I disagree. I saw pushback (myself included) on how baby boomers are some sort of monolithic class that should/should not be blamed for wrecking the planet, I saw pushback on use of words like white trash and cracker, as also being racially motivated speech, and I got noted in an older thread where I was disputing the whole “all conservatives are evil” was hate speech.
If you feel strongly, again do as our OP @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness and write a clear, coherent, well cited statement of what you feel is incorrect and unjust and we can talk about it.
Insisting on using “alien” and “illegals” is an attempt to win the debate before it starts, by mandating a vocabulary favorable to one side of the argument.
Okay, one guy in one thread, and some of the posters were talking about the white colonizers being the “invaders’”- for which I cant complain. We did invade America and steal it from the natives.
Winning the debate “before it starts” is a mischaracterization, since the term “illegals” has already been widely used, with well established connotations.
But you are perfectly correct that in deprecating “illegals” we would be declaring that one view in this debate is not up for discussion: the view that certain people are sub-human.
Well, yes. A significant proportion of the European settlers, and of the European/colonial/USA governments involved, deliberately attempted to, and in large part succeeded in, killing the pre-existing population and/or forcibly driving them out of their homes.
And if a significant proportion of the people currently attempting to get into the USA were doing anything of the sort, it would then be accurate to call the ones who were doing that “invaders”, and reasonable to respond to force with force. As it is, it’s an entirely unreasonable and prejudicial thing to call them.
So you’re agreeing that using those terms is an attempt to win the debate before it starts, by using a vocabulary favorable to one side of the argument?
No, it would then be accurate to call them killers. I don’t need that in order to accurately call them “invaders”.
In the sense that I call felons “felons” right at the outset — or call arsonists “arsonists”, or burglars “burglars”, or whatever — by striving to use such a term accurately when debating. If someone else wants to use a different term, that’s their business.
Well, those aren’t the same at all. “Alien” has been the standard legal term for a non-citizen for centuries, if not longer. It’s the term used throughout British and American law.
No. For that, I would either need to be setting up a straw man of people who are more lenient towards immigration irregularities or of people who are more aghast of those.
For the former, you’d need to read what I wrote as implying that I factually believed that there were elements of the country trying to push the phrase, “deportationally threatened”. I think it’s clear that it was offered as a hypothetical, not a statement of the current state of things.
For the latter, I can say that at least for myself that I feel like attempts to convert phrasing from “illegal immigrant” to “undocumented immigrant” (i.e. going from criminal to neutral) feels relatively equivalent to trying to convert “undocumented immigrant” to “deportationally threatened” (i.e. going from neutral to martyr). I might be a dog on the internet but I am not a straw person.
It’s incredibly tedious how often people on here defend their right to use derogatory language by claiming that the superficial definition of a word always captures its entire meaning, regardless of context or connotation from established usage. There is nothing “accurate” about this oblivious use of language.
Nobody is opposing use of the word “illegal” entirely in all contexts, when all it is doing is accurately and relevantly describing the fact that something is against the law. The pushback is against using the word in a specific manner in a specific context to dehumanize. And the fact that is dehumanizing is not something that can be deduced by using a dictionary and abstract principles. It derives from the way it has commonly been used in practise.
The concept of “invasion” typically requires the intent to take the place over by force rather than, say, find an apartment to rent, get a job, live, raise kids, etc.
The assortment of nationalities predominating among those entering the U.S. without advance permission has varied quite a lot over time. Right now it’s Central Americans, but historically it’s been Mexicans. The net negative rate of unlawful immigration from Mexico is a relatively recent development. Heck, in the 1990s I saw plenty of deportation cases for former Yugoslavs who entered via Mexico. More recently there was a sizeable batch of Ukrainians, but the U.S. welcomed them with open arms and created an entire new program from scratch, entirely outside the normal legislative immigration framework, just for Ukrainians. I am glad the Ukrainians have been allowed in, but there are plenty of Guatemalans and Hondurans who would have loved a small sliver of an opportunity like that. Like, you know, to be allowed in to apply for asylum, as is explicitly permitted under international refugee treaties that the U.S. ratified decades ago.
Hmmmm, what could possibly be the difference between the average Ukrainian and, say, the average indigenous Guatemalan?
I see dictionary definitions that don’t actually include that, and even your phrasing limits it to “typically” — which, put together, strikes me as a bit of a shrug, if the claim is that what I’m saying is inaccurate.
The claim is that what you’re saying is intended to demonize.
Pointing at dictionary definitions from different contexts does not make that look any better.
Nor is it remotely accurate to refer to somebody who wants to take a job that others are asking and depending on them to fill, and to rent or buy living quarters that someone is willing to rent or to sell to them, as an “invader.” Or their six-year-old kid and/or aged grandmother who they want to care for, for that matter.
As a technical term, that’s true. And it’s also true that many “aliens” are entirely legal residents and often entirely legal workers.
It’s also true that in casual speech it usually means “extraterrestrials”: that is, non-humans. So if you’re using it in a technical discussion: no problem. If you’re ranting about the subject in the coffee shop: I’d say it’s a problem, because of the association. I will grant that in this thread we’re having a technical discussion; but the technical discussion is also about usage in casual speech.
You don’t think saying that people who dislike your terms will wind up claiming that people in the country without prior permission are all saints is doing that?
OK. You’re just a person who objects to what they consider to be neutral language. How that’s going to suddenly cause people to stop believing news sources that they already weren’t believing is still beyond me.
Well, look, if you say it’s intended to demonize, and I say no it’s not, and you say yes it is and I say no it’s not, figure the whole thing goes nowhere unless we do something like, y’know, look at the definitions.
I don’t give a shit whether “others” are asking or whether “someone” is willing; the relevant question is whether the humans who — trespass? Intrude? If “invade” is to be off-limits, I’m not 100% sure what the less bad option is — have permission from those who have the authority to give it, not from anybody else.
…in this context, according to the dictionary, the Straight Dope resident immigration expert Eva_Luna is describing how the word “invasion” is commonly used to describe the actions of taking a place over by force, and how it is almost never used to describe people finding an apartment to rent, get a job, live, raise kids, etc.
But consider your own examples, there: “Typically, parents apply to several schools.” Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that — what, would it somehow be incorrect to refer to a parent who only applies to one school?
“Today’s organic olive oil producer is typically a small family concern.” If that’s true, would it be incorrect to mention an organic olive producer that isn’t a small family concern?