TYT - ANA KASPARIAN

[Marcus]

Wow, a couple of great posts recently, thank you, RI, Gad and canpakes, and of course the OP for starting the thread. It really helps to be brought up to speed on various issues, and it's great that we can always count on posters here to help with that, across an exceptionally wide range of topics.

...Some of the most important points you've made and others have made is the threats to legal immigration not just illegal immigration, and how Trump did more to hurt and cause chaos with legal immigration than he did to realistically prevent illegal immigration.

This point sums up a lot of the damage Trump is doing in this area. His lies on this topic and on many others are ridiculous and shameful. It's an embarrassment to our country that a former president and current candidate would speak the way he does.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Pioneers?

[Res Ipsa]

I don’t use it because the people aren’t illegal — they performed an illegal act. We don’t call someone who steals a car an illegal thief.

This doesn't work in my view. You can't be someone who steals a car illegally or legally. Due to our laws in this country, there is only one option to describe someone who steals a car. If you steel a car, you are illegally do so - the action is illegal. Immigration is not the same - it can be done either legally or illegally - When the action is illegal - Entering a country without the permission of said country is breaking the country's law and such an action ought to be called illegal - illegal immigration. An immigrant can be either legal or illegal and that is entirely dependent on how they arrived.

So, in part, it’s because I get persnickety about this kind of thing. In part, it’s because labeling a person as illegal seems dehumanizing to me.

But I haven’t landed on an alternative term that