Novoa

Don’t You Dare Drop the “I” Word

With the onslaught of news concerning gay marriage, the mainstream media has all but ignored the bizarre, leftist group, which is seeking to equate the term “illegal immigrant” to the use of the n-word.

Monica Novoa, campaign coordinator for “Drop the I-Word,” appeared on The O’Reilly Factor to defend her position that the term “illegal” is inhumane and on par with a slew of other racial slurs.

Color Lines News, the home to such insightful pieces as, “Why Tea Party Law Makers are Trying to Conflate Poverty and Drug Addiction,” sponsors the campaign.

When Novoa appeared on The O’Reilly Factor she seemed to believe the term illegal demeaned alien citizens. Possibly, Novoa and the crew over at Color Lines believed if someone was termed an illegal they were less likely to get the honest, tax paying life style the rest of us “legals” have come to enjoy? Or maybe it was simply a slow month and they were looking for something to “occupy” their time? Needless to say, O’Reilly quickly brandishes Novoa for her lack of information and conceptual evidence. He gives her plenty of opportunities to articulate her position, and simply cannot do it.

Novoa says that calling someone an illegal alien dehumanizes that person. She questions whether the United States is humane enough to pass legislation, which to any self-respecting person seems completely logical. For Novoa, we already live in the communist state where nations cease to exist and all people are treated as one. She seems not to realize there are laws and regulations that correlate the operations of interstate commerce and homeland security.

The rationale for the dropping the “i-word,” according to the campaign’s website, is that no human is illegal. Everyone has a right to exist. I agree wholeheartedly. That’s why I vote pro-life — because I see the beauty and potential in every unborn child. Yet somehow, I’m still lost on her logic.

The movement has received the endorsement by the General Commission on Religion and Race in the United Methodist Church, an organization focused on “moving the United Methodist Church from racism to relationships.” Note that the GCORR has no official affiliation with the actual Methodist Church.  On its website, the GCORR writes they are currently collecting 10,000 signatures from various United Methodist churches who are pledging to drop the term illegal from their discourse.  

In the promotional video for the campaign, entitled “Drop the I-Word. Don’t Feed the Hate Machine,” the group complains about the overuse of “illegal” by government officials and media professionals. They lament the fact that the use of the word illegal on television has quadrupled since 2009. Maybe there is a correlation here? With the increased number of illegals, people across America are becoming more aware of their threat to the security of our nation. The video suggests that the term illegal creates economic reprisals for undocumented workers and promotes racial terror.

The video then goes on to reprimand right-wing strategists who are claimed to have used the term illegal alien to cast immigrants as the enemy. They compare the phrase illegal immigrants to the use of the expressions such as the death tax and climate change. At one point the video highlights the phrase “Support immediate deportation of illegal immigrants convicted of a crime” as if to chastise the Republicans for promoting deportation of convicted criminals who never had the right to be in the nation in the first place.

Here’s a simple question I wish O’Reilly had asked Novoa, and which I ask to all the hard working people on the “Drop the I-Word” campaign: Should we call them criminals instead? That’s what they are, yet somehow I don’t think the Color Line people will like that term more.

According to “Drop the I-Word,” illegals would prefer we call them undocumented workers. My fear, however, is eventually the phrase “undocumented worker” becomes just another racial slur and we are left with millions of people breaking the law and no “politically correct” name for them.

Where do we go from there? Do we simply allow them amnesty so we don’t hurt their feelings? No matter what name we call them, illegals are breaking the law and there are consequences for that.

Caitlyn Jarvis | St. Anselm College | @CaitlynJarvis

Related News

36 Responses

Leave a Reply
  1. clownlucky
    May 28, 2012 - 02:43 AM

    Chelle, calling names is making you look bad and childish.

    Reply
    • Chelle
      May 29, 2012 - 08:26 PM

      Might want to call out Matthew then too there.

      Oh wait, he’s a conservative like you. Double standards.

