“Illegal Alien” Isn’t Just a Phrase—It’s a Racist Dog Whistle
I guess I should not be surprised, but I was stunned to see arriving in my email box a press release from USDA using the long since disused epithet for undocumented people: “illegal alien.” What is this, 1984 again?
Displayed prominently within the USDA’s April 24 press release lies a familiar poison. Titled “USDA Ensures Illegal Aliens Do Not Receive Federal Benefits,” the release offers more than bureaucratic updates—it offers a chilling reminder that racism and xenophobia remain foundational pillars of Trumpism and its administration’s policies.
The use of the term “illegal alien” is not neutral. It is not descriptive. It is not merely legalistic. It is a slur—a dehumanizing phrase that has long been wielded to cast immigrants, particularly Black and Brown immigrants, as criminal, inferior, and unworthy. Its reemergence in official government communication under the Trump administration is not accidental. It is ideological.
The phrase has been widely denounced by civil rights organizations, immigrant justice advocates, legal scholars, and even former federal agencies.
As far back as 2013 (actually stunningly recent), the Associated Press dropped the term from its style guide, citing its pejorative and dehumanizing effect.
The Library of Congress followed suit in 2016, after public pressure. Yet here we are, in 2025, with the USDA—an agency tasked with feeding the hungry—parroting a phrase ripped from the lexicon of white nationalist propaganda.
The USDA release doesn’t just invoke “illegal aliens” once—it uses the phrase repeatedly, embedding it in quotes from Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and referencing President Trump’s Executive Order 14218, which aims to systematically exclude immigrants from federal assistance programs like SNAP.
This is not merely policy; it is performance. The repetition is deliberate, calculated, and essential to the broader narrative Trumpism is trying to reinforce: that immigrants are drains, threats, and invaders.
This isn’t about fraud prevention. It’s not about protecting “taxpayer dollars.” This is about constructing a racialized hierarchy of deservingness, where some lives are deemed worthy of food and dignity—and others are not.
And let’s be clear: the phrase “illegal alien” is not applied universally. It’s not directed at Canadian overstayers or European visa violators. It’s wielded overwhelmingly against Latinx, African, and increasingly Southeast Asian migrants.
It is racialized by design. And it has long been used to stir fear, justify punitive policy, and dehumanize communities who have committed no crime other than existing in a nation whose borders were drawn to include some and exclude others.
Trumpism’s Racist Core
This language choice is not an isolated incident—it reflects the racist core of Trumpism itself. Whether through family separation at the border, mass deportations, or threats to use Guantánamo Bay for undocumented immigrants, the Trump administration has systematically weaponized immigration policy to appeal to nativist instincts. And with the re-election of Donald Trump and the resurrection of his inner circle—including figures like Rollins—the gloves are fully off.
This is not a policy debate. This is a moral crisis.
Trump’s movement—his rallies, his executive orders, his agencies—relies on framing immigrants as scapegoats. The USDA’s press release, while cloaked in bureaucratic language, is a direct echo of this project. It turns a hunger assistance program into a tool of exclusion. It reimagines aid not as a social safety net but as a cultural battleground. And in doing so, it tells us exactly who this administration thinks counts as American—and who doesn’t.
The SNAP Fraud Myth
The press release cites a GAO report claiming $10.5 billion in improper payments in 2023 and uses this figure as justification for enhanced “immigration verification.”
But as numerous audits and reviews have shown, the vast majority of SNAP overpayments are due to administrative error or minor reporting mistakes—not systemic fraud by undocumented immigrants. In fact, undocumented individuals are already ineligible for most federal benefits, and mixed-status families face extraordinary hurdles to access the aid they legally qualify for.
So the question becomes: why target immigrants with inflammatory language and burdensome verification systems, if not to feed a political narrative?
Because the narrative is the point.
When Secretary Rollins says, “To allow those who broke our laws by entering the United States illegally to receive these benefits is outrageous,” she is not issuing a policy rationale—she is signaling a cultural war cry. The cruelty is the message. The bureaucratic mechanism is simply the delivery device.
Trumpism thrives on the idea that some people are more American than others, that some families are more worthy of food, housing, and dignity. And it uses state power to enforce that belief, cloaking racist ideology in the guise of fiscal responsibility.
We must call this what it is: racism—written into executive orders, repeated in agency press releases, and normalized in the very institutions that should serve all people with dignity.
We cannot let this language stand. Journalists must refuse to echo the term “illegal alien.” Advocates must demand that federal agencies abandon it. Lawmakers must expose its use as part of a broader architecture of xenophobic state violence.
