The word would be terrorists...not that hard. A very poor defense of your argument.

Isn't that putting a label on that person by calling them a terrorist much like if being in the US without lawful authority or status then calling that person an illegal?
Sorry I don't see the difference both are words that label the person.

There is no question that they are illegal. That's not the question or the point.

If you see a bunch of homeless people lining up outside a 'soup kitchen', do you say, "I had to pay for my food, why should these people get away without having to pay for theirs"? Of do you, perhaps, take into consideration that your circumstances are better than theirs; that you are lucky; that they are unlucky?

The same applies to Mexican workers entering the country illegally to work. They are desperate for work in order to feed their families, and they are taking a very big risk in making the 'crossing', and continue to be at risk after arriving. They can never (legally) go home to see family, they can never put down roots in case they are deported. Their situation is wholly different from 'our' situation (speaking as someone who entered legally).

I can't speak for Leslie but I suspect that 'context' is a factor. If you say, '... bunch of illegals....', that's different from 'I happened to talk to some people who were here illegally'. In fact, I'm pretty sure her issue is with the specific term 'illegals' as a single word to describe a class of people.

A person cannot be defined as illegal. Their presence in the country without documents can be. It's called proper English.

It's also called respect. Hard working Mexicans deserve it.

But they are in America and we know the Americans don't do English well be it proper or not.

So those people in jail they are not criminals. They are persons who committed a criminal act and are now serving a sentence in a facility at Her Majestys pleasure.

Are you really that English challenged? Criminal in that context is a noun...illegal is an adjective. Big difference. Now stop the nonsense. The "informal" use of the term "illegal alien" is basically a perversion of the language.

I share your thoughts and compassion towards the situation of Mexican workers who have entered the county by non-conventional means. ( Hopefully those words don't offend anyone). At our local church I know many
and as I speak Spanish and socialize with some, I have heard many of their stories, and help them often with translations etc. Many barely even speak Spanish only having gone to school 4 or 5 years, and can be here years and never learn anything more than basic English so often can be exploited. The are decent and hard-working people, and are admirable in their dedication to their families.

They do take jobs away from locals who have a similar skill level, both from offering their services for less, but also because they often are harder workers.

However I see nothing wrong or racist with a major and forceful effort to control the borders, and reduce the level of immigration of workers of that skill level until the American economy can again absorb tem.

Neither do I.

My argument is simply against those who say, 'since I came in through legal means, they should too'. It's simply not a fair comparison.

I have no problem with better border security...something Reagan failed to institute after his amnesty. I personally feel that the hardworking people who actually do contribute to the economy and..in spite of assertions otherwise...do pay taxes..being allowed to legally stay thus eliminating the opportunity for unscrupulous employers to abuse them...then make a serious effort to clamp down on those employer that seek to exploit the immigration laws.

All of the brain-trust answers say it better than I could have. Besides, I really shouldn't have to explain it. The point I'm trying to make is pretty ****ing obvious.

I'm not sure why you need to 'shorthand' anything. Is this something that you talk about so often that you need to save time? Using context and situation, there are a bazillion ways you could go without calling people names.

Mexican (if they are)
Undocumented workers (when applicable)
Subject for Deportation (11 million-ish people according to Mr. Trump)
People (this is the important one)

The term is dehumanizing and makes for bad feelings. If you insist on using the term, nothing will happen to you --- thanks to the 1st amendment. But it could hurt somebody else, maybe somebody you didn't intend to hurt?

There is a serious problem in many parts of the country ( which is partly a cause of Trump's victory) with stagnant real or just low wages, and unemployment for workers. Importing more of a supply of workers at the level I can see what positive effect it has. For example one local roofing contractor is losing business and laying off workers earning $12 an hour, against a competitor who employs workers who crossed the border and willing to work for $8 an hour. I fail to see how that is positive for the economy, Or for that matter Mexicans who came earlier, and now have to compete with a newer group form Mexico, just suppresses wages.

Why try to spend money to re-train people or advance their education skills for the 21st century, but them just import more with lower skills.

I have yet to understand how this is positive for the economy.

Well fortunately the judicial system is less concerned with the perversion of the language and more concerned with the status of the person in that country.
I guess dictionary.com should be sanctioned for posting this on the internet
illegal
[ih-lee-guh l]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
forbidden by law or statute.
2.
contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.:
The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.
noun
3.
Informal. illegal alien.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/illegally

I already pointed out the informal use as a perversion of proper English. How an illegal pass fits into your argument escapes me.