Why do you think that? In reality, it is much more likely that the parents will bring their US citizen children with them (this assumes they could get the appropriate immigration status for them). Another possibility is that they would arrange with family and friends that are staying in the US to care for their children through a guardianship arrangement if they must leave them behind. It is incredibly amazing to me that you would jump to child abandonment. Please consider what you are saying but more importantly, why you are saying it. Why do you jump to such a heinous conclusion? What does that reveal about your beliefs and attitudes towards other people?

 

 

You are not understanding anything that I am thinking, feeling or saying. I think there could conceivably be a situation where a parent had to choose between leaving their children behind in the States or take them back to incredible danger.  If the parent had no family in the States to care for the child left behind then the government of the US would need to have more foster families for such children.  Because they would effectively be orphaned.  It is not a heinous conclusion to discuss what might happen if people are forced back to dangerous and unstable countries.  I was totally agreeing with how horrible of a situation it is.  

 

I wish you would just not read my posts and not reply because almost every time you do you question my motives and my humanity.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Declare their children orphans? If they no longer have their parents, for whatever reason, their children would be orphans. Is orphan now another offensive word.

 

Good grief.

These children HAVE parents. They are not orphans!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scarlett, I am sure you don't mean to cause offense, but calling a human being "illegal" is a slur and is inappropriate. 

 

 

That seems nuts to me.

 

I will refrain from using it since it offends someone, but again one more example of super sensitivity.

 

 

The above are my posts where I hope it is very clear how horrible I  believe it is for anyone to go through this stuff.  And yet all anyone can do is pick on my offensive language.

 

 

Bibiche's first post to you was quite neutral and not picking on you.  Your response to Bibiche was very demeaning and dismissive.  Perhaps you can see why your response invited more annoyed responses.  I know you feel picked on often, but sometimes your word choices are unfortunate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quill, I see it differently and not a lucky coincidence, because the TPS is an acknowledgement that they fled for other reasons than (as SKL put it) it kinda sucks here and it's better over there.

 

They were here illegally, yes, but that is because if you believe your life or children are in immediate danger of harm, you don't plan or consider, you just GO. It is right to acknowledge that is different from "kind of sucks here". The TPS acknowledged that fact. It was not a coincidence.

Not in every case, because it could be conferred due to an earthquake or hurricane. So, in that instance, they got here and then there was a devistating natural disaster, as happened with Haiti, and then the government said, “yeah, well, we see what you mean. It doesn’t make sense to send you back to where 80% of the infrastructure has been destroyed.â€

 

I do personally understand why someone takes the chance to come here illegally and I do wish the US were doing much better (MUCH better) at providing a legal route to citizenship for Central and South Americans. I am not of the “build a big wall†mentality at all. My only argument is, if you have been granted TPS, you cannot afford to get comfortable and think this is your permanent home now. (i think there should be avenues to allow it to become so; we are doing this part WRONG, for sure), but, as Garga said, the status is temporary. The government is at least calling it what it is. Yes, they need to clear up what “temporary†means, and yes, I think there should be a path to citizenship as long as the immigrants are not criminals or a scourge on society in some way. But at least they are NOT being unclear as far as the name: it is temporary. You are subject to being sent back, and unfortunately, there is a greater risk of that happening in some administrations than in others.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it bothers me. It is the injustice that is horrible.  Not the term of the day. Terms that were acceptable now are not.  Like alien.  It is a real word with a real definition that means 'from another country', but one day it became offensive to call anyone an alien, even if they were indeed from another country.  

 

Declare their children orphans?  If they no longer have their parents, for whatever reason, their children would be orphans. Is orphan now another offensive word.

 

Good grief.  

 

Speaking calmly, an orphan is a child whose parents are dead.  Some people, I would imagine many who have experience with being or knowing actual orphans, would not want that word applied to children whose parents are still living.  The children have parents who are not dead, even if the parents are not with them.  

Edited by goldberry
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many parents around the world, including within the US, leave their kids and/or send their kids to live with relatives or friends.  Kids with living parents are not orphans even if they aren't living together.  Kids in Foster Care with living parents are not considered orphans either.