The USDA may feed bodies, but this press release attempts to starve the soul of American democracy. It tells us who we are supposed to care about. It tells us whose hunger we are allowed to ignore. And it tells us, with chilling clarity, that racism is not just present in Trump’s policies—it is the point of them.
Any attempt to argue otherwise is now out the window—if it ever was credible.
“We cannot let this language stand. Journalists must refuse to echo the term “illegal alien.”
Too late – you just used it yourself.
Overall, yet another attempt to control language. It’s not going to work, even if you and others “ban” it. Especially not when the country just elected a guy who ran on a platform using that phrase, and promising to take action on it.
“Undocumented” is usually less accurate. It implies that they just haven’t gotten around to getting documentation, which obviously isn’t the case for many of them.
They’re all immigrants, many of them here “illegally”. There’s no twisting of that meaning, despite what you might attempt.
I realize you desperately “want” to make this about racism, but it simply doesn’t work that way. Also, let’s not forget that Trump made inroads with the U.S. Hispanic population, which helped result in his victory. Are THOSE people racists?
As I previously noted, I’m not a Trump supporter, myself.
““Undocumented” is usually less accurate. It implies that they just haven’t gotten around to getting documentation, which obviously isn’t the case for many of them.”
That’s not true. A majority of people who are here didn’t illegally cross the border, they came here on work and student visas and then stayed past expiration. That’s why the language changed because it implies something not only insulting but something untrue.
That would also be illegal.
But if you’re stating that the majority of the (11 million?) “undocumented” immigrants in the U.S. didn’t cross a border illegally (e.g., by avoiding detection or by claiming asylum that they have no intention of actually pursuing), I’d find that surprising.
As a side note, I know someone who became a U.S. citizen “legally”, and that person does not support what Biden allowed. (That person also cannot even get their family to come to the U.S. for a 3-month visit, so far. And they’ve been a citizen for about 20 years, at this point.)
That person’s “home country” is even more restrictive than the U.S. is, regarding immigration. And yet, it might be classified as a third or second-world country itself. Oddly enough (for someone with your point of view, at least), they don’t consider themselves “racists” for restricting immigration to their country.
A 2019 report by the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) estimated that visa overstays accounted for 62% of all new undocumented immigrants between 2010 and 2018, with border crossings comprising the remaining 38%.
DHS data from 2020 also showed a consistent trend of visa overstays making up a substantial proportion of the undocumented population.
Would have to look at who that organization is (what their “mission” is), and how they gathered that information before automatically accepting it. I’ve seen enough data citation on the Vanguard to know that it shouldn’t be relied-upon without carefully examining it (which is beyond the scope of a discussion on a blog).
But even if accurate, it’s illegal to overstay your VISA. They are, in fact, “illegal immigrants” themselves.
It would be interesting to know the percentage of those crossing the border who apply for asylum, but have no actual intention of pursuing it (and just “disappear” in the U.S.).
Again, you’re conflating, criminal and civil law
But that’s getting off topic, the topic is the use of intentionally insulting and racist language by the government and your defense thereof.
Overstaying a visa is not a criminal violation, it’s a civil infraction.
O.K. – “Infraction-violating immigrants” comprise a portion of those who have broken the law.
One would think that they’d take care of that, when staying in a foreign country.
As I said above, I’m aware of another country (which isn’t as well-off as the U.S.) which seems to take its immigration laws more seriously. The reason they do so, I believe, is to protect the interests of its own population. (They have also had trouble with non-native populations taking advantage of the difference in wealth, I understand.)
When I was visiting there, I got “charged more” to visit a historical site based upon my skin color. It’s legal to do so, there. (And yet somehow, I didn’t have a problem with that concept in that particular case, though it did feel a little odd and uncomfortable.)
All because you want to defend the use of racist language – a fact that won’t change, if the law does.
I should clarify that my skin color obviously indicated that I wasn’t a native to that country. So it’s not based upon skin color itself, per se.
I don’t want to defend “racist language”, but I do find it (amusing?) regarding the degree to which others try to control language. Not just in this case, but in so many other examples as well (e.g., “woman”, “man”, “homeless”, etc.). (“Houseless” apparently didn’t take off.)
And it usually comes from the side that lays claim to “tolerance”.
Normal people don’t talk the way you’d prefer they’d do. (In fact, even those who want to clamp down on language don’t do so.) (See “men” and “women” example, above.)
Normal people no longer use words like “n-“ anymore. Normal people also don’t talk like the USDA Chief did. And what I find especially appalling is she did so in a press release sent out by the US Government.
