• the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 months ago

    Technically, nothing. In the same way that “person who committed thievery” is a correct term for “thief.” People may not be illegal, but we call them criminals all the time.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      But you realize that’s not what’s in the headline, right?

      Like, if you’re trying to actually learn I’m down to clarify, but it feels like you just want to argue the line as close to dehumanizing these people as you can…

      • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        No, I just don’t find much point in the “no human is illegal” thing. Nobody is saying that being a human is illegal, or that they are innately illegal. But people can be criminals. Do you prefer the term “criminal foreigner” rather than “illegal foreigner”?

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Nobody is saying that being a human is illegal, or that they are innately illegal.

          The headline:

          Illegal foreigners

          But in case you’re honestly trying to learn:

          Use an adjective to describe a person. Don’t use a noun to label to them.

          Christian’s are the exception because they “took it back” like over a thousand years ago when they became the majority, it’s perfectly fine for them to prefer that. But it doesn’t effect any other group.

          And it’s not just religions, literally every group in every conversation;

          Use adjectives.

          Not nouns.

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            You don’t think it’s okay to refer to people as Muslim or Buddhist but Christian is fine?

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Someone who is…

              Christians are different for the reason I already mentioned…

              Christian’s are the exception because they “took it back” like over a thousand years ago when they became the majority, it’s perfectly fine for them to prefer that. But it doesn’t effect any other group.

              I know you said you’re legitimately trying to understand.

              But I’m not spending anymore time helping.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Thinking it’s not okay to describe someone as Muslim or Buddhist is pretty funny. I wonder if nationalities are okay, can I be a Finn or should I be “a person of Finnish citizenship” lmao. Come on. Wikipedia uses the term “Muslim”, pretty sure Muslims call themselves Muslims, everyone calls them Muslims.

                But I’m not spending anymore time helping.

                There’s a bazillion nouns used about people, thinking that as a general rule you shouldn’t use a noun, I just have hard time you are being serious about this.

        • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The whole “people can’t be illegal” thing is an attempt to bypass negative attitudes people have towards people who - ya know - break the law and violate the sovereignty of the country they’re in. It’s what dovetails with rebranding to saying “migrants”, it’s a bald-faced attempt to manipulate the public and get them to accept people jumping borders and overstaying visas.