Agree with all of the above. I would not want to live anywhere else in the US. And love the SF Bay Area in particular.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Commits $2.5 Billion to Fight California Housing Crisis
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agree with all of the above. I would not want to live anywhere else in the US. And love the SF Bay Area in particular.
Yeah, I knew what the guy meant. Just find it funny because most people would associate Aliens with living creatures that originate out of this world. And by world I don't mean USA, but the entire planet
You're joking, but California is mostly a desert that is only inhabitable by 10's of millions of people because they have multiple nuclear power plants pumping water from underground aquifers into the densely packed cities. It is not a sustainable model and it's right now breaking down. Look at the pictures you can see of the unbuilt regions 50 miles from Cupertino. They really are desert wastelands.
Building more housing and continuing to expect more and more people to live in the irrigated desert is a horrible idea.
The aquifers are running dry which is why there's so many droughts the past few years, forest fires are getting worse because the state is drying out even more. It's even worse because the state uses their dwindling water supply to grow water-intesive cash crops for export across the pacific. A major power disruption like the East Coast had in 2004 would lead to millions of deaths in California because the water pumps would stop.
If Apple had really wanted to help, they would have built the space ship in the rust belt.
I accidentally did once. Got a letter from the IRS asking what that was about and how they may pay the excess amount back %)
Apparently for some people those are one in the same.
[automerge]1572892221[/automerge]
“Illegal alien” is not a legal term, and that’s the phrase I was referring to. It’s deliberately used by some because it’s dehumanising.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrong.
The Court uses the phrases "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" interchangeably. The word ‘immigrant’ is not used in the manner in which it is defined in Title 8 of the United States Code unless it is so designated. The Court also understands that there is a certain segment of the population that finds the phrase "illegal alien" offensive. The Court uses this term because it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law. See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2497
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course it is a legal term.
See 8 US Code 1635 for example. There are also quite a few common law opinions that use the term.
There is nothing derogatory in using “alien” (even if legal or illegal is attached to it).
That sometimes happens. However, a move like this one by Apple is more likely to help stabilize prices than to lower them.
Ha, no. It's an investment like any other. You buy into the investment, you accept the risks.
if it appears once in the written law, it’s a legal term. “scarcely” doesn’t mean anything. Simple fact.
I am not sure what you’re arguing about. A foreign citizen is defined as an Alien.
Quantity of definitions is totally irrelevant.
Oh yeah because Reptilians--er, Republicans--are so good at taking care of their own people
I didn’t dispute that, at all, did I?
And yet there is no definition of it, in the way people are using it here.
"Alien" is a legally recognized word, there's no question about that (sorry lefties) but the way the right always uses it just... comes off in a superior and dehumanizing tone.
Also, what about someone who is currently illegal but actively trying to become a citizen? You people love to talk about how star-spangled great America is, yet not give someone the time of day because they happen to ask for it with an accent. It is a PATH to citizenship that can take years to cross the finish line for some of these folks, all the while they're bussing the tables and picking up the trash of people like you who are constantly putting them down. It's just sad. And ironic. You know because of the whole "party of Christian and family values" bunk you're always peddling.
Also, what about someone who is currently illegal but actively trying to become a citizen? You people love to talk about how star-spangled great America is, yet not give someone the time of day because they happen to ask for it with an accent. It is a PATH to citizenship that can take years to cross the finish line for some of these folks, all the while they're bussing the tables and picking up the trash of people like you who are constantly putting them down. It's just sad. And ironic. You know because of the whole "party of Christian and family values" bunk you're always peddling.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is defined by the US Government (Homeland Security), by 8 US Code 1365 para b, by the INA Act Section 274, by the United States Citizenship and Naturalization Services in its Definitions and Glossary, by the Internal Revenue Services' Definitions and Glossary, by several Courts of Appeals, and it is defined also by the Supreme Court (notable the US v Arizona of 2012 in which "Illegal Alien" is used dozens of times with liberal Sotomayor's concurrence), Presidential Executive Orders (Executive Order No. 12807 for example) and so on.
You still haven't made your case. "Alien" is a legal term used hundreds if not thousands of times. "Illegal" is certainly a status used thousands of times under the law. "Illegal Alien" is used tens if not hundreds of times in both the law and legal discourses. What's the dehumanization part? Illegal? Alien? what?
In a sorry attempt to make yourself appear funny, you've done the opposite. You do realize that the word, alien, has many meanings, don't you?
[automerge]1572895701[/automerge]
We don't know about the stories because they don't matter. To say they do means you are fine with the notion that the ends always justify the means. They don't.
Last edited by a moderator:
I made my case when I linked you to an article that researched the matter extensively and presented its conclusions. If you don’t want to believe/agree with that, I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince you.
literally no one questioned this.
Again no one questions this.
The article I linked indicates otherwise in terms of legal definition. That’s literally my point. The only definition for it in federal law, isn’t what you lot keep using it to mean.
I've read the article you quoted, probably even before than you did. It's a well known article for those interested in immigration more than once in a blue moon or an election cycle. It doesn't disprove anything I said, and it doesn't prove your "dehumanizing" argument in the least. It simply tackles the situation by claiming that it's not that much of a popular term (mind you, I don't like it myself).
Again. Illegal is not dehumanizing. Alien is not dehumanizing. Both have been used in conjunction multiple times including in SCOTUS dockets by "liberal" and "conservative" judges alike and even those lawyers that were "defending" the illegal aliens.
I think the problem is you''re both kind of talking past eachother.
From a legal, purely analytical standpoint, yes "Illegal Alien" is a normal term that is worldwide generally recognised to be description of those who are alien with illegal status.
However, under modern populism and political climate, it's become a euphamism for "inferior" people. and is often used to dehumanize and demonize them as human beings
and before you can argue that point, I recommend highly reading a few of the posters in this thread who have very much done exactly that. Taken that they are "illegal" and immediately deemed them inferior human beings they don't have to care about. Even to the point of violating those peoples human rights.
True, but you also have to agree that people who want to dehumanize humans will use any available term. That's not a reason to claim that whoever uses it is dehumanizing. I have been told that even the word "boy" can be used in that sense. Best thing - in my opinion - is to focus less on this type of issues and more on the policies that have to be fixed (aliens or not, the US immigration system is a mess even for those who immigrate legally).
Maybe we should start referring to all Americans of European descent as “alien invaders” and see how much you like that term?
Yes they will. That's why I'm really not one of those to get up in arms over using "Illegal Aliens" or "irregular immigrants". both work fine.
Those people who are so full of hate that they will look down on someone as inferior based off where they're born, or colour of their skin, or whatever, will find whatever wording they can to fit their narrative without outing themselves for the hateful bigots they are.
I think we all need to stop playing the semantic battle and start looking at the issues themselves. While also not being afraid to call out racist neo-nazi's and facists for what they are.
Last edited by a moderator:
