I am telling you it is not racist. It is not our job to defend anyone but American's you ignorant -blam!-. If they want to get out of their shitty country, I am not against that. They still have to do it the proper way. We have rules and regulations to follow. It isn't our fault they try to bypass that. You are trying to put other's and myself into a category that is using racist terms and you are incorrect in doing so. I am telling you what is and isn't O.K. because it is not O.K. to come into another country illegally. That's why they get deported. I was in the Navy and saw so many different races from so many different countries and did not have a single problem with any of them. Hell, some of them were still getting their U.S. citizenship and I was still fine with it. They were following proper protocol. They weren't illegals. So how the hell am I being a racist or hypocrite? You are throwing that term out there when I am telling it how it is. You bypass protocol, you are now a "residential alien". That is an "illegal immigrant". You have no paper's or green card stating you have authorization to be here. That is illegal. You do not have the right's of an American citizen to be innocent until proven guilty. If you have the authorization then you would be tried as an immigrant. If you were a citizen you would be tried as an American citizen. You seriously do not understand how that system works? You seriously think that if someone from Russia, Mexico, Canada, or any other country that had managed to get into our country and live here without the proper process is O.K. and not considered an illegal? You are blind and are one of the many causes that is wrong with this country then. I have no problem with any person living as my neighbor as long as they do what is required by law to do so.

Blah blah blah Merica. The First Amendment gives me the right to call you whatever I want whenever I want and the right to call you out on your racist shit. You are a racist. Deal with it. It's cool. It's well within your rights. Also, just FYI, people with expired work visas are generally referred to being "out of status" if they overstay their welcome. Illegals is primarily reserved for brown people from south of the border. So, no, no one goes around bitching about illegals and pictures a -blam!-ing Canadian you nutter.

Ok, so the true colors are coming out here. I see you are a troll now. It was a good disguise. Saying that you taught English and the such. I figured an educated person would have a more valid argument besides expecting my term of illegals being related only to Latinos. If anything, that proves that you are, unknowingly, racist yourself. The reason I feel so strongly of this topic is I have family that have gone through the proper procedures to become legal citizens. I have been friends with people, including, but not limited to, Latinos, Africans, Venezuelans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Italians, Swedish, and many other races that are or were in the progress of becoming a citizen. I was not relating any specific race to the term illegal. You made that assumption yourself. You are protected by the First Amendment to say anything you want that does not cause mass hysteria. I am not going to be upset by that at all. I just do not understand why you want to make an inaccurate declaration that I am racist when I am not. P.S. Out of status does not mean illegal. They overstayed their documentation. This usually results in someone going to their closest immigration office and applying for an extension. It does not label them illegal.

By your definition, it does. If they are out of status, they are in the country illegally and are therefore here illegally. I don't see why it is so hard for you to grasp that talking about all the "illegals" in this country is a pejorative and racist term. It clearly is. You can explain it all away and use all your wonderful non-American friends as props all you want: It doesn't change that basic fact. If you really cared about that shit, you would just own up to it and stop using it. Obviously, you don't give a shit and never will, so why pretend otherwise? Finally, even if you don't mean it as racist, it doesn't mean the term isn't. You could be completely not racist and talk about your colored neighbors, but that doesn't mean that colored is not a racist term. But you probably think that word is perfectly fine as well so why am I wasting my time?

So when I have put you into a corner, where you cannot properly defend your accusations, that is when you start trying to make everything seem as one? "Illegals" is not racist as it is not pertaining to a particular "race" in a derogatory term. People, such as yourself, are ignorant and want to take offense when there is none. It helps you to believe you are proper and right, when in reality you are not. Out of status is not the same as being an illegal. If it were then the people within that status would be deported as well. Instead, they simply go get an extension. I use my family and friends as a defending point against earlier said accusation you had claimed on me being a racist. I also explained why I have my my particular view on the situation by relating to it. Instead of just hiding behind the First Amendment saying anything I want without any particular reason to do so. I could do that if I wanted, but that usually does not help any situation. It is viable, but unhelpful. I do not believe the term colored is proper and is in fact racist. This is due to the fact that you are categorizing a people by the color of their skin. Their skin color is, in most situations, determined by their race. Therefore, you are categorizing them by their race. Illegal is categorizing a people by their status of citizenship. Their citizenship is not dictated by the color of their skin, which in retrospect, does not mean the term "illegal" being racist unless you are addressing a certain race in particular, which I nor OblivionXIII did. Your argument has been read, understood, dissected, and proven incorrect and based wholly on your particular opinion. Whereas my counter-argument has been read, not dissected, nor proven incorrect and based wholly on my opinion as I am using the English language and true definitions of the word without biased direction towards a particular race. You are not a gentleman nor a scholar. Good Day Sir.