Sadly, most white people are more worried about being called racist than about whether or not their actions are in fact racist or harmful.
Not sure which part you think is irrelevant, but other countries do indeed have immigration restrictions. The reason for it is not related to racism, for the most part.
If there was a flood of white Europeans coming across the border, the reaction would (ultimately) be the same. (I’ve heard of concerns regarding Ukrainian refugees flooding into other countries.)
The reaction to mass immigration can be exemplified when there’s significant cultural differences, or when a subset engages in criminal activities (as you know).
Again, Trump made inroads with the U.S. Hispanic population.
Truth be told, other countries don’t have the same degree of diversity as the U.S.
China, for example, is full of Chinese people (and they don’t consider themselves racists, I’m sure).
Apparently, it’s only in the diverse U.S. that some make a hobby or career out of counting skin colors.
I removed it after you edited your comment
“Normal people no longer use words like “n-“ anymore.”
In the “hood” they do. Sometimes ending in an “a” rather than an “r”. Of course, there’d be a racist (and probably violent) reaction if someone with the “wrong” skin color used that word. No doubt, some would claim that the user of that word should be violently beaten or killed, if they didn’t have the correct skin color when doing so.
“Sadly, most white people are more worried about being called racist than about whether or not their actions are in fact racist or harmful.”
Honestly, I’m not worried about either one. Should I be? (Perhaps I’m not sufficiently “fragile”.) For sure, I’m not going to willingly hand over the contents of my wallet to someone of a different skin color – especially if I notice Matt Walsh filming me.
“Normal people no longer use words like “n-“ anymore.”
“In the “hood” they do. Sometimes ending in an “a” rather than an “r”. Of course, there’d be a racist (and probably violent) reaction if someone with the “wrong” skin color used that word. No doubt, some would claim that the user of that word should be violently beaten or killed, if they didn’t have the correct skin color when doing so.”
Looks like someone doesn’t know the difference between “in groups” using such words and “out groups” using them.
Or the paradox of tolerance.
“In” groups, vs. “Out” groups.
Sounds a lot like racism, especially since it’s based upon skin color.
The paradox of using words in exact opposite manner of their actual meaning.
Sort of like pretending that Affirmative Action in regard to university enrollment isn’t “systemic racism”. (Or claiming that it primarily/negatively impacts “white” people, when that’s objectively not accurate.)
Why do you talk about stuff when you clearly aren’t aware of it? There’s a vast literature on in group and out group dynamics.
As someone else said to you, you’ve certainly “proven yourself” to be smarter than everyone else via references you’ve read.
I personally don’t support “In” groups beating the crap out of “Out” groups for using language they don’t like. I must be “intolerant” to have that view.
Or maybe you’re reading the wrong books.
Seems like you don’t even know what racism means, at this point. (That’s what happens when those with a political agenda attempt to force changes to language.)
It also is the type of thing that contributed to Trump’s victory.
There is literally no point in engaging with anyone who is going to so quickly dismiss over 40 years of sociological research.
Go on ahead and call someone that. That’s your “free speech,” I guess. But if someone is willing to spend a night in jail to knock you in the teeth for saying it, there’s your consequences.
You do not get consequence-free free speech. That has *never* been the case in this country.
I wonder why this seems to be the hill these MAGA and MAGA adjacent people want to die on, metaphorically speaking.
Just because you CAN doesn’t you SHOULD and decent human beings know this. What is MAGA and MAGA adjacent people’s excuse? (Narrator: There is none).
Kendra: I am not a Trump supporter, and I find him to be over-the-top regarding his divisiveness. Not to mention a lot of other issues.
In contrast, the immigrant I know (who came to the country legally, and isn’t “white”) is a Trump supporter. As is their family back in their home country (I think).
That person wasn’t able to simply “walk across a border” to get here, and can’t even get their family here to visit – even though they have NO intention of staying.
I also noted that another country restricts immigrants in ways that the U.S. does not, primarily to protect its own population from being taken-over by wealthier interests. I don’t see anything “wrong” with that concept.
Sure, that’s anecdotal, but I doubt that it’s isolated.
I’m not going to be using the word “undocumented”, myself – simply because it’s misleading. (Though I guess I’ll be forced to do so if I want to comment on here.)
“I must be “intolerant” to have that view.”
Yes, you are. You really need to read up on the Paradox of Tolerance.
But it’s probably one of those elite, learned things that you seem so resistant to.
Maybe so.
