Maria Gonzales.
Maybe it’s not productive to turn this into a “Quiz TOWP about specific immigrants” thread? I mean, he already demonstrated why the term is so pernicious and so dangerous: from “millions of invaders” to an example of a mass-murderer when asked for specifics, it shows so clearly why the term is associated with violent racism.
I’m happy at this point to wait for the mods to chat.
Well, you’ve got me there; I don’t know which Maria Gonzales you mean. Did she cross the border illegally? Enter the country without permission, uninvited by anyone with the relevant authority? Did she explain why she did this?
Where is this bit about racism coming from? The term, being specifically accurate, is worth reclaiming, remember? That already got hashed out upthread.
No, you were extremely coy about it. Which, honestly, is why this nonsense should be moderated as hate speech, so that we don’t have to have these ridiculous discussions about how “my country was invaded by millions of invaders” is simply referring to people moving from place to place without a written permission.
We all know exactly what you meant, and I for one will not forget it. Congrats, you have cemented in my mind exactly what you are.
Someone who uses words accurately?
Like I said, we all know exactly what you meant. None of us are confused, at all, about what you think, so yes, your words were very accurate.
No, that’s stupid. People need to be “documented”? I don’t think so.
“Illegal immigrant” more accurately describes a person whose status is that they crossed the border with the intent to permanently live here without following proper immigration or asylum-seeking protocols.
I would agree that “illegals” sounds prejudicial (but I wouldn’t go so far as calling it hate speech) and “invaders” just sounds stupid.
…yep. TOWP’s example fits how the word “invasion” and “invader” are typically used: and are a good example of why the word should be moderated.
You do realize, I take it, that I’m equally happy to apply the word to all sorts of other folks? That, when asked, I relayed the first name that popped up when I googled for an illegal immigrant in recent news — but that I did so while patiently explaining that I’d of course prefer to be given examples to weigh in on?
(In retrospect, of course the first name that popped up would be the one who made headlines for something like that; the invaders who don’t make great headlines don’t so much tend to make headlines at all, I guess. Should’ve seen that coming; that’s on me.)
I disagree. Whether someone’s presence in the US is legal or not is (1) a question of law none of us are qualified to answer and (2) morally irrelevant. Even “illegal immigrant” is a stigmatizing term without moral justification.
But is it an accurate term? To me, what this thread comes down to is: are we going to ban a term even though it’s accurate? Are we going to say “I can’t point to anything you said that’s false, but you’re not allowed to go on saying it, because, well, something something, I guess?”
I hope that The_Other_Waldo_Pepper’s arguments help the Mods make the right decision.
…you had the opportunity to, you had the means to, you had plenty of time to do so, and yet you didn’t. You could have even chosen a different example in your response to me here, but you didn’t.
If you want to apply it to other folk, then fine. Which other folk are you referring too? Who is invading America? Please be specific. Names would be helpful.
There is something kind of charming about describing an OP with 11 different cites–including 5 about the violent racism attached to talk of immigration as invasion–as “something something I guess.”
We’ve been over this: as the term is specifically accurate, it’s worth reclaiming from terrorists. Direct repudiation and all that.
Illegal immigrants. You know, by crossing the border without permission: sometimes after having already been deported, but sometimes not.
Then provide some. For heaven’s sake, if I start mentioning “felons” in another thread, would anyone call a halt to ask me to name specific felons? And, if I shrugged and mentioned a murderer, would people insist that, no, it’d be helpful to name someone else, maybe a counterfeiter or something?
I see no value in naming more names — but if you for some reason want to name some, I’ll tell you that, yes, even those who don’t murder anyone can count as invaders in my estimation, just as felons who don’t murder anyone can count as felons in my estimation. That’s what the words mean, is all.
…surely illegal immigrants is specific enough here in terms of your intended usage?
I’m not defending the use of the word invasion. I’m not obligated to provide any names. From the looks of things, illegal immigrant more than fits the bill here, and there isn’t any serious objection to that term in this thread. So why use the term invader or invasion instead? What is the material difference, in your mind?
Because people have outlined the differences here in this thread. If the two terms are interchangeable in your mind, then why not just use the less inflammatory one? And if they aren’t interchangeable, then can you explain the difference?
I suspect that’s the point. You don’t know who she is. You don’t know who any, or at least the vast majority, of the millions of people who you’re calling “invaders” are.
You said that it is. We are in disagreement both about its accuracy and about whether every term that is “accurate”, even if accurate, can or should be reclaimed. And about whether this one ever had an entirely innocuous meaning that it could possibly be said to be “reclaimed” to.
Or, for that matter, whether what you’re doing with the word “invader” should count as “reclaiming” it, even if that’s possible.
This is a hilarious argument. If it’s accurate, it can’t be offensive. Good luck with that.