 

That said, I feel for parents and kids when they have to be separated, esp when it's due to "needs" vs "wants."

 

When it's a choice that really doesn't have to be made except for hard headed people being in charge, it's infuriating. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do personally understand why someone takes the chance to come here illegally and I do wish the US were doing much better (MUCH better) at providing a legal route to citizenship for Central and South Americans. I am not of the “build a big wall†mentality at all. My only argument is, if you have been granted TPS, you cannot afford to get comfortable and think this is your permanent home now. (i think there should be avenues to allow it to become so; we are doing this part WRONG, for sure), but, as Garga said, the status is temporary. The government is at least calling it what it is. Yes, they need to clear up what “temporary†means, and yes, I think there should be a path to citizenship as long as the immigrants are not criminals or a scourge on society in some way. But at least they are NOT being unclear as far as the name: it is temporary. You are subject to being sent back, and unfortunately, there is a greater risk of that happening in some administrations than in others.

 

I don't disagree, but I'm with the poster who said the govt needs to own what they do.  Whether it's recognizing the damage in Central America, or on a lesser scale recognizing that when you let someone stay here many, many years there is going to be harm done in uprooting them.   Blaming that entirely on the people in question who "got comfortable" (to the benefit of our country by the way) does not excuse the harm.  Not saying that is what you are doing, but what the govt is doing.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not understanding anything that I am thinking, feeling or saying. I think there could conceivably be a situation where a parent had to choose between leaving their children behind in the States or take them back to incredible danger. If the parent had no family in the States to care for the child left behind then the government of the US would need to have more foster families for such children. Because they would effectively be orphaned. It is not a heinous conclusion to discuss what might happen if people are forced back to dangerous and unstable countries. I was totally agreeing with how horrible of a situation it is.

 

I wish you would just not read my posts and not reply because almost every time you do you question my motives and my humanity.

You are right. I do not understand what you are saying. You are using some words that are inflammatory and other words incorrectly and are not attempting to understand any of us when we attempt to dialogue with you on these points. I hope that you can see that when someone uses both inflammatory, derogatory language in one breath to refer to a group of people and then seemingly assumes the worst possible behavior out of that same group, it is disturbing to many people, of which I am one. It is my hope that you would be willing to think about the reasons why you are choosing to use the terms you are using, because language is usually a reflection of a persons thought processes.

 

You are always free to ignore anything Inhave to say, but I hope it is not because you are challenged to think differently, because I value dialogue and the two of us actually do have quite a bit in common.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These children HAVE parents. They are not orphans!

From Wikipedia

 

Various groups use different definitions to identify orphans. One legal definition used in the United States is a minor bereft through "death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents".[5]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans are very, very lucky, and anomalous to much of the rest of the world.  We do not carry historical memory of fleeing for our lives.

 

(Well, white Americans don't.)

 

UNHCR currently counts over 65 million people displaced refugees.  Some of those people have been in camps since 1991 -- on now to the third generation of people who've lived their full lives with no meaningful access to education or work.  

 

Restless, poorly educated, bitter, nothing to lose -- eventually the angriest young men make their way out or are thrown out, with neither the documents nor the skills to live "legitimately," and -- well: what do we think will happen next?  We are sowing in this generation the seeds of instability for the next.

 

 

 

Quoting because this deserves to be read multiple times, especially the bolded.

 

65 million.  This is a real problem and is not going away.  Just keeping those people out of our borders will not protect us from the effects.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia

 

Various groups use different definitions to identify orphans. One legal definition used in the United States

is a minor

bereft through "death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents".[5]

A parent who makes guardianship arrangements for their child has not abandoned them. Nor have they disappeared nor have they deserted them. Edited by TechWife
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I see it totally differently. The only reason these folks came here illegally is because there WAS no legal route and they legitimately feared for their lives, in many cases due to the US disrupting their country. If I were in a situation where I feared for my kids' lives and/or my own, you bet I'd be doing whatever I could and not caring about laws of man. (This could even be speeding or jaywalking or whatever.)