Do they talk about the justification for members of “In” groups to beat the crap out of “Out” groups for using the wrong language, but only IF they have the wrong skin color?
Apparently, I’m not elite-enough to understand why that isn’t a form of racism (though I’m pretty sure it’s still illegal to assault someone in that manner).
Maybe a book will tell me the reason that it’s justified. (Then again, I’m also “against” prisoners beating up other prisoners because they “don’t like” the crimes that the other guy committed. Which is also illegal, but nonetheless occurs.)
I’m reading the wrong books, darnit! Sounds like something out of Goodwill Hunting.
“Do they talk about the justification for members of “In” groups to beat the crap out of “Out” groups for using the wrong language, but only IF they have the wrong skin color?”
Why do you seem to want to use that language to that group with impunity? Why is this your hill to die on here? There is no reason for it other than to be a racist or a bully, both of which deserve whatever they get for using that kind of language.
Yeah, I’m sure we can recommend a book. Start with “White Fragility,” which seems to be one of your issues (based on many of your comments on this forum) despite your profession of not being fragile.
I’m pretty sure you are reading the “wrong books”.
Read some that don’t set out to reinforce what you already believe.
And stop trying to control/change language on behalf of (I don’t even know who it’s supposedly on behalf-of).
In the meantime, our cats and dogs are at least “safe” now. (Yes, that’s a joke. I laugh every time I think of that – the statement, the reactions, everything.)
You don’t even know what books I’ve read
““And stop trying to control/change language on behalf of (I don’t even know who it’s supposedly on behalf-of).”
Naw. Neither I nor any decent person has to “stop” trying to create a better, more decent, more reasonable world.
Answer the question. Why are you so invested in letting people call Black people the “n” word with impunity? It’s a simple question.
Decent and reasonable human beings don’t use that language. It shreds the social contract and people who want to do that should enjoy no protection from that very social contract they wish to shred.
So why are you so invested in allowing people do to it with impunity?
Also, decent and reasonable people don’t make “jokes” about immigrants eating cats and dogs.
You aren’t a serious person.
“Why do you seem to want to use that language to that group with impunity? Why is this your hill to die on here? ”
Well, there you go – an advocacy for violence from someone who claims to be tolerant. But only if they have the wrong skin color, in regard to use of language.
And not just once, but doubling and tripling-down on advocacy for a violent assault in response.
“Yeah, I’m sure we can recommend a book. Start with “White Fragility,” which seems to be one of your issues (based on many of your comments on this forum) despite your profession of not being fragile.”
I’d suggest watching Matt Walsh humiliate that author, by successfully encouraging her to pay reparations “on the spot” to a member of Matt’s team (a person of color). That was perhaps the most-humiliating incident I’ve ever seen on film.
“You don’t even know what books I’ve read”
I bet I can guess which way they leaned.
You might be surprised
All decent people reading this should note that Ron won’t answer a simple question, so is implicitly supporting Black people being called the “n” word with impunity.
It was rhetorical, anyway. I think we all know why he is arguing for people to use that word with impunity.
And I find it hilarious that he thinks that particular group is the only group who would react in a potentially violent manner.
Try going to NYC and using the “g” slur against Italians and see what kind of reception you will get.
It has nothing to do with skin color. It has to do with being a racist POS.
And I wasn’t “advocating” violence. But I’m also not going to shed a tear for some racist POS getting clocked for being a racist POS.
Because that is the ONLY reason to use those words. Unless you are teaching a class on “Huckleberry Finn” or something like that.
“Also, decent and reasonable people don’t make “jokes” about immigrants eating cats and dogs.”
Kamala Harris laughed, as did I.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BrCvZmSnKA
Still, they do actually eat cats and dogs in some parts of the world – and don’t eat cows or pigs in some places.
Which causes me, at least, to think about eating animals in general.
Regarding the use of language, I simply don’t support violent responses because someone doesn’t “like” what they said, in relation to skin color.
You apparently do support a violent response.
Perhaps you’re also one of those people who think that prisoners should be allowed to attack other prisoners, because they don’t like the crime.
This type of issue isn’t related to just “one” particular word. As you can see, there’s an effort on here to ban other words, as well.
“It has nothing to do with skin color. It has to do with being a racist POS.”
To be clear, are you calling me a “racist POS”? I ask because that would seemingly be a violation of Vanguard policy. Actually, I believe that using that type of language is a violation regardless of who you’re directing it at.
“And I wasn’t “advocating” violence. But I’m also not going to shed a tear for some racist POS getting clocked for being a racist POS.”