      Reply
  2. Bob
    May 23, 2012 - 01:13 AM

    Idk who is dumber. Caitlyn, O’Rielley, or Monica Nova. Or all you people bickering over what some college kid wrote. Get lives

    Reply
  3. Watney Stanard
    May 23, 2012 - 01:02 AM

    Chelle, you make no sense.

    Reply
    • Chelle
      May 23, 2012 - 02:20 AM

      English settlers took land from the Native Americans. This is basic history.

      Reply
    • Matthew
      May 23, 2012 - 04:34 AM

      Ding! Ding! Ding!

      If there is one I have found about Chelle, it is her ability to use non-sequiturs (And Chelle, you need to look that up.) and nonsensical arguments.

      In response to a column that addressed same-sex marriage, she asserted 1) The Constitution supports the separation of church and state and 2) having two people of different genders marry but not people of the same gender establishes a religion.

      When, in a related debate, I mentioned the fact homosexuals are playing an active role in normalizing sexual relations with children, her response was “Elizabeth Smart.”

      No. I am serious.

      And yet, she behaves as if she is the smartest girl in the room.

      I am not the greatest in debate skills, and I can cut through her arguments like a hot knife through butter. Can you imagine someone who is better, like S.E. Cupp? S.E. would absolutely shred her in less than 5 minutes.

      Reply
      • Chelle
        May 23, 2012 - 01:45 PM

        Seriously Matt, for someone’s who “written me off” you’re sure are obessed with the things I said. If I’m as obviously stupid as you’ve said, why are you wasting time on me or talking about me to other people? It’s getting creepy.

        “she asserted 1) The Constitution supports the separation of church and state”

        It does you half wit, look up the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Further, the Supreme Court has used it in reference to several laws, such as the Mormon polgmany laws or Wallace v. Jaffree. Even now the Catholic Church is using it in reference to the birth control mandate.

        “2) having two people of different genders marry but not people of the same gender establishes a religion.”

        Yup, totally taken out of context. I was refereing to Amendment One in NC, which was clearly a law based on religious morality. (Since it doesn’t recongize common law marriages ie two people of opposite genders).

        Of course, this is a whole long seperate debate, but what everyone needs to know about Matt here is he is obessed with homosexuality. To the point that one of his supporters on the anti-gay marriage thing was all “dude, chill.”

        “in a related debate, I mentioned the fact homosexuals are playing an active role in normalizing sexual relations with children, her response was “Elizabeth Smart.””

        First, it was not a related debate. The article was not about NAMBLA, it was about gay marriage. Matt here is convinced that the only pedophiles that exists are males who like little boys. So of course all homosexuals should be penalized because a small group are deviants. Its like how no one is allowed to drive because a small group of people can’t handle driving. (Oh, wait, thats totally not true since we don’t penalize the majority for the minority’s actions.)

        I stated Elizabeth Smart (and I mentioned To Catch a Predator) as famous examples of males who prey on young girls. To counter act Matt’s continued, irrelvant assertion that only “homosexuals” lust after little kids.

        Then again, Matt is also convinced that dogs can legally consent to relationships and making a union between two consenting adults legal will open the doors to Fido’s rights. He’s speical.

        “she behaves as if she is the smartest girl in the room.”

        This statement alone demostrates that Matt has issues with sexuality and gender. Women he disagress with? They’re clearly stupid. Men he disagrees with? Clearly gay. His suggestion that his debates skills are not great is laughable – he has none. His only skills are homophobia. I don’t say this because he’s against gay marriage. I say this because he continues to spread lies, half truths and only acknowledges arguments that work in his favor in regards to gay marriage.

        Seriously, this line, which I’m quoting directly since I do not need to paraphrase Matt’s comments like he does mine to get my point out, is all you need to know about Matt’s state of mind:

        “And, again, you might think two guys who do each other up the butt should have the “right” to marry, however I do not have to agree with it. Nor do anyone else.”

        Just FYI, his fellow anti-gay marriage supporter responded: “Now you look petty, immature, and ignorant. Learn a little restraint.”