1. Laid Off H-1B Employees With Advance Notice - What if you are an employee in H-1B status and you receive advance notice that you will be laid off before your validity period ends? Can you change employers? USCIS Response: Prior to being laid off, another qualified H-1B employer may file a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on your behalf with USCIS. In order to change employers without having to depart the United States, the I-129 petition should have been filed prior to the termination of your job and you must have been maintaining valid H-1B status. If the I-129 petition is filed after your dismissal, you may have to return overseas to process your H-1B visa for the new employer. 2. Laid Off H-1B Employees Without Advance Notice - What if you are an employee in H-1B status and you are laid off with no advance notice before the end of the validity period? Can you begin working (or port to) another job with a different employer? USCIS Response: An H-1B nonimmigrant is admitted to be employed by the sponsoring H-1B petitioner. If the employment ends, this condition is no longer satisfied and the individual is no longer in a lawful nonimmigrant status and may be subject to removal proceedings. Therefore, the terminated H-1B nonimmigrant in this scenario may not be able to port to another employer, subject to certain discretionary exceptions. Depending on the individual's circumstances, the H-1B worker may be eligible to remain in the United States due to a request for a change of status or for extension of stay that is filed while that individual is maintaining H-1B status, or on account a pending adjustment application. In deciding whether to approve a change or extension of status for any nonimmigrant who has fallen out of status, however, USCIS may exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis to grant the extension or change of status despite the failure to maintain status. There is no automatic 10-day or other grace period for terminated employees holding H-1B status, so once the individual is no longer in a lawful nonimmigrant status, he/she usually must depart from the United States. 3. Laid Off Employees in Other Classifications - What if you are in some other nonimmigrant classification, such as E (treaty investor), L (intra-company transferee), O (extraordinary ability), or P (entertainer, athlete), and you are laid off? USCIS Response: Similar to H-1B nonimmigrants, E, L, O and P nonimmigrants are no longer considered to be maintaining valid status as of the day their petitioned for employment has been terminated. The law and regulations do not provide a grace period for E, L, O, and P nonimmigrants whose employment has been terminated, so once the individual is no longer in a lawful nonimmigrant status, he/she usually must depart from the United States. Depending on the individual circumstances, he/she may be eligible to remain in the United States due to a request for a change of status or for extension of stay that is filed while that individual is maintaining status, or on account of a pending adjustment application. In deciding whether to approve a change or extension of status for any nonimmigrant who has fallen out of status, however, USCIS may exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis to grant the extension or change status despite the failure to maintain status. 4. H-1B Validity Periods - What if the validity period of my H-1B status ends and my employer does not file an extension? USCIS Response: USCIS regulations allow for an individual to be granted, upon admission to the U.S., up to 10 additional days after the validity of their H-1B period ends. This period of up to 10 days is intended to allow the individual to wrap up his or her affairs prior to departing the United States. See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(13)(i)(A). However, such persons are not permitted to work after the validity period of the petition (i.e. you are not authorized to work during the 10-day grace period), unless they have a pending extension of status petition or have other valid work authorization. 5. Employer Requirements - What are the requirements for an employer who has laid-off an employee in H-1B status? USCIS Response: U.S. employers are required to notify USCIS if there has been a material change in the terms and conditions of the H-1B nonimmigrant's employment, including if the alien has been laid-off or otherwise terminated. See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(11)(i)(A). Once USCIS has received notification of the termination, it may revoke the approval of the petition. If USCIS decides to revoke the petition, it will communicate that decision to the petitioner. Additionally, the employer will be liable for the reasonable costs of return transportation of the alien to the alien's last place of foreign residence if the alien is dismissed from employment by the employer before the end of the period of authorized admission period. If the beneficiary voluntarily terminates his or her employment prior to the expiration of the validity of the petition, the alien has not been dismissed. See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(E). 