I see – so you tacitly support violence based upon someone using a word that someone else doesn’t like, if they have the wrong skin color.
Seems to me that you might want to look in the mirror, before you start labeling other people.
The concern here is not the use of any “particular” word. It’s about folks like you who think that anyone has a right to commit assault based upon language they don’t like. (And only if it’s coming from someone with the wrong skin color.)
This type of belief is extremely dangerous.
Naw. I reject Ron O’s fragile and hysterical response to what I said, and I reject him imputing to me that I am “advocating violence.”
Nothing he claims I support is true. Rightwing types really need to learn some nuance if they can, but they may be incapable of that (See, e.g., the Psychology Today study here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/genius-and-madness/200809/is-political-conservatism-a-mild-form-of-insanity). Queue Ron claiming he’s not “conservative” despite the evidence in his comments to the contrary.
Talk about “language manipulation” or trying to control language that he was complaining about earlier.
Sounds like I got under his skin and a hit dog is yelping pretty loudly.
Look to yourself and why you aren’t decent and reasonable and why you (still) defend people using language with impunity that rips the social contract.
We see you despite your gaslighting.
Kendra, I don’t have to “make up” anything regarding what you’ve said. Below is a sample:
“It was rhetorical, anyway. I think we all know why he is arguing for people to use that word with impunity.”
“There is no reason for it other than to be a racist or a bully, both of which deserve whatever they get for using that kind of language.”
“It shreds the social contract and people who want to do that should enjoy no protection from that very social contract they wish to shred.”
“But I’m also not going to shed a tear for some racist POS getting clocked for being a racist POS.”
All of this demonstrates tacit approval of violence, based upon someone not liking what someone else said – and only if they have the wrong skin color.
Regarding your label of “conservative”, I don’t view that as an insult in the first place. The fact that you do is yet another sign of your intolerance.
Again, you strike me as a dangerous, unstable person – supportive of violent responses (in your own words), and demonizing those who may have some conservative outlook on some issues. (Not to mention the plurality of voters who elected Trump – a second time.)
I’m not sure what you’re even attempting to accomplish via your comments.
Honestly, I’m surprised that you’re so openly hostile toward others for no apparent reason. It would be difficult to function in the world if you openly display that type of thinking in a work environment, for example.
Actually, I’ll clarify that.
It would be difficult to function in a work environment espousing your type of beliefs in almost “any” field except one. And I’m pretty sure I know “which” one.
The same field in which a professor celebrated the murder of police officers, the same field that includes a member who suggested that a local activist “shoot herself”, the same field that has an active YIMBY-advocate, etc.
The field that seems to attract “privilege” to say whatever you want with impunity as you put it. (But even then, with a bias toward a certain type of speech, depending upon content.)
“All this because they can’t admit the statement by the USDA Chief was offensive”
It’s gross.
Being able to say the “n” word with impunity is apparently this ilk’s hill to die on.
How gross, indecent, and deplorable.
“Again, you strike me as a dangerous, unstable person – supportive of violent responses (in your own words), and demonizing those who may have some conservative outlook on some issues. (Not to mention the plurality of voters who elected Trump – a second time.)”
Nice straw man. You know nothing about me, where I work, etc. Please enlighten me on which “job” you think I do that I’m talking politics at work (another thing you are dead WRONG about). 😆🤣😂😆🤣😂😆🤣😂
And I’m apparently “dangerous” and “unstable” just for saying I won’t cry if someone gets what they deserve for calling a historically oppressed group the most horrible of epithets with impunity? Laughable.
You strike me as someone with very poor critical reading skills and critical thinking skills if that’s your takeaway. Oh, and a racist. And “dangerous and unstable” because only someone dangerous and unstable would want to call someone that name that you seem so enamored of.
Because ONLY a racist would go to the mat to defend someone using that word. I guess you’re not ashamed of being a racist along with being a conservative.
You are just going after me now to take the heat away from the disgusting racism you have demonstrated here in your own words.
Again, saying I won’t shed a tear for someone getting hit for calling a Black person that word isn’t the same as “advocating violence.” But conservative bird brains seem to have an issue with such a simple concept.
Keep whining, though. It’s a good, manly look.
Did I miss something here? I keep reading that Ron called someone an N-er or believes it’s OK to call someone that? What is the context/source of that, or was that comment erased?
“they came here on work and student visas and then stayed past expiration.”
Sounds like they’re here illegally now. If I visit another country and stay past my visa expiration I’m then staying there illegally.
