By J. D. Heyes
Anyone who crosses into the United States without following duly-passed laws and properly-enacted procedures is in our country illegally. The governmentâ€™s term for these people is â€œillegal alien.â€
Thereâ€™s nothing derogatory about it or demeaning or insulting. Itâ€™s a legal term, period, and it perfectly describes someone who has not followed U.S. law when entering the country.
Illegal. Alien. Not a citizen. Not from here.Â Alien. Illegal alien.
But the Left-wing speech Nazis who run social media companies have decided that the term â€œillegal alienâ€Â isÂ derogatory, demeaning, and insulting. And becauseÂ theyÂ say so, then itÂ is, period. No discussion. No argument. No compromises.Â
Just enforcement of the decision to ban the term. By banning people â€” conservatives especially â€” who dare to drop the truth bomb that anyone who isnâ€™t in America legally is anÂ illegal alien.
As noted byÂ Big League Politics:
YouTubeâ€™sÂ hate speech policiesÂ now forbid users from discussing the immigration status of individuals, causing some to wonder whether news coverage mentioning illegal immigrants who are convicted criminals or suspected of committing crimes will result in a ban.
This comes after YouTube â€œrelented to gayÂ VoxÂ journalist Carlos Mazaâ€™s ceaseless ranting and agreed to demonetize [conservative comedian and commentator] Steven Crowderâ€™s YouTube channel, because according to Maza, Crowder was mean to him,â€ the site reported further.
But after that, the platformâ€™s hate speech policies have taken on new attention as even some social media pros are curious as to whether or not evenÂ reportingÂ on â€˜illegal immigrationâ€™ and â€˜illegal immigrantsâ€™ will get a user banned.
No word yet on whether using the Leftâ€™s manufactured term for illegal aliens â€” â€œundocumented migrantsâ€ â€” is acceptable (though itâ€™s never been acceptable to us because it doesnâ€™t fit).
Derek Utley, a social media pro and creator of X Strategies, a social media company that actually represents a number of prominent conservative figures, wrote â€” ironically â€” on Facebook: â€œIf you discuss or criticize someoneâ€™s immigration status, YouTube will Demonetize you as it is now hate speech to discuss someoneâ€™s immigration status.â€
In his post, he circled the term â€œimmigration statusâ€ as part of â€œhate speechâ€ that is â€œnot allowed on YouTube,â€ according to the siteâ€™s rules.Â
Back in the golden age of comedy, men and women who were icons of the genre made great livings poking fun at things like gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity, sex, race, and â€” yes â€” even immigration status. Today, none of those greats would be allowed to practice their craft and use humorous anecdotes about any of those subjects becauseâ€¦taboo. YouTubeâ€™s speech Nazis have spoken.
Still, itâ€™s not clear what this will actually look like in terms of enforcement. But if it is anything like in the recent past, â€˜offensiveâ€™ materials will be a) in the eyes of the platform censors; or b) subject to the whims of a Leftist who feels offended and believes no one has a right to make him or her feel offended.
Maza was ticked off at Crowder, who uses irreverent humor as part of his schtick, for calling him a â€œgay Latinoâ€ and â€œlispy Latinoâ€ â€” both of whichÂ are factually correct (soÂ notÂ hate speech because hate speech, by definition, is meant to hurt/harm someone).
Whatâ€™s more, YouTube initially said that Crowderâ€™s videos didÂ notÂ violate the platformâ€™s speech policies â€” which led to an angry outburst employing â€˜colorfulâ€™ language from Maza aimed at YouTube.Â
Instant cave-in. So Crowder must be robbed of a living because a â€œgay, lispy Latinoâ€ was offended by a truth bomb.Â
Itâ€™s past timeÂ for Congress to regulate these platformsÂ to the extent of requiring them to observe the same constitutional principles of non-discrimination that everyone else who opens a business must observe.
A version of this story first appeared at NewsTarget.