| Pages:
1
2
3 |
Cisco
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4196
Registered: 12-30-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
A Victory Against the Language of Bigotry
Apr 5, 2013
By David Sirota
As one of the world’s largest news outlets, The Associated Press’ linguistic mandates significantly shape the broader vernacular. So when the
organization this week decided to stop using the term “illegal immigrant,” it was a big victory for objectivity and against the propagandistic
language of bigotry.
Cautious AP executives did not frame it exactly that way. Instead, editor Kathleen Carroll portrayed the decision as one in defense of grammar, saying
that the term “illegal” properly “describe(s) only an action” and that it is not an appropriate label to describe a human being.
“Illegal,” of course, has been used as more than a mere label—it has for years been used as an outright epithet by xenophobes. They abhor the notion
of America becoming more diverse—and specifically, more non-white—and so they have tried to convert “illegal” into a word that specifically
dehumanizes Latinos. Thus, as any honest person can admit, when Republican politicians and media blowhards decry “illegals,” they are pretending to be
for a race-blind enforcement of immigration laws, but they are really signaling their hatred of Latino culture.
How can we be so sure that dog-whistle bigotry is the intent? It’s simple, really. Just listen to who is—and who is not—being called an “illegal.”
Almost nobody is uses the term to attack white immigrants from Europe or Canada who overstay their visas. Nobody uses the term to describe white
people who break all sorts of criminal laws. Indeed, nobody called Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter an “illegal” upon revelations about his
connection to a prostitution service, nor did anyone call Bernie Madoff an “illegal” for his Ponzi schemes.
Instead, the word is exclusively used to denigrate Latinos who entered the country without authorization. Coincidence? Hardly—especially because the
term “illegal” is used to describe Latinos whose immigration status is not even a criminal matter.
Yes, as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie noted back in 2008, though “the whole phrase of ‘illegal immigrant’ connotes that the person, by just being
here, is committing a crime,” in fact “being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime.”
If Christie runs for president in 2016, he will likely get flak for that comment from anti-immigrant Republicans. But he was 100 percent correct.
“‘Illegal presence’ as the offense is called, is not a violation of the U.S. criminal code,” notes the Newark Star-Ledger, adding that while it is “a
violation of civil immigration laws (and) the federal government can impose civil penalties” a person “cannot be sent to prison for being here without
authorization from immigration authorities.”
Recognizing these facts is not to condone unauthorized entry into the United States. But it is to note a telling discrepancy: Latinos with
non-criminal immigration status are called “illegals” but white people committing decidedly criminal acts are not called the same. Worse, the term is
used so often and in such blanket fashion against Latinos that it ends up implying a description of all people of Hispanic heritage, regardless of
their immigration status.
What’s amazing is that Republican media voices, which so often invoke such incendiary language, simultaneously wonder why the Republican Party is
failing to win the votes of people of color and consequently losing so many elections. Somehow, the GOP doesn’t understand what the Associated Press
realized: Organizations—whether political parties, media outlets or businesses - can no longer expect to insult and slander people of color and still
have a viable audience.
Those that do not realize that truth will inevitably find themselves as lonely and as marginalized as today’s GOP.
|
|
|
woody with a view
PITA Nomad
Posts: 15939
Registered: 11-8-2004
Location: Looking at the Coronado Islands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Everchangin'
|
|
blah, blah. let the 11 million take up services that you and yours might require....
but i digress!
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
This "semantics" issue is really tiresome.
Where's the fence?
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
Thanks Cisco 
|
|
|
Ateo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5901
Registered: 7-18-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yeah, I like it.
They're already taking up some services. Might as well legalize and collect some taxes.
|
|
|
dtbushpilot
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3290
Registered: 1-11-2007
Location: Buena Vista BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: Tranquilo
|
|
So the AP decides to use a different term to describe people who enter the country illegally and you turn it into Republican bashing. Why would you
find the need to point to republicans who broke the law to make your point, there are plenty of democrats, independents or any other group that have
their share of criminals which by the way is what they would be referred to instead of "illegals".
I find it amusing that the writer writes about the bigotry of others when he is filled with hate and bigotry himself.
[Edited on 4-7-2013 by dtbushpilot]
"Life is tough".....It's even tougher if you're stupid.....
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
Thanks Cisco |
For what? Revisiting the worn out effort to engage in Orwellian New-Speak?
It's transparent: Do away with a word and you do away with the attendant concept.
Simplified.......if there was all of a sudden no word for a baseball, the concept of a baseball wouldn't exist.
More to the point.......if you remove the term, the label, illegal from the alien, illegals will no longer exist.
That is their goal...to normalize the illegals through New-Speak.