Civil infraction not a criminal violation
The Vanguard, where words and pejoratives matter and are not allowed depending on which words or pejoratives are used and who they’re directed at.
Read today’s comments, I rest my case.
And here’s more fragility on display. Laughable.
All this because they can’t admit the statement by the USDA Chief was offensive
No, all this because you want to say words matter but words don’t seem to matter when they are used against people who may not agree with the Vanguard.
“All this because they can’t admit the statement by the USDA Chief was offensive”
It’s gross.
Being able to say the “n” word with impunity is apparently this ilk’s hill to die on.
How gross, indecent, and deplorable.
Kendra: You must really, really hate the ACLU (or at least, what they “used to” protect).
For me, yes – even the use of that word (or any word, short of a viable threat) is not a justification for violence. Sorry that you don’t feel that way as well.
What, did you think your comment was so clever that you posted it twice?
And who’s saying the “n” word?
As usual you appear to exaggerate things.
What cracks me up about you is you accuse others of bullying when in my opinion it’s you that often acts like a bully.
Put me on “ignore” if my comments bother you, no skin off of my arse.
After all it was you who recently cried about the Vanguard not having an ignore button.
I guess you weren’t serious about that, just another reason to spout off.
Thread is too long, did not read, may go back later.
This is a big part of what shifted enough people in opposition to the left to get Trump elected. People were tired of getting gaslit on their use of ever-redefined-by-left language and suddenly they are deemed racist or whatever-else for using language they’ve been using for decades. I doubt it would have been a stretch to get ‘illegal alien’ out of common usage. But some much was changed, so fast, that people said ‘enough’ — so of course the backlash extends to this term. It’s not a term I choose to use, but I also don’t freak out over it, and for key-riists sake you actually created yet another ‘crisis’ for this, a ‘moral crisis’. What is it like to live in your world?
And seriously, you get all upset over people on the right using this world — but remember, just like ‘all politics is local’, so ‘all insults are local’ — and you have no problem with having a far-left Davisite use the pejorative ‘Crap Flinging Chaos Monkey’ to describe me. Use of a personal attack phrase far overshadows the use of a group attack phrase. Now don’t get your hopes up, the term doesn’t upset me. In fact, I thank KS, I OWN that term now. What is disturbing to me is your complete inability to enforce your policies on principal, but instead you enforce them based on politics and personalities.
“…but instead you enforce them based on politics and personalities.”
Nope. I will not allow you to do this. You will not impute this to me.
I clearly have noted (for many months here, even) The Paradox of Tolerance as the “principle” and why that is my view. You probably know nothing about Karl Popper and where he got this Paradox because you, and others here, seem proudly ignorant.
You may not like that or agree with it but it’s hardly “enforced based on politics and personalities.”
It’s based on who does damage to the social contract. And that damage isn’t coming from Democrats, liberals, or the left. It’s coming from the right, which you tend to align yourself with.
Telling me I have no principles is rich coming from someone who has embraced “Crap Flinging Chaos Monkey.” No decent or reasonable human would want to be such a thing. It just shows that YOU are without principles. “BOTH SIDES!!!!!” you’ll keep howling until the bitter end.
“Damage to the social contract”.
I don’t remember signing any contracts, let alone even reading about one.
Are you sure you’re not imagining it, unlike the violence you support if someone dares to “break the contract”?
Again, the only group I know who can routinely violate the type of contract you’re apparently referring to (with “impunity”) are university professors.
“I don’t remember signing any contracts, let alone even reading about one.”
Wow. I don’t even know what to say to this one. Imagine being so proudly ignorant that you don’t know about one of the major philosophical underpinnings of The Constitution, one of the founding documents of your country.
I learned about the social contract in high school. What is your excuse?
And then gaslighting me as if I’m making it up. What a broad caricature you are. What a maroon.
😆🤣😂😆🤣😂😆🤣😂😆🤣😂😆🤣😂😆🤣😂
Uneducated are you? Have it out for “professors,” do you? (I’m not a professor, but, again, nice straw man you are making up).
You are now dismissed. People who are this ignorant, who are this unrepentant about putting words into someone else’s mouth and imputing “violence” to them, who are at this level of engaging in bad faith do not deserve any engagement at all.
Keep fighting that “good” fight to use the “n” word with impunity! 🙄🙄🙄🙄
Ah, now I know what you’re talking about. The Constitution – which protects free speech (the very first amendment).
The one that you believe justifies a violent response, if exercised.
The same amendment that allows you to put forth personal, hate-filled, unprovoked personal attacks on blogs (for reasons only known to you).