 

I know the exact same thing that happened to them could have happened to me had I been in their spot in the birth lottery or if history had been slightly different. I can't fault folks who choose to do exactly what I would have done in their situation. My brain can never embrace the attitude of "I've got mine - sucks to be them." I've met IRL too many refugees and undocumented immigrants. They are often wonderful people who were just unlucky with the birth lottery. They are no less human I am. They have similar hopes and aspirations for life and their kids. I can't turn my back on them. The few who aren't, fine, do whatever, but don't lump all of us homeschoolers in with the wackos and don't do the same with any sort of immigrant.

 

SKL likes to think they should have "just gotten in line." Um, there was and is no line to get into, except for some who married a citizen or similar. Plenty of people think that who know nothing of the actual situation.

I agree there was no legal route. It is absolutely one thing that needs to be fixed, but surely isn’t going to be under the current administration. I do not blame folks one bit for trying to come here. I have people in my close circle who are affected by decisions such as these. I totally agree that it could have been me had I not “won†in certain aspecs of the birth lottery; all of this I agree with. I am pro-immigration. I exist because some of my ancestors were allowed to flee certain starvation in Ireland by coming here instead.

 

But being pro-immigration does not mean that as long as you can make it to these shores, you should certainly have citizenship coming your way momentarily. It does not make sense to me that someone who managed to get here would “relax†because TPS happened to be conferred on his or her home country. In no way does it reverse the fact that you obtained entry to the country illegally.

 

I’m just saying that the fact that some of the rules are sucky does not negate the fact that there are rules.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orphans can be children whose parents have abandoned them.

According to the US Citizen and Immigration Services:

 

"The Immigration and Nationality Act provides a definition of an orphan for the purposes of immigration to the United States.

 

A child may be considered an orphan because of the death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents. "

 

 

 

https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/orphan

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A parent who makes guardianship arrangements for their child has not abandoned them. Nor have they disappeared nor have they deserted them.

 

 

But they are separated from them.  That was another definition.  

 

And I was not talking about kids whose parents were able to make arrangements.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A parent who makes guardianship arrangements for their child has not abandoned them. Nor have they disappeared nor have they deserted them.

But scarlett's question applies...the parents will or would be separated from their children. Two parents legally separated (deported ) from their children can fit the legal definition of making those children "orphans."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But being pro-immigration does not mean that as long as you can make it to these shores, you should certainly have citizenship coming your way momentarily. It does not make sense to me that someone who managed to get here would “relax†because TPS happened to be conferred on his or her home country. In no way does it reverse the fact that you obtained entry to the country illegally.

 

I’m just saying that the fact that some of the rules are sucky does not negate the fact that there are rules.

 

Does this mean you agree with some Native American groups that feel we all need to return to our countries of origin since our ancestors came here illegally?

 

Or does "our" law mean more than theirs even though they were here first and certainly had claim to the land?  If ours means more, why?  What makes us superior?  Our numbers?  Our race?  Our strength in winning the war?

 

Some laws just shouldn't be laws.  All laws of this type are man made.  I don't follow or support man-made laws that shouldn't be laws.  I'll advocate for change, of course, but ignore them otherwise, esp when folks lives are in danger due to them.  I'd have done the same in Nazi Germany.  I prefer to use my mind, my compassion for my fellow human being, and add some common sense to caring about letter of the law.

 

YMMV  I know some folks are determined to follow letter of the law - often they'll speed or similar things they find ok to ignore - but somehow that's ok.  There are probably a rare few who try to obey every single law (can't say I've seen them on highways TBH), but I don't think that's what's going on in this TPS situation.  I think (some) folks are "using" the law to cleanse our "precious" country of those they feel are inferior and undesirable.  I think it's perfectly fine for other folks to get into an uproar about this and point it out by using FACTS, like, say, the facts about what these residents have been doing while here and the facts about what will happen if they are forced out - not to mention the facts about why many came in the first place.  It's not as simple as the "sound bite" group want the masses to believe.  If no one counters the "sound bite" group, too many will go around claiming, "it's time for the temporary folks to leave because they knew it was temporary" or "they should have gotten in line."

 

Fix the law.  All of us will agree that's best.  Enforcing the law is what's wrong.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they are separated from them. That was another definition.

 

And I was not talking about kids whose parents were able to make arrangements.

