Are you claiming my use of the word is inaccurate, or do you want it moderated for some other reason?
…I think presumptively characterizing people seeking asylum as invaders and the process of seeking asylum as an invasion is simply abhorrent. Being inaccurate is the least of the problems with the terms.
I’m not asking whether you think it’s the least of the problems; I’m asking whether it’s a problem at all. I’m asking whether, given the definition of the word, it’s being used correctly; you can of course also mention whether you think it’s abhorrent, but you should first mention whether it also happens to be accurate to say that, well, yes, folks unlawfully entering the country in large numbers would, in fact, meet the definition.
It is o.k. to say something abhorrent on purpose as long as, in some way, it might also be accurate?
Interesting.
Whether it’s abhorrent is a matter of opinion; you say X, and I say Y; and so what? Whether it’s accurate is a matter of fact, and whether we’re going to be a board that disallows the accurate use of a term is likewise a matter of fact.
…given the definition of the word it is not being used correctly.
We aren’t talking large numbers here.
We are talking individuals. That was my original question. You have conflated the individual act of seeking asylum with the actions of a group.
We know what you mean.
You think asylum seekers are invading America.
We get it.
You are being crystal clear.
And you are incorrect. And the word should be moderated in this context for being inaccurate, for being inflammatory, for being a racist dog-whistle.
…a group can be a large number of individuals. Just as “illegal immigrants” can be folks engaged in individual acts, and yet somehow add up to a large number of illegal immigrants, so too can individuals who unlawfully enter the country (a) be presumed ineligible for asylum, and (b) add up to a large number of invaders.
There’s nothing odd about it; either way, we can ask whether it’s happening, and, if so, whether it’s happening in large numbers. And we can do that even if the answer to the first question involves individual acts.
Invaders implies hostile intent - the vast majority of migrants have no hostile intent, and thus aren’t invaders. It’s highly inaccurate and highly offensive.
You may be inferring it, but, no, it doesn’t; I’m looking right at a dictionary definition that doesn’t include it, sure as the dictionary example given above was of squatters in a waste land merely hoping they’ll be allowed to stay.
Just ignore this part, right?
Or: “to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage” — with the “usually” and the “or” working their magic, and with the clarifying followup example of “Hundreds of squatters have invaded waste land in the hope that they will be allowed to stay.”
Yes; it’s of course compatible with a hostile intent, but it’s also compatible with the reverse: being unwanted, which explicitly isn’t required, would tell us nothing of a hostile intent on their part — sure as being there to take possession, as with the hopeful squatters in a waste land, isn’t necessarily a hostile intent — and the “or” means we can set the rest aside.
That’s not how it’s used. People don’t say invaders for migrants because they think it’s the most accurate term, they use it because they think it’s the best way to convince people to join them in their hatred of immigrants. Pretty much exactly how any other slur is used.
Like it or not, lots of Americans hate immigrants. Lots of politicians drum up and use that hatred for political purposes.
I do.
And that says something about you, not the people you’re referring to.
I’m happy to see that we’re calling out this kind of hatred. It always starts like this.
The French term, which I like, is sans papiers. The undocumented. Doesn’t say anything about intentions or debate the right for a person to exist. It simply states the condition a person is in at the moment.
But what if they have papers? What if they are documented?
Then they have as much right to be here as anyone else, why?
But it’s then less accurate to say they’re without papers, or undocumented.
How about fellow human?
Sure. “That fellow human is an invader.”
I’m getting the feeling that even if they come here totally legally you still consider them “invaders”.