No, I don’t “have it in” for professors, but you sound an awful lot like some of the more-angry/extreme ones (who have “impunity”, as a result of their career choice). You know, the type that openly celebrate the killing of police officers, or encourage local activists to kill themselves, etc.
You seem to have it in for “men”, as well, given some of your past comments. (Launching attacks that are intended to create defensiveness, but instead come-across as amusing.)
Are you sure you want to continue this?
The constitution says… “congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech..”. Interestingly it was not until 125 (100 years ago this year) that the court in Gitlow applied it to the states via incorporation.
I’m aware of what it says.
Let me ask you, David. What do you think of Kendra’s comments? Do you think they add any value or serve any purpose? Seems to me that they’re only intended to attack strangers (for no apparent reason).
There’s not even any underlying point to any of her comments.
I dunno, maybe some people think it’s some kind of a game/sport to engage in the manner that she does. (There’s been a handful of commenters like her, over the years. One of them ended up getting permanently banned from the Vanguard.)
For me, it’s usually pretty easy to “counter-attack” (especially since these types usually walk right into a trap of their own making), but I don’t really experience any “enjoyment” from doing so.
I’m a bit surprised you didn’t know about the social contract theory – Locke/ Rousseau. Unless you were trying to be funny…. The case law on free speech is expansive. The courts have generally allowed for regulation of speech based on time and place restrictions. What concerns me is that the constitution prevents congress from making laws, but didn’t anticipate an executive branch that was overreaching.
You didn’t answer my question, regarding Kendra’s comments.
But I’ve never heard the Constitution described as a “social contract”, nor am I familiar with the individuals you mentioned. Why would you think I’m trying to be “funny”?
I’ll take your word for it that others have described the Constitution that way.
The Constitution has been amended quite a few times, so it actually “can” be changed.
As George Carlin said, the founders apparently “forgot” to address a few things – like “slavery”.
The constitution is based on/ heavily influenced by Locke’s social contract theory. I used to teach this to my Pol 1 students at UC Davis.
Locke was also the basis for the revolution arguing that a violation of the social contract meant the people have a right to revolt and establish a new government. His work also formed the basis of the Declaration of Independence. So basically the US government is underpinned with social contract theory and US democracy is inconceivable without Locke.
O.K. – I don’t believe I ever took a political science course. (I sometimes question the subjects that are classified as “science”.)
At the time, I was trying to get an “actual” job upon graduation. As it was, I still had to take a lot of courses which didn’t add much value regarding that goal, and (even back then), I knew that some fields didn’t lead to a job.
That’s unfortunate. Also, at UC Davis, Pol 1 is a general ed course, required for all students to graduate. I think understanding civics and its underpinnings are vital for democracy.
Well, that’s interesting – since it seems like Kendra (and an entire generation of students) don’t know what free speech means.
The type who think that a violent response is justified (and not limited to the example I provided).
Perhaps they’re not really teaching that subject, anymore.
But “somehow” (despite not taking that course) democracy would probably be safe in my hands, if I had any say about it.
So let me ask you again (since you still haven’t answered the question): Do you think that Kendra’s personalized attacks on here serve any legitimate purpose? (Not that I’m advocating against her “free speech” right, myself. But you certainly have control over your own blog – and/or can weigh-in with your own responses.)
I ask because I don’t see any value whatsoever in them, except for the fact that I now know (as a result of your comment) that some consider the Constitution to be a “social contract”.
I remember doing lectures on free speech at UC Davis at the behest of various professors after Milo was prevented from speaking in 2017. But I’m not sure what you believe Kendra is saying about free speech to be honest. Free speech only extends to the government not private entities.
You’re stating that individuals have no right to free speech? (If the government is prevented from abridging that right, that, by definition – means that individuals have “free speech”.
I’m not seeing anything in the Constitution which suggests that violent responses (such as those supported by Kendra) are justified or allowed by law.
So again, what do you think of Kendra’s comments? (The personal attacks, as well as her justification for violent responses?) I’d like to see you address that (one way or another), since I’ve asked you several times now (with no response).
Is this what they teach in political science (or at universities in general) these days? (It seems that way at times.) That is, if you don’t like what someone has to say, the law allows you to engage in property destruction and assaults?
Individuals do not have the right to free speech outside of government interference. By that I mean, beyond a very narrow set of boundaries (see Brendenburg 1969), the government can’t punish you for speaking. However, they can constrain time and place of that speech.
Violent responses are illegal under a host of different laws.