6. TARP Funding - How will employer recipients of TARP funding be affected if they want to hire H-1Bs? USCIS Response: On February 17, 2009 the President signed into law the Employ American Workers Act (EAWA) contained in the stimulus bill. See Pub. L. No. 111-5, Div. A, Title XVI, § 1611. This Act requires employers who received funds through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or under section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (covered funding), to be treated as H-1B dependent employers. Consequently, employers must certify to the Department of Labor that: The employer has taken or will take good faith steps meeting industry-wide standards to recruit U.S. workers and will offer compensation that is at least as great as those offered to the H-1B nonimmigrant. U.S. workers are defined as U.S. citizens or nationals, lawful permanent resident aliens, refugees, asylees, or other immigrants authorized to be employed in the United States (i.e., workers other than nonimmigrant aliens) The employer has offered or will offer the job to any U.S. worker who applies and is equally or better qualified for the job that is intended for the H-1B nonimmigrant The employer will not displace any similarly employed U.S. worker within the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the date of filing a petition for an H-1B nonimmigrant supported by this application. A U.S. worker is displaced if the worker is laid off from a job that is essentially the equivalent of the job for which an H-1B nonimmigrant is sought The employer will not place an H-1B worker to work for another employer unless it has inquired whether the other employer has displaced or will displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before or after the placement of the H-1B worker. The EAWA applies to any Labor Condition Application (LCA) and/or H-1B petition filed on or after Feb. 17, 2009, involving any employment by a new employer, including concurrent employment and regardless of whether the beneficiary is already in H-1B status, unless otherwise noted below. The EAWA also applies to new hires based on a petition approved before Feb. 17, 2009, if the H-1B employee had not actually commenced employment before that date. The EAWA does not apply to: (1) a petition to extend the H-1B status of a current H-1B employee with the same employer, or (2) a petition seeking to change the status of a current U.S. work-authorized employee to H-1B status with the same employer. Moreover, an employer who has repaid its covered funding obligations prior to filing a new H-1B petition is no longer subject to EAWA requirements. 7. Dependents - How are my dependents affected if I lose my job? USCIS Response: Family members of nonimmigrant workers who derive their status as dependents lose that status when the principal nonimmigrant worker's status ends. Therefore, if your status ends as a result of losing your job, your dependents will also lose their immigration status. 8. F-1 Students and OPT - What if you are an F-1 student with an optional practical training (OPT) authorization? USCIS Response: F-1 academic students may seek post-completion Optional Practical Training (OPT) to enable them to obtain valuable work experience directly related to their course of study. F-1 academic students in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics fields (STEM) may seek a one-time extension of their post completion OPT for an additional 17 months. Students granted post-completion OPT and STEM OPT are issued an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), which is not employer-specific; however, in order to maintain their F-1 status, there are limits on the amount of allowable periods of unemployment. Students on post-completion OPT may not accrue more than 90 days of unemployment in the aggregate. Students on STEM OPT are allowed an additional 30 days of unemployment, so they may not accrue more than 120 days of unemployment in the aggregate. See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(E). An F-1 student who exceeds the allowable periods of unemployment is out of status and must seek reinstatement in order to use any remaining periods of available post-completion OPT or STEM OPT. F-1 students do not need to apply for another EAD when they find a new job, so long as they have not fallen out of status by exceeding the allowable periods of unemployment, or have not otherwise violated their F-1 status. Students should consult with their Designated School Official (DSO) if they have any additional questions or concerns about their status. Taken directly from the USCIS website. You can read it if you want.