        I recommend you read up on Matt’s issues – its all here: http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/05/14/exclusion-does-not-equal-discrimination/

        Also Matt, how many times have you stated you won’t engage with me? And yet, look at all your comments. You’re a very sad, pathetic person. I will no longer engage with you because it is not worth it. I’m sure you’ll continue to make comments directed towards me dispite your continued insistance that I’m not worth.

        That’s because you are, as I’ve said, a sad, pathetic person. Best of luck to you.

      • Matthew
        May 23, 2012 - 06:09 PM

        Chelle:

        The fact is and remains for anyone who chooses to go to that link or any other is I bring facts to the table. When you say the Constitution supports the separation of church and state, how can that be possible when the Constitution doesn’t even mention the phrase? For you to say otherwise means you haven’t read the document or you are just lying.

        Supporting a man and a woman getting married as opposed to two people of the same gender is not establishing a religion. You say that it is, but when I asked you point blank what religion was being established, you failed to answer that question.

        And as I said before: Homosexuals have taken an active role in normalizing sexual relations with children. Just because you choose not to believe it doesn’t make it false. But the best counterpoint you could give has ABSOLUTELY. NOTHING. TO DO. With what I said.

        Yeah, I told you to get stuffed. I told you you are a complete moron and I wasn’t going to talk to you. But you didn’t take the hint. Instead you decided to go and portray yourself as intellectually superior, and yet you can’t be bothered to read the bloody Constitution.

        No, I do not have a problem with women. I have a problem with total know nothing dipsh*ts with delusions of grandeur.

      • Chelle
        May 23, 2012 - 06:28 PM

        “When you say the Constitution supports the separation of church and state, how can that be possible when the Constitution doesn’t even mention the phrase?”

        Because the concept is supported? Did I ever say that “seperation of chuch and state is written in the document?” Because I never said, I’ve said repeatly that the Constituation supports the seperation of Church and State and I have provided examples including the 1st Amendment to the Constituation.

        “Supporting a man and a woman getting married as opposed to two people of the same gender is not establishing a religion. You say that it is, but when I asked you point blank what religion was being established, you failed to answer that question.”

        Once again, you’re twisting things around and taking things out of context – ironicly, what you accuse me of doing.

        I’ve stated repeatly that laws based on religious morality violate the 1st Amendment, which says that the Government may make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. Seriously, look it up, thats what the 1st Amendment says. It has nothing to do with the government inventing their own religion. There have been nurmous court cases witness by the Supreme Court that supports what I am saying – that the government may not make a law respecting the existance of Christainity, Islam, etc.

        “And as I said before: Homosexuals have taken an active role in normalizing sexual relations with children. Just because you choose not to believe it doesn’t make it false. But the best counterpoint you could give has ABSOLUTELY. NOTHING. TO DO. With what I said.”

        No you idoit. A small set of pedophiles who are attracted to little boys have. They are not the majority nor do they have any revalance to the gay marriage discussion. Why you insist on continuing to bring it up as if it does is pathetic. And when I rightly point out that older men go after young girls and yet we still allow hetros to get married? You claim its not revalent. No, what you mean is it makes you look like a hypocritical, homophobic dumbass that you are.

        “Yeah, I told you to get stuffed. I told you you are a complete moron and I wasn’t going to talk to you. But you didn’t take the hint. Instead you decided to go and portray yourself as intellectually superior, and yet you can’t be bothered to read the bloody Constitution.”

        Seriously do? Would you like me to link all the times you’ve commented towards me when I’ve said nothing to you? Because last time I check, this isn’t your website. If you don’t want to talk to me, then don’t talk to me or make reference to my comments. But you can’t stop me from commenting on this site and just running around bitching about me to people makes you look so stupid. What is this high school? Get over yourself.

        As far as reading the Consituation, go read it yourself. Go read the literature written by the people who created the document that say it supports seperation of Church and State, go read the court cases by the Supreme Court that says it supports it, go read the articles on the birth control mandate where the Catholic Church is screaming about seperation of Church and State.

        To say that anything you do is “debate” is laughable. You yell your beliefs and when people point out otherwise you scream and call them stupid or gay.

