I like straight talk…

… hardly anyone employs the use of blunt straight forward talk anymore. Suddenly it has become more acceptable to verbally tip toe, side stepping offense. As a result people are afraid to state their thoughts emphatically with conviction, preferring to hem and haw. Mr. Roach has no such qualms.

I want every illegal alien in this country deported, and that’s not heartless, but rather an acknowledgment that our laws need to be enforced. No injustice is inflicted upon anyone here against the law by sending them back to their home countries. And the complaint that their native-born kids will be hurt is made highly selectively. Families are separated all the time for their parents’ lawbreaking. Immigration lawbreakers shouldn’t be given any special benefits in this regard. Worst case scenario, the whole family moves to Mexico . . . a place, recall, where Americans frequently go on vacation. [source]

Not only do I agree with Mr. Roach’s perspective on immigration, it is a perfect example of speaking in absolutes. Marc Barnes, The Bad Catholic, discusses absolute speech further noting that using such vague speech implies a lack of responsibility for a thought in favor of feelings.

As an example, we have the widespread use of the phrase “I feel like” replacing the assertion “I think that”. This is particularly rampant within modern Christianity – “I feel like God’s calling me to break up with you”, “I feel like God doesn’t care about what you wear to church” – but it is as often used to preface everyday statements – “I feel like we should leave, those clouds look ominous”, “I feel like we should run, that zombie has a knife”. What does this dubious bit of slang do to our sentences? It emasculates them. No one can be blamed for a feeling, no one can be held accountable for it. Feelings are subjective. They are relative. No one can argue with the person who ‘feels like’ gays should be free to marry, any more than argue with the man who feels like a turtle. It is unarguable because it is insane. [Read the full article here]

I think every instructor charged with teaching language to youth should make the above article required reading. Absolutely.

"Pithy and so, so, true. If it were possible, I'd post a million of these ..."

#whyIstayed Why Women Stay In Domestically ..."
"All the best to you, Katrina! We'll miss you. Thanks for sharing your journey with ..."

Ten Years is a Long Run…
"Bon voyage on your new endeavours. And thank you."

Ten Years is a Long Run…
"I will miss your unique, funny, honest voice. Thank you for all the years of ..."

Ten Years is a Long Run…

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Brett Sequeira

    I know that we should run that zombie has a knife.
    I know that we should not go to that catholic church the priest started wearing bunny ears after easter mass last year

    • Julie

      ROFL – I think that might be my parish you’re talking about…whatever you do, don’t visit on Christmas eve *shudders*

  • Don Snow

    I think we should welcome illegal immigrants because, is it in the 17th or 19th chapter of Numbers, and is that the right book? But, thereabouts it’s written, “Love the stranger in thy midst as thy neighbor.” Some translations have it “Love the alien…” or “…in thy gate…”, but the gist of it is, we aren’t supposed to run them off.

    Love your blog, hang in there.

  • Steve

    I THINK that bloggers and other public pundits who believe that all undocumented immigrants (that’s what my Irish and German ancestors were, to a large degree) should go home are economically and socially naive.

    I FEEL that there is a good deal of cold-hearted racism afoot when people treat immigrants (legal or not) as things, rather than human beings. I FEEL that it is highly offensive to use Catholicism as a cudgel with which to rail against immigrants (even those who are here illegally). I FEEL badly not only for the American-citizen children of immigrants, but also for the mean-spirited people who enjoy bashing immigrants.

    • It’s unfortunate you ‘feel’ that our laws aren’t worth upholding. My family members are first generation immigrants who came here legally but I suppose you ‘feel’ that makes them racists for believing illegals – not undocumented… ILLEGAL- should leave or take the necessary steps toward naturalization.

      Your feelings make no sense when applied to rational thought and concrete notions like civil law. But who can argue with feelings? You can’t. Like Marc Barnes pointed out, it’s insane.

  • Wilsonia

    I wish we could send every one of them home but we can’t. So let’s stop making it so worthwhile to come here. As long as the milk flows the baby will never get of the teat.

  • IC

    Since this is about straight talk and not immigration per se, I’ll address straight talk first. Straight talk is good when we’re talking about arguing logic (maybe not when talking about Aunt Esther’s Easter Hat). Avoiding “I feel” in an academic essay or logical debate is wise, because if the point is debate, we can’t debate feelings. Yep.

