Do you think that deprecating the phrase “all lives matter” derives from a claim that the superficial context-free semantics are inaccurate? That all lives do not, in fact, matter?
It is critical to understand how “illegal immigrant” has tended to be used, by whom, and with what implication or connotation. The semantics always includes all the baggage.
I was going to suggest “unlawful immigrants”, but crossing the border without approval is clearly an illegal act (as in against enacted laws).
I fall on the side of “not equivalent.” “Illegal immigration/immigrant” did not enter the common usage as a deliberate rhetorical gotcha.
But, you have two options:
Pushing back, you’re saying, yes, a crime happened (when it did happen). But you’re also saying that a crime didn’t happen, when it didn’t, and you can point to the laws and who passed those laws, and not a single Republican can offer a complaint about it. You’ve got them over the edge of the barrel.
We’ve all agreed about how to create and police the laws. They’re not random. It’s the product of all of our legally elected representatives, doing their best to find the least worst compromise. And if we don’t trust that system, then we’re saying that there’s no compromise to be had and we may as well separate.
Falling back and calling the people who have committed immigration crimes, “Deportationally threatened”…well, that’s just going to light up every signal in the listener’s brain that instinctually reacts to goalpost moving and gaslighting, and they’re going to feel like someone’s being dishonest and swapping terms around, to match their preferred world view.
And if the media starts to follow along and say, “Hey y’all, you shouldn’t say ‘illegal immigrant’ - that’s so mean! - you should be saying ‘deportationally threatened’.” Well, suddenly you’re going to have wide swathes of the general public becoming distrustful of the ability of the media to report fair and honest.
Now you’ve got an even bigger problem, because you’ve got two large sections of the country, splitting off into their own private worlds with their own imaginary reality.
In one reality, asylum seekers are criminals. In the other, criminals are saints.
From my long experience as a crazy person, referring to somebody as ‘a schizophrenic’ is STRONGLY discouraged these days. The correct phrasing is ‘person with schizophrenia’. The general feeling is that the first reduces a human being down to a diagnosis and will likely have negative effects on the patient. I would say more. But the recording is ending and I have to go back to work.
I agree with the OP.
Yes - thanks, perhaps I wasn’t clear, but that’s exactly the point I was making. And “an illegal” is analogous.
Sorry, I’m on lunch break now. I meant to agree with, and stress, the point you made.
I can agree with “invaders” being banned as a term of use since it’s not the accurate term - invaders are actual military forces or intruders with hostile intent. So that’s a mis-use, I agree.
“Illegals” - I’m not as inclined to ban it. It’s merely a shortening of the term “illegal immigrants,” and has the same meaning. It’s like shortening "conservatives "to “cons” or “liberals” to “libs.”
Agreed with everything so far, but I also want to point out that it is also often levied at those for whom the speaker has no evidence whatsoever to believe that they are in the country without documentation other than the color of their skin or the language they speak. Often even at people who can trace their family roots to back before the founding of the country.
That’s why I consider it a slur.
I agree with the OP that “illegals” and “invaders” should not be allowed here. I think the “is it hate speech or not” categorization is perhaps a distraction. Opinions on that can differ based on where you draw the line - the terms clearly carry animosity, but there are much worse examples of hate speech.
We have plenty of terms that are moderated here that aren’t classified as hate speech. If the mods are balking at that label, can we at least agree that the terms don’t have a place on this site?
In terms of people who have the moral authority to speak on what sort of language should be used to describe those humans who are considered unwelcome in a country, Elie Wiesel is at the top of my list. You can disagree with Elie Wiesel, but calling him “incredibly silly” is, uh, incredibly silly.
I am having trouble finding my source–but yesterday when I was looking at the origin of the term “illegal immigrant,” I believe one cite traced it back to 1940s United Kingdom, as Jews were attempting to immigrate to the UK. Does anyone else know the origin of this term?
That said, is anyone arguing that “illegal immigrant” should be modded? I explicitly and repeatedly suggested in the OP that I don’t think it should be; and if nobody else thinks it should be, further discussion of the term is probably not relevant for ATMB. I included it in the OP to distinguish it from the terms that should (IMHO) be moderated.
For the record, the average person who is in the country illegally came legally, with documentation, and elected to violate the terms of their documentation and continue their inhabitance after the agreed period.
A person who came here without documentation is usually a person seeking asylum. That is legal and unconnected from illegal immigration. It’s better to use the term “asylum seeker” (IMHO) than trying to downgrade them to “undocumented immigrant”.
Checking back to your OP, I don’t see you saying this until the “In short” section at the very end. Your presentation to that point seems more like it’s lumping it in than separating it out, with an argument like, “This one’s going over the edge, not recommended and should be put in with the other two to spare the heartache.”
It doesn’t feel like it makes sense to raise the topic, if it was irrelevant to moderation.
But I do admit to not reading to the “in short” section.
Hopefully we keep this in mind for all such language.
I suppose I was just reading that into it, remembering your implication in the pit thread suggesting that “illegal immigrants” is deeply offensive hate speech.:
When everyone from the CATO Institute to Elie Wiesel to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom’s advisers warn against using “illegal immigrants,” “illegals”, and “invaders” as slurs/hate speech/incitement-to-violence language, it’s clear that it’s deeply offensive language.
The moderators are discussing this question behind the scenes. Be patient; it takes some time to hear from everyone.
I thought it was clear from the title “Illegals” and “invaders” should be moderated as hate speech, and from this, in addition to the “in short” section:
But if it wasn’t clear to you, I trust that it’s clear now.
Thank you.
That was summarizing some websites I’d found addressing various terms. Not each of those cites addressed each term. I parsed them out in the OP, to make it clear which cite addressed which term, and clarified my own views on which ones should definitely be moderated and which ones didn’t need need to be moderated.
I just want to echo this, to add my voice in agreement that such terms should be moderated as hate speech, and as food for thought share the Supreme Court of Canada’s definition of hate speech, which I think is useful as a way of operationalizing hate speech prohibitions without making them too broad for our purposes:
Hate speech is an effort to marginalize individuals based on their membership in a group. Using expression that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimize group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society. Hate speech, therefore, rises beyond causing distress to individual group members. It can have a societal impact. Hate speech lays the ground work for later, broad attacks on vulnerable groups that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide. Hate speech also impacts on a protected group’s ability to respond to the substantive ideas under debate, thereby placing a serious barrier to their full participation in our democracy.
Bolding mine.
“Unauthorized” is generally going to refer to employment status. See, e.g. 8 U.S.C. 1324a. There are plenty of “unauthorized aliens” who are lawfully present.
Edit: For what it’s worth, I generally agree with the OP. Accurate terminology is difficult, even without the political considerations, but “illegals” serves no real purpose.