Separated as in a situation where you are fleeing and child is separated from the parent and the parents status is in unknown. Not a situation wher a parent has given legal guardianship to another.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's rare (not impossible) for those with significant money and/or power to have compassion.  That's not at all new.  It goes back to the earliest of times.  Many stories are told in the Bible along with several admonitions about it.  Part of the reason they (usually) got so wealthy (or kept their wealth) is the willingness to take it from their fellow man (and develop acceptable ways to do this).

 

We visited Boldt Castle in the St Lawrence River this past summer.  It'd been some time since I had been there and now they have a really nice museum talking about how Mr. Boldt built the place - charging his workers to stay on the island overnight while they built it for him.  Such a sweet (rich and powerful) man, no?  He can build castles bringing in very luxurious things, but must charge the minions working for him overnight lodging fees.  They're pretty much locked into the arrangement since they're on his own personal island - no bridge to return home or similar.  They'd have to use boats.  But I suppose they ought to be thankful Mr Wealthy gave them a job.

 

There's nothing new under the sun.  Compassionate people rarely get super rich (short of a quick windfall from something - book sale, invention, etc).  They help others along the way instead.  

I do not know how true this is.I travel extensively too. I have found boorish and uncompassionate people in every income level that I have met and wonderfully compassionate people in every income level too.  We aren't the super rich and most people we know aren't either- I am not sure what you consider super rich though.  Because the people we know who are really rich are constantly doing things to improve our community- whether it is funding a home for teens without a place to go, paying for music education for kids who wouldn't have it otherwise, sending poor children to camp, etc, etc, etc. 

 

I honestly also believe that temporary status for 20 years, etc. is heartless. The deal is that Congress has the power to write a law and change this.  They could let them apply for green cards or DACA (which is their responsibility) or whatever.  The correct venue for addressing immigration concerns is Congress. They write the laws.  But this isn't by far the only thing Congress has let slide and is giving us trouble today. The sequetration compromise of about 7 years ago means that we aren't adequately prepared for NK missiles (or Iranian or anyone's), The lack of proper funding for ICE we just found out that most suspected terrorist immigrants have not been adequately checked (one of the biggest problems is that there were no computers in most ICE offices that could screen confidential information or that they could enter information into either).  And how about non budgets all the time too?  They are supposed to have annual budgets but in the last I do not know how many years, they mostly go by continuing resolutions that usually continue into another year and often never a budget.

 

Those stats for the temporary people look much better than the stats for illegal immigrants.  I wish that more was being done for them.  I know we can\t take everyone in bad circumstances around the world. But I think we have a special obligation to the people who we let live here for these very prolonged temporary times and who have made a life here- particularly if they are working and contributing to society.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scarlett, whether you understand it or not, calling somebody "an illegal" is considered a slur. You don't need to agree. You just need to have good manners.

 

Or good grammar! Illegal is an adjective, not a noun. If I make an illegal left turn, I am not an illegal. My action was illegal. If someone immigrates here illegally the ACTION is illegal, not the PERSON. Just like me and an illegal left turn, or whatever. 

 

Illegal immigrant, fine. Undocumented immigrant, probably better. But illegal without a noun is not okay, for anything.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think you are wrong about that, along with racism in general.

 

But the thing is, if you came here illegally, it is obvious that you can’t simply settle in. If your country was deemed with TPS, that is just a coincidence somewhat in your favor. It makes sense that one would have a Plan B because having Plan A in the first place was not legal.

 

It's not a coincidence. The reason they came here is the reason for TPS. They fled violence, and TPS was designed to protect them from that violence. It goes together. IT wasn't like they all showed up here for no particular reason, just cause they like it here, and then war broke out, and then TPS was put in place. They came here BECAUSE of the violence...they were trying to save their LIVES and the lives of their kids! And the powers that be acknowledged that and created TPS with the idea that once things settled down at home they'd go back. But things didn't settle down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they are separated from them.  That was another definition.  

 

And I was not talking about kids whose parents were able to make arrangements.  

 

I believe you would find the application of that to be that they were unwillingly separated. As in, there was some type of incident like a natural disaster, and now the parents cannot be located. After a time, people who cannot be located can be declared dead if certain circumstances are met. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But scarlett's question applies...the parents will or would be separated from their children. Two parents legally separated (deported ) from their children can fit the legal definition of making those children "orphans."