I also think Kendra is making a considerably more nuanced argument than you are ascribing to her.
I see. Go back and look at what she said (regarding violent responses), since I quoted it earlier. In fact, I gathered some of them into one response.
Do you share her apparent enjoyment regarding seeing someone get “clocked” for using offensive language? (I do not.)
But that’s only part of what I’m asking. What value is she adding by engaging in personal, unprovoked attacks? What “nuance” do you see in those comments? (Would you like for me to quote some of those, as well?)
Yes, I’m aware that businesses, for example, can control what their employees say (if those employees want to remain employed). This is what “cancel culture” is about. (Also, see “Mr. Pickles” – locally).
The only employer who provides an enormous amount of latitude (regarding free speech) is the university system. (The professors, for example, who have authority regarding student grades. Not so different than an employer/employee relationship.)
Can you specifically cite where you think she’s advocating violence?
I just see a passionate debate on both sides, she may have gotten a little frustrated at your interaction style – I do at times as well.
David says: “I just see a passionate debate on both sides, she may have gotten a little frustrated at your interaction style – I do at times as well.”
Dude, it’s not just me that she’s attacking, and it has nothing to do with me. Are you really not seeing this, or are you just “trying to be funny” as you said to me? She’s not “frustrated” – she enjoys this type of thing. It is an established pattern on this blog as well as the other Davis blog. There is almost NO time that she actually presents an argument – it’s just personal attacks. It’s difficult to even be upset about them, as they’re so absurd. (But the fact that YOU apparently can’t see it is the real concern.)
In any case, here’s some of her comments in regard to her support for violent responses to free speech. (These are not the personal attacks against commenters I’m referring to.)
I already listed these in my 12:13 p.m. comment from yesterday:
“There is no reason for it other than to be a racist or a bully, both of which deserve whatever they get for using that kind of language.”
“It shreds the social contract and people who want to do that should enjoy no protection from that very social contract they wish to shred.”
“But I’m also not going to shed a tear for some racist POS getting clocked for being a racist POS.”
So what I see is she is not advocating violence, she is lacking sympathy if violence occurs to a specific group of people. But, her language edges close to justifying violence after the fact against racists. She is definitely morally excusing it, but not legally or politically advocating it. Her speech by the would fall under First Amendment protection if this were a government entity rather than a private forum.
Thanks.
I agree that Kendra’s comments would fall under First Amendment protection (but not necessarily “blog” protection).
I guess the difference between me and someone like Kendra is that I don’t condone violent attacks based upon words that someone doesn’t like. And that would include those making comments like Kendra’s.
The problem with Kendra’s comments is not that “she” would personally engage in physical assaults (where she’d likely come out as the “loser”). The problem is similar to that attributed to Trump, regarding tacit/societal “approval” of violent attacks.
This is also the reason that I don’t condone prisoners attacking each other, simply because of their “moralistic obligation” to teach someone else a “lesson” (based upon their crimes, for which they’ve already been sentenced). Which are ALWAYS (ironically) coming from someone who doesn’t examine their OWN actions which landed them in prison.
Somewhat similar to someone like Kendra, who doesn’t seem to recognize her own role in “societal poison”.
And it’s not like those attacks aren’t occurring in Davis, and on campus.
But you STILL haven’t actually addressed her personal attacks. Again, I’m not even the primary brunt of those attacks, until I chime in regarding issues such as “freedom from violent responses”.
I don’t go that far either. I think political violence is a dangerous slope to go no matter which side it’s on. I see it as a larger part of breakdown of civil society. I try to give a little more latitude on these articles, the Davis articles I have to toe the line much tighter.
“Nope. I will not allow you to do this. You will not impute this to me.”
I was talking to DG.
Over the past 20 years, the federal government has moved away from the term “illegal alien” in most official documents, agency language, and policy discussions.
• Instead, terms like “noncitizen,” “undocumented immigrant,” or “foreign national” are now more commonly used.
Major shifts:
• In 2014, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) removed “illegal alien” from its policy manual.
• In 2021, under the Biden administration, immigration agencies like ICE and CBP were instructed to stop using “illegal alien” in favor of “undocumented noncitizen” or “noncitizen.”
• The U.S. Code (the federal statutes) still contains the term “alien” in some sections, because Congress has not fully revised all immigration laws.
• (Example: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) still uses “alien” as a technical legal term.)
• Some state and local governments have also officially removed “illegal alien” from their codes and communications.
Sound like Trump is putting them all back.
Hence the article
Right – but either way, it’s the Federal government moving toward, or away from such phrases.