    Now illegal immigration: I would argue that there is zero straight talk about the reasons people immigrate illegally (poverty and the inability to see any other path to support a family), the realities of most illegal immigrants (quietly working and pay taxes here in the USA), the economic consequences (look at what is happening in Alabama during a harvest season), and reasonable alternatives (a guest worker program, etc.). I would also argue that just because something is encoded into US law doesn’t make it just: right to an abortion? segregation before the 1960s? euthanasia in some states? etc. To say “they’re breaking U.S. law” cannot be a final statement in a world we hope it ruled by God’s law.

    Finally, I’m not sure there is enough compassion in the world today. Compassion is not just a feeling. It doesn’t rule a debate, but let’s not knock it entirely out of conversation either….

    • Now see… this is another perfect example how you reasonably state your thoughts on a specific issue soundly and effectively without sounding all feelings and junk-y. IC uses strong vocabulary and avoids any wishy-washy verbal slants.

      It is this kind of straight forward discourse that lends itself to changing minds and hearts.


      • The Ironic Catholic

        Why thank you. 🙂

  • Hmyer

    Crescat, if you really agree with the above statement by Roach, that we should send all illegal immigrants home, even at the cost of breaking up families; then you are a naive, cold hearted b___ch.

  • Hmyer, since you can not articulate your point without resorting to lazy unintelligible name calling I have deleted your comment. You are welcome to reply again if you can contain yourself and coherently express your thoughts. Name calling really is the most lazy and pathetic way to disagree with someone.

    • Hmyer

      It’s not name calling. It’s “blunt straight forward talk”. You just got through calling someone a “poor bastard” in one of your posts. Was that “lazy and pathetic” or are the rules different for you?

      • Clearly I am not a Canis lupus familiaris, dogs can’t type. It is rumored monkeys can however.

        I’m sorry what is your point?

        • Hmyer

          The term I used is also a commonly used derogatory term for a belligerent, unreasonable, rude woman.
          Given your position on illegal immigration, I felt some strong language was called for . If you are going to put these kind of opinions out there, you better get used to some strong reactions. Sorry if I caused offense. I apologize, but your are still wrong as hell. That’s my point.
          The Monkey

          • No offense taken. Would you like to comment on why you think I am wrong or shall we leave it with us coming to no agreement on the matter? I’m assuming if you wanted genuine discourse you would’ve stated what specifically you disagree with, why you do so, and what you offer in alternatives of opinions… you know, instead of just verbally regurgitated some expletive without further explanation.

            I can be wrong as hell, it wouldn’t be the first time and won’t be the last. But I am always open to differences of opinion and thought. I just usually assume that when someone resorts to name calling they aren’t open to communication, just a quick ejaculation of disagreement and then we all move on.

          • Hmyer

            There’s not much room for intelligent discourse with someone that advocates separating illegal immigrants from their children and shipping them all back where they came from. I don’t think that I need to come with a justification for the complete opposite of that position. I won’t take up any more of your time.

  • Tonestaple

    All the “I feel” crap can be laid at the feet of one man, Phil Donohue, and his successor, Oprah Winfrey. Those two did more damage to the Republic than Saul Alinsky ever dreamed up. By treating feelings as more important than logical thought, they made it ever more difficult for people to engage in logic and to see cause and effect. As proof, I offer “Occupy Wall Street,” a group of very silly people who are completely incapable of imagining the effects of their disastrous ideas..

  • TsionBenJudah

    Re: Mr. Roach’s comments…

    I found his comments to be extreme, narrow minded, uncharitable, and evident of a kind of willful ignorance practiced by the heartless. Before I continue I want to add that I am pro-borders, pro-American sovereignty, and AGAINST illegal immigration. I’m all for putting up a fence, having armed patrols monitor the border, and blocking the NAFTA rule that allows Mexican trucks to enter the US. BUT, I believe that the illegals currently living here need to be dealt with humanely, because after all, they were invited here.

    For years there have been sanctuary cities here in the US, there have been health benefits for illegals, officials looking the other way when employers hire them, education opportunities not limited to in-state tuition, etc… Though the laws stated otherwise, we have invited them in with a carrot-on-a-stick as well as a wink-and-a-nod. Should we have allowed this? Hell, no. But we did anyway. And to simply send them all back to their previous countries would be like turning your pets into meat. We lured them in and used them, now we want to toss them back into countries many of them no longer identify with. I do not support general amnesty or the DREAM ACT or any other silly notions proposed by Democrats. But I do believe that after the border is properly secured we should give them a path to citizenship. But since the illegals have also benefited from their stay here, don’t make it too cheap or too easy.