It's an effective, childish effort, so why would you allow it to design the way you think? Why would you allow them to treat you like a child who is
unable to think for yourself?
|
|
|
Ateo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5901
Registered: 7-18-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DENNIS
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
Thanks Cisco |
For what? Revisiting the worn out effort to engage in Orwellian New-Speak?
It's transparent: Do away with a word and you do away with the attendant concept.
Simplified.......if there was all of a sudden no word for a baseball, the concept of a baseball wouldn't exist.
More to the point.......if you remove the term, the label, illegal from the alien, illegals will no longer exist.
That is their goal...to normalize the illegals through New-Speak.
It's an effective, childish effort, so why would you allow it to design the way you think? Why would you allow them to treat you like a child who is
unable to think for yourself? |
Calm down DENNIS. Everything is gonna be OK. 
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DENNIS
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
Thanks Cisco |
For what? Revisiting the worn out effort to engage in Orwellian New-Speak?
It's transparent: Do away with a word and you do away with the attendant concept.
Simplified.......if there was all of a sudden no word for a baseball, the concept of a baseball wouldn't exist.
More to the point.......if you remove the term, the label, illegal from the alien, illegals will no longer exist.
That is their goal...to normalize the illegals through New-Speak.
It's an effective, childish effort, so why would you allow it to design the way you think? Why would you allow them to treat you like a child who is
unable to think for yourself? |
I respectfully disagree---- language is powerful and creates powerful images --- both positive and negative. Changing negative labels can change
images; images that need change. We no longer label children born out of wedlock as illegitimate. That label was a powerful statement of what others
thought about those children. And to call people illegal creates a similar negative image. Having worked in another country as an undocumented
worker, I never thought of myself as an illegal person. Language and labels are powerful.
Child and not thinking for myself? I won't comment on that slam; it was an uncalled for way to change the focus of the subject. 
Edited because I forgot the quote --- a childlike mistake, I am sure. 
[Edited on 4-7-2013 by DianaT]
|
|
|
Ateo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5901
Registered: 7-18-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Both sides use this tactic.
Let's call Social Security an "Entitlement Program".
Let's add "N-zi" to "Feminist" in order to slander and dirty our opponents with "femi-N-zi".
Let's turn "Liberal" into a weak, unpatriotic idiot.
We must learn to see beyond the word and into the idea and person. Wow, that sounded really liberal of me. Sorry about that.
|
|
|
Ateo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5901
Registered: 7-18-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Wow, what DianaT said was perfect.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
| Quote: | Originally posted by DENNIS
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
Thanks Cisco |
For what? Revisiting the worn out effort to engage in Orwellian New-Speak?
It's transparent: Do away with a word and you do away with the attendant concept.
Simplified.......if there was all of a sudden no word for a baseball, the concept of a baseball wouldn't exist.
More to the point.......if you remove the term, the label, illegal from the alien, illegals will no longer exist.
That is their goal...to normalize the illegals through New-Speak.
It's an effective, childish effort, so why would you allow it to design the way you think? Why would you allow them to treat you like a child who is
unable to think for yourself? |
I respectfully disagree---- language is powerful and creates powerful images --- both positive and negative. Changing negative labels can change
images; images that need change. We no longer label children born out of wedlock as illegitimate. That label was a powerful statement of what others
thought about those children. And to call people illegal creates a similar negative image. Having worked in another country as an undocumented
worker, I never thought of myself as an illegal person. Language and labels are powerful.
Child and not thinking for myself? I won't comment on that slam; it was an uncalled for way to change the focus of the subject.
Edited because I forgot the quote --- a childlike mistake, I am sure.
[Edited on 4-7-2013 by DianaT] |
Actually you just supported Dennis' point.
After we stopped calling children born out of wedlock 'illegitimate' we started to have more children born out of wedlock. We legitimized
illegitimacy.
|
|
|
vgabndo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3461
Registered: 12-8-2003
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Checking-off my bucket list.
|
|
The Coast Guard contacted a panga with four Mexican guys in it a few miles off San Diego recently. When they interrogated them, they claimed that they
were invading the United States, and that they were prisoners of war, not illegal immigrants. The Coast guard said that the argument might work, but
there were just four of them. And the panguero says, we are the LAST four senor, the first 11 million are already there!
Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. Sam Harris
"The situation is far too dire for pessimism."
Bill Kauth
Carl Sagan said, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
PEACE, LOVE AND FISH TACOS
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
| Quote: | Originally posted by DENNIS
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
Thanks Cisco |
For what? Revisiting the worn out effort to engage in Orwellian New-Speak?
It's transparent: Do away with a word and you do away with the attendant concept.
Simplified.......if there was all of a sudden no word for a baseball, the concept of a baseball wouldn't exist.