 

I don't think so, not if the whereabouts of the parents are known and there are arrangements made for the care of the children. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 It’s like a student who cut class being furious when the teacher does not give him a retroactive excused absence.

 

 

No, it's like a student that couldn't make it to class due to dangerous flooding in the streets, and then being given a retroactive excused absence. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking calmly, an orphan is a child whose parents are dead. Some people, I would imagine many who have experience with being or knowing actual orphans, would not want that word applied to children whose parents are still living. The children have parents who are not dead, even if the parents are not with them.

As an "actual orphan" (who became one as a teenager) I consider that the word has different meanings...legal meanings, colloquial meanings, and functional meanings.

 

If someone, on a personal level, told me she considered herself an orphan bc she had no parents in her life, I wouldn't argue the definition with her. I wouldn't need to see her parents' death certificates to verify she is an "actual orphan."

 

Scarlett asked what would happen to these orphaned children...she was worried about them, and expressed that. I took her to be using the term in a functional level.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I knew I could get kicked out of a country and sent back home at any time, I most certainly would never buy a house, or if I did, I'd get myself up to speed to be savvy enough to be able to sell it while I was permanently out of the country.  I'd make sure my kids could speak the language of the country we'd know we were going back to.  I'd do everything I could to get them as much education now as possible and I'd be talking to them constantly about "when we go back" so they would be emotionally ready to move.  If I was with family, I'd make family of prime importance and try not to let the kids get tied too closely to friends in the US.  I'd do everything I could to keep in touch with family back in the home country (if there are any) so that when we'd move back we'd have help, and I'd be saving every cent I could for the move back. 

 

Of course, if you have no family here to help and no family in your home country and haven't been able to save up, then it's a nightmare having to go back to a place penniless and without a support system. This is the part where the can was kicked. It looks like most of the people here under this umbrella have blue collar jobs that don't pay enough to save enough for a major move.  

 

I think America is being rotten to these people, but at the same time, you'd bet that if I was in their situation I'd have a plan B.  I'd be preparing to head back home because I'd know it was coming.  It's sort of like preparing for retirement.  If I don't go to work once the kids are done homeschooling, then my dh and I will be only a step or two above eating cat food when we're old.  The money will run out if I don't work from age 50-70 (or until I'm too sick to).  So, when the kids are done with school, I'll be getting a job and saving almost all of the income for retirement, because I know that unless I die early, old age is coming for me and I'd better be prepared.

 

If I knew I'd be staying in a country temporarily, even 17 years worth of temporary, I'd be doing my best to prepare for when I had to leave with whatever resources I could muster. The US was always up front that this was temporary.  It's in the very name.  It was crummy for a better plan not to be in place, but at the same time, you've gotta prepare for what you know is coming.  The US ought to have paved a way for these guys to have citizenship once it got to the 4 or 5 year mark with no end in sight.  Letting them stay in the first place was compassionate and the right thing to do.  Up to the 4/5 year mark, it would have been ok to send them back home, but after that, the US should have paved a way for them to become citizens.  Major ball drop not to help these guys out, who were being productive in our society for over a decade and were stuck here.  

 

I know I sound like I'm going back and forth, but I'm just thinking through all the aspects of this.

 

Bottom line: The US ought to offer them a quick way to citizenship if they want it.  At the same time, I think the people stuck here ought to have been planning very, very carefully for when they'd have to move back if the US didn't offer citizenship because it looming on the horizon and everyone knew it.

 

I don't think you understand.  There is no quick way to citizenship.  Getting green cards, maybe.  I would go for that but that would still be a process.  But once you get a green card (Permanent resident), you have to wait a number of years to get to be able to apply for citizenship.  And in terms of letting them get green cards, that process is very long and arduous usually too.  Many people here on other visas, like work visas, stay here for lots of years and keep trying to get a green card.  So you not only have people who are not in favor of immigration in general being against changing these people's status but probably businesses here too who have been trying to get their H1 workers green cards and who will still be waiting not wanting those guys to go first.  It is really complicated.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know how true this is.I travel extensively too. I have found boorish and uncompassionate people in every income level.  