        The sad thing about all this is this is a conservative site written by conservative college students. Why you feel that you have to run around and tell people not to listen or interact with me when they’re on your side is sad. Is it because you know I’m right and your hate is just guiding you?

        Whatever, if you don’t want to interact with me, stop talking to me or about me. Its not that hard you idoit.

        In the end, all you do is make yourself look bad.

  4. Watney Stanard
    May 21, 2012 - 05:31 PM

    ILLEGAL ALIEN is the proper term. ILLEGAL ALIEN, meaning a person who has entered our country illegally. ILLEGAL ALIEN, one who has broken the laws of our country. ILLEGAL ALIEN: a person who has no respect for the laws of our country.

    Reply
    • Chelle
      May 21, 2012 - 09:16 PM

      Oh please. This country was founded on illegal immigrantion.

      Reply
      • Watney Stanard
        May 22, 2012 - 12:12 AM

        No it wasn’t. Where did you get that idea?

      • Matthew
        May 22, 2012 - 04:25 AM

        Chelle pulled it out of her wazoo, which is where she gets most of her ideas.

        You know as well as I do her argument is fallacious because she is applying today’s standards (laws) to the settlements of the 17th Century.

        But as she has demonstrated elsewhere, she is a legend in her own mind.

      • Chelle
        May 22, 2012 - 03:17 PM

        Hi Matt! Thought you weren’t engaging me anymore? Totally doing that “I’m not talking to you!” POKE “Do you hear me, I’m not talking to you!”

        Oh silly of me to bring up the 17th century when talking about the country’s founding.

        And I think I’m a legend how? Don’t you have moralizing to go do?

      • Chelle
        May 22, 2012 - 03:15 PM

        Pretty sure the English and other folks didn’t ask the Native Americans permission to come here.

      • Matthew
        May 22, 2012 - 05:31 PM

        And I’m pretty sure that is not relevant, as the Indians didn’t have immigration laws on their books as it was, I don’t know, 400 years ago?

      • Chelle
        May 22, 2012 - 05:36 PM

        I’m pretty sure they also fought for their land and lost, so I’m thinking the early settlers weren’t welcomed.

        Early settlers came here, won the law through violence, but lets not pretend that its different from what illegal immgrants are doing today. Both groups are looking for better lives – one group just has the benefit of being here first and winning land.

      • Aleesha
        May 23, 2012 - 01:44 AM

        You make a good point. And it is ignorant, Matthew, to say that that there were no laws about immigration because there was no immigration in 17th century America. Why would you make a law about something that never occurred? Further, if you knew anything about Native American culture than you would know that there was never an issue of taking land because it was shared by all.

      • Chelle
        May 23, 2012 - 02:41 AM

        That’s generalizing of Native American culture actually. There are/were many different tribes and they viewed land resources differently. Same shared, others fought for it.

        The point is people complaining about non-Americans violating US laws/values when the forefathers of the US violated the rights of the people who were here before them.

        Not that I’m saying we should just roll over and accodmate illegal immgrants. But we shouldn’t loose prespective on how many of our ancestors got here.

      • Matthew
        May 23, 2012 - 04:20 AM

        Aleesha:

        Why apply the standards of today to 400 years ago? That’s not ignorance, but the application of common sense. What Chelle is asserting is Monday-morning quarterbacking taken to extremes. And you simply do not follow arguments that are illogical.

      • Chelle
        May 23, 2012 - 01:11 PM

        No, I’m asserting the hypocrisy Whatney’s comment that adds nothing to the discussion other than ALL CAPS!

        You can even see in my comment above yours where I say “Not that I’m saying we should just roll over and accodmate illegal immgrants. But we shouldn’t loose prespective on how many of our ancestors got here.”

        And this is true – my only comments have been to address Caitlyn’s pointless abortion reference and Whatney’s freak out.

  5. Chelle
    May 21, 2012 - 02:15 PM

    “I agree wholeheartedly. That’s why I vote pro-life — because I see the beauty and potential in every unborn child.”

    Way to take something that has nothing to do with abortion and try to make it about abortion.