More to the point.......if you remove the term, the label, illegal from the alien, illegals will no longer exist.
That is their goal...to normalize the illegals through New-Speak.
It's an effective, childish effort, so why would you allow it to design the way you think? Why would you allow them to treat you like a child who is
unable to think for yourself? |
I respectfully disagree---- language is powerful and creates powerful images --- both positive and negative. Changing negative labels can change
images; images that need change. We no longer label children born out of wedlock as illegitimate. That label was a powerful statement of what others
thought about those children. And to call people illegal creates a similar negative image. Having worked in another country as an undocumented
worker, I never thought of myself as an illegal person. Language and labels are powerful.
Child and not thinking for myself? I won't comment on that slam; it was an uncalled for way to change the focus of the subject.
Edited because I forgot the quote --- a childlike mistake, I am sure.
[Edited on 4-7-2013 by DianaT] |
Actually you just supported Dennis' point.
After we stopped calling children born out of wedlock 'illegitimate' we started to have more children born out of wedlock. We legitimized
illegitimacy. |
Interesting --- not sure of the statistics, but you could be correct. Not sure that really supports Dennis, but then again, I would like to see
the undocumented workers and young people normalized.
Also, I guess I will never be able to view a person as an illegitimate or illegal human being. That is quite a label to carry around that creates
such negative images in the minds of others.
Thanks Ateo.
[Edited on 4-7-2013 by DianaT]
|
|
|
Ateo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5901
Registered: 7-18-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Skipjack,
I'm no expert in anything prior to 1975 and even after that I'm a novice. Did people only get pregnant while married back in the day? I know the
answer, as do you.
I think back in the day, people felt they had to get married if someone got pregnant, straight out of fear of being shamed because of this "out of
wedlock" thing. This is religious in nature. I know a few of my aunts were rushed off to out of town places where they could give birth
"anonymously" and regain their status as "regular" teenage women. This process scarred the ones I talked to.
I truly respect most of your posts, but I disagree on this one.
No child is illegitimate.
How would you feel if your Mom had sex with her boyfriend of 4 years and you were the end result? I don't think you'd like to be referred to as
"illegitimate".
Respectfully disagree.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ateo,
I wasn't trying to say that the 'illegitimate child' label was right or wrong. I was simply trying to support Dennis claim that there are ulterior
motives here. That is, ulterior to bigotry.
The racism and human rights card is so often used by nations and civic groups to get something that has nothing to do with equality or goodness. Here
it is again it seems to me.
Do you remember how upset we got over the human rights issues in Soviet Union. Oh, such a violation of the Helsinki Agreement. Well, the Soviet Union
is no more and our government is no longer worried about human rights issues in Russia. Why?
And then there are the Palestinians living under horrid conditions on the Left Bank. I don't hear much anger over their loss of human rights. Again,
Why?
Whenever there is a goal to achieve racism is a very handy tool to use to get it.
I'm not saying that it's not right to call them Illegal aliens..... Actually, I am saying that they should be called that. If a criminal is a criminal
why would I want to stop calling him that and not hurt his feeling. Become legal and you won't be call illegal. What's wrong with that?
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
Changing negative labels can change images; images that need change. |
Change the image by changing the behavior. Quit breaking the law and the "illegal" classification will disappear.
That, to me, makes more sense than ignoring the deed that earned the label.
|
|
|
danaeb
Senior Nomad
Posts: 991
Registered: 11-13-2006
Location: San Diego; El Centenario
Member Is Offline
Mood: groovy
|
|
I can't count how many times I've read posts on this forum about Nomads bypassing the FMM tourist visa process because "I've never been asked to show
it" or exhibiting a general ignorance of the Mexican visa requirements. It would be interesting to know how many Americans are living in, or visiting
Mexico "illegally".
Experience enables you to recognize a mistake every time you repeat it.
|
|
|
bajaguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9247
Registered: 9-16-2003
Location: Carson City, NV/Ensenada - Baja Country Club
Member Is Offline
Mood: must be 5 O'clock somewhere in Baja
|
|
Thank you, Dennis
| Quote: | Originally posted by DENNIS
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
Changing negative labels can change images; images that need change. |
Change the image by changing the behavior. Quit breaking the law and the "illegal" classification will disappear.
That, to me, makes more sense than ignoring the deed that earned the label. |
Well said!!!!!!
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
This is one of those circular threads where no matter what, there will be no change of ingrained opinions --- so I shall take leave of the discussion
with just two final statements:
1. When I was an undocumented worker I am sure glad no one thought of me as an "illegal" person --- especially my students.
2.
And from where did your immigrant ancestors come? That is definitely a rhetorical question.
Adios
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