 

Saying it's tough to find compassion for fellow humans among the super wealthy is not at all the same as saying it exists everywhere at lower income levels.

 

Donations to charity is not the same as compassion either (esp since charities differ wildly in purpose), but having googled some stats, here's a good page showing a bit, including percentage by income - both for giving and percentage of income.  I can't say I fault those making under 25K for not giving.  'Tis tough to live on that amount in our country!  There are far, far more breakdowns on all sorts of charity "stuff" on the site for those interested.  This breakdown also doesn't include the Top 1% by itself - and it would be interesting to see where the charitable giving goes TBH (food bank vs animal rescue vs art museum, etc - all worthy - but not all the same with "compassion").

 

Chances are, even Mr Boldt gave something to charity - no one wants to be seen as a Scrooge - but that didn't mean he was willing to house those working for him when he could charge them instead.  When one is living comfortably, giving 2% is not much effort.  It's less than what one makes through their lack of compassion.

 

One can also assist "a" person or two with something, esp if connected to them or a favorite cause, without caring at all about the masses.  "A" person or two doesn't cost much.  Fixing things for the masses could.

 

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/

 

Almanac_Statistics_11_375_488.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you would find the application of that to be that they were unwillingly separated. As in, there was some type of incident like a natural disaster, and now the parents cannot be located. After a time, people who cannot be located can be declared dead if certain circumstances are met.

I would consider being deported after being here 17 years "unwillingly separated."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean you agree with some Native American groups that feel we all need to return to our countries of origin since our ancestors came here illegally?

 

Or does "our" law mean more than theirs even though they were here first and certainly had claim to the land? If ours means more, why? What makes us superior? Our numbers? Our race? Our strength in winning the war?

 

Some laws just shouldn't be laws. All laws of this type are man made. I don't follow or support man-made laws that shouldn't be laws. I'll advocate for change, of course, but ignore them otherwise, esp when folks lives are in danger due to them. I'd have done the same in Nazi Germany. I prefer to use my mind, my compassion for my fellow human being, and add some common sense to caring about letter of the law.

 

YMMV I know some folks are determined to follow letter of the law - often they'll speed or similar things they find ok to ignore - but somehow that's ok. There are probably a rare few who try to obey every single law (can't say I've seen them on highways TBH), but I don't think that's what's going on in this TPS situation. I think (some) folks are "using" the law to cleanse our "precious" country of those they feel are inferior and undesirable. I think it's perfectly fine for other folks to get into an uproar about this and point it out by using FACTS, like, say, the facts about what these residents have been doing while here and the facts about what will happen if they are forced out - not to mention the facts about why many came in the first place. It's not as simple as the "sound bite" group want the masses to believe. If no one counters the "sound bite" group, too many will go around claiming, "it's time for the temporary folks to leave because they knew it was temporary" or "they should have gotten in line."

 

Fix the law. All of us will agree that's best. Enforcing the law is what's wrong.

No. I cannot do anything about injustices of the past. Of course it was wrong to destroy the people groups who were here when my ancestors arrived, but that cannot be changed now. I couldn’t go anywhere else anyway because I am a mutt of several different countries and NA.

 

I comply with many laws that I think are stupid and not how it should be done. Property taxes, for example. I do not simply follow a law or not because I think it makes sense and is just how it ought to be.

 

I completely agree that some people in power are using the law to try to purge undesirable groups from this country. It would fit the narrative, for sure. But just because some people are using the law to do nefarious deeds does not mean there should be no law or that there is no standard for things to take place. I do not think there are any first world countries where a person can just arrive there and become a citizen, no matter why they left their original country. There are laws for them all. There is no reason the US should be a free-for-all.

 

I have more to say but I have a mountain of work to do and a kid that keeps asking me questions, as homescho9lers are wont to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would consider being deported after being here 17 years "unwillingly separated."

 

Perhaps, however, it does not preclude the 1) continued involvement of the parents in the child's life 2) parent financially supporting the child 3) reunion at a future date. I think that in order for a child to be considered an orphan, more than physical separation must occur. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...