Finally, the meaning of a word is determined by the way it is used by people in the real world. Not by some objective standard one guy on a forum made up on the fly. This is basic 1st grade linguistics. Illegals, in this country, is used to categorize people by the color of their skin and countries of origin. If you can't see that, then I can't help you. Don't pretend you have some objective basis in fact, law, or generally accepted scholarly consensus for your bullshit.

You are reaching out to say that this word means something different because a majority of people use it in a derogatory manor. That does not mean the word itself is racist. People can call anyone anything and make it derogatory but that does not change what the word actually means. You have to go on facts when I am arguing facts with you. So when people use a word to describe something incorrectly, it does not mean that word is what they say it means. To also prove you wrong with the extremely long copy and paste, which I have already read moments before you posted it to prepare for you using documentation against me, that article is pertaining to people who are here through work. Immigrant workers are here on proper documentation until said documentation is no longer proper. We were talking about people with "Out of Status" Visa documentation. So yea, people who have been let go from work and stay behind are then considered illegals because their documentation is not "expired" but is now no longer valid. Expired Visa documentation is still valid and requires an extension. Once again you have made yourself look ignorant by arguing one point when you were meaning to argue another. In short, words are what they are meant to be, not what people want them to be. Immigrant workers are not the same as a Visa holder when documentation expires. Learn to read what you are trying to argue, don't just skim my posts and try to act like you know what you are talking about.

I'm not going to parse immigration law with you. I do enough of that at work. An H1B is a visa. There are a myriad number of visas. If you go out of status, you are here illegally. Doesn't get much simpler. If you stay too long, your ass will be deported. Simple stuff. There are different rules based on the different types of visas and different situations, but in the end, if you do not renew your status, you are here illegally. The USCIS is the most arcane and convoluted agency in the entire US government. There are grace periods, extensions, blah, blah blah. The -blam!- if I understand all of it and I do it for a living. Point being, you are trying to say that illegal is purely a legal and objective definition which is completely false. Out of status is a polite way of saying your ass is illegal and you better fix that shit or you are done. Your view of language is completely -blam!-ed and wrong and no one with any knowledge of language would have anything to do with a statement like "In short, words are what they are meant to be, not what people want them to be." This is naivety in the extreme and is completely false. No one with any knowledge of language has accepted this view for the past 100 years in any way shape or form.

You can stretch and reach as far as you want, but until agreed upon by scholars and introduced into the dictionary. The word's meaning doesn't change just because someone want's it to be something it isn't. In the definiton(I can post links too), underneath the second definition. Illegal is listed as a noun describing illegal immigrants. Just to let you know, that's checkmate "bud". -EDIT- Wikipedia is not considered a viable source in most esteemed University's so I decided to use this thing called the dictionary.

The OED disagrees. See noun, derogatory. But why trust the best dictionary in the world when you can use one that is a piece of shit? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/illegal

Once [b]AGAIN[/b] you have not read all of my posts thoroughly. I already said earlier that the term can be used as a derogatory. That does not mean racist. That can be used as an insult yes, but to go and make it a racist term is still incorrect in terms of even the OED. You literally want to just say that derogatory can pertain to racism too huh? I guess calling people rednecks as you did earlier means I'm being racist as well? What about calling rich people "rich" and poor people "poor"? Do you not see you are stretching terms here to try to fit what you want them to be, when words don't work that way? For someone who works in a position you say you work in, I would think that understanding the English language would be a very big hiring factor. I see that you are not only under-qualified for your job, but you don't understand your own language that you were trying to force onto the original comment. This is the best part of debating with people who truly do not understand how things work. You try to argue points that you warp and weave and try to make fit your ideal meaning, just to have someone such as myself come along and go to the lengths I have to prove you wrong. You do not like that you are wrong, nor can you accept it. So you will keep sprouting source after source and misinterpret in a way that suits you, when it is in fact incorrect. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/chink Definition number three. That is describing a Chinese person. Clearly racist correct? I would assume we could at least agree on that. Do you see how it lists as informal offensive? That is how you perceive words to be racist. Ugly is derogatory. Poor is derogatory. Chink is informal offensive. Illegal is derogatory, not informal offensive. Want to play another game? I'll let you play black.