    Reply
    • Dean from Ohio
      May 22, 2012 - 02:32 AM

      Did you have an abortion?

      Reply
      • Matthew
        May 22, 2012 - 04:17 AM

        Dean:

        Please do not encourage Chelle. She is blatantly trying to change the subject with a non-sequitur.

      • Chelle
        May 22, 2012 - 03:14 PM

        Yea Matt, I totally hacked Caitlyn’s article here and made it mention abortion.

      • Matthew
        May 22, 2012 - 05:27 PM

        It mentioned abortion, but the column is not ABOUT abortion. You chose to focus on something taken out of context.

        “Way to take something that has nothing to do with abortion and try to make it about abortion.”

        No, she isn’t. YOU are. And being disengenuous doesn’t get you any points here or in the real world.

      • Chelle
        May 22, 2012 - 05:34 PM

        My point was that abortion is not revelant to this topic but the author choose to bring it up.

        You are correct, the column is not about abortion and yet here I was asking why the author choose to mention abortion.

        Guess you just like to pick fights with me huh?

      • Chelle
        May 22, 2012 - 05:38 PM

        Oh, and then we have Dean here asking a completely non-related qauestion to my comment and the topic of the article.

        And yet its totally me making it about abortion. By saying nothing except how abortion doesn’t relate to the article.

        Good job dude, you sure showed me!

      • Matthew
        May 23, 2012 - 04:13 AM

        Because she mentioned it as an aside, idiot. Does she need your permission?

        Picking fights with you? Stop. Just stop. You are not all that. If you are anything, it is mindnumbingly, breathtakingly stupid.

        You couldn’t dispute a single word Caitlyn said, so you decided to take something she said out of context, and accuse her of something she clearly didn’t do. In other words, you lied.

      • Chelle
        May 23, 2012 - 01:08 PM

        How rich is that Caitlyn’s non-sequitur (Latin for “does not follow” aka irrelevant) is refered to as an aside when my comment (hyperbole at the most but certainly not a lie) that points out her irrevant comment is irrelevant, its a lie and taking what she said out of context. Particularly since you’ve taken my comments from other posts out of context below.

        Yes, Matt, you are picking fights with me. Would you like me to post links to your comments where you don’t address anything I’ve stated but insist on commenting? Seriously, your obession with my comments is becoming creepy.

      • Chelle
        May 22, 2012 - 03:14 PM

        And this comment is revalant how? Because I’m pretty sure you’re not a girl Dean and thus don’t have to worry about it either way.

  6. Josephine Peters
    May 21, 2012 - 03:18 AM

    What a horrid misconception and confusion.

    Coming “illegally” to the US (or crossing any international border without proper documentation for argument’s sake) will hardly ever be considered a crime. It is nothing more than an administrative misdemeanour at most.

    Hence, calling them “criminals” based solely on the fact of their being in the country is as inaccurate as the condescending sarcasm of your last paragraph.

    Illegal immigration is wrong, but it is worse to have a Failed Immigration System in the nation as a whole.

    Better luck next time Ms. Jarvis.

    Reply
    • Dean from Ohio
      May 22, 2012 - 02:34 AM

      What’s your address? I think someone you don’t know should move in with you, whether you like it or not. That’s not illegal; it’s just misunderstood, and makes up for your lack of generosity in sharing your living space.

      Reply
      • Matthew
        May 22, 2012 - 04:13 AM

        Dean:

        You forget that she would need to also accomodate their demands for free health care, a free education, and welfare.

    • CDL
      May 23, 2012 - 03:01 AM

      You’re right Josephine. The problem is the law. For a long time, there was no such thing as illegal immigration. If you wanted to come to America, well, you came to America and gave your name when you got here.

      Reply
      • Matthew
        May 23, 2012 - 04:22 AM

        CDL:

        If you don’t like the law, then work to change it. You don’t ignore it and/or encourage others to do same.

        The laws apply to everyone or no one. And when it is the latter, that’s the recipe for chaos and anarchy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyrıght 2014 THE COLLEGE CONSERVATIVE.

Facebook

Twitter