Please. Your whole house of cards is based around the idea that there is some objective definition somewhere of illegal that has nothing to do with the way the word is actually used. The word is used in a racist manner. That is my point. You can talk about bobbing and weaving all you, but it is clearly used as a derogatory racist slur in this country. If anything, your parsing clearly proves my point. Chink is clearly racist. The OED doesn't label it as racist because anyone with half a brain knows it is racist. Similarly, the fact that illegal is clearly labeled as a derogatory used by North Americans should lead you to make some rational conclusions based on the data at hand. The question then is how do North Americans primarily use the term illegal in derogatory manner and to whom does it refer? The answer is quite clearly to refer to Chicanos. Thus, the term is -blam!-ing clearly racist. For -blam!-'s sake, follow your argument through to its logical conclusion.

I can tell you're retarded, and I mean that in the sense you're slow minded and with holding progression. Have a nice day.

It's withholding you -blam!-ing idiot.

My whole "house of cards" is based on the fact that I am arguing fact's according to viable sources. I used two different dictionaries. The basic one everyone knows, and the one you wanted to use to try to devalue the first one. I used your source to prove my point with facts. I never said that people don't use it as a racist term, I am arguing that it is not a racist term. I am not blind or naive. I understand that people say shit like "illegal" to be racist with it's meaning. I have been arguing this whole time that is incorrect and not what the term actually means. Both sources we have gone through have proven my point. If I'm wrong, then I guess that's two dictionaries we can no longer use due to them being incorrect as well. One day that term may be listed as an informal offensive. Then you will be correct, and I will not argue because of that [b]fact[/b]. As of right now. at 4:20 P.M. Est September 26th, 2014. Illegals is not racist. You are wrong. Talk to me when it is in the dictionary in the next few years, and I will say you are now correct. Till then, remember what you start arguing about in the first place and don't take a turn in the middle. [quote]"Illegals" is far from racist terminology when they are, in fact, in the country illegally.--OblivionXIII[/quote] [quote]"http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/opinion/garcia-illegal-immigrants/"--Andrew[/quote] [quote]So in short, calling a "residential alien" an illegal is not racist.--EXUnForgiv3n[/quote] -EDIT- [quote]Chink is clearly racist. The OED doesn't label it as racist because anyone with half a brain knows it is racist.[/quote] It lists it as an informal offensive because it is racist. The dictionary isn't supposed to limit itself under the assumption that people have half a brain. That is the most ignorant thing I've heard. The dictionary lists all viable definitions of a word because it is a factual recorded document. Wow, just wow.

There's your parsing again. You can mince all you want buddy: illegals is a racist term and is used accordingly. If you want to continue using it, be my guest. Nothing you have said or offered has changed the facts on the -blam!-ing ground. The people who are most likely to use that term in this country are white people directing their vitriol at brown people. That's the way language works and has always worked. You can sit there and act like that the use of language is divorced from its meaning, but we all know that is -blam!-ing completely wrong. Anyways, you've come from arguing this complete and utter bullshit, i.e. that the term illegal is simply based on law and has no racial connotations: [quote]You are throwing that term out there when I am telling it how it is. You bypass protocol, you are now a "residential alien". That is an "illegal immigrant". You have no paper's or green card stating you have authorization to be here. That is illegal. You do not have the right's of an American citizen to be innocent until proven guilty. If you have the authorization then you would be tried as an immigrant. If you were a citizen you would be tried as an American citizen. You seriously do not understand how that system works? You seriously think that if someone from Russia, Mexico, Canada, or any other country that had managed to get into our country and live here without the proper process is O.K. and not considered an illegal? You are blind and are one of the many causes that is wrong with this country then. I have no problem with any person living as my neighbor as long as they do what is required by law to do so.[/quote] To parsing whether or not the OED designating a word derogatory or informally offensive makes it racist. You've since admitted that the word is used both as a derogatory and as a racially offensive term. It's a small victory, but I'll take it. Keep mulling this shit over, and you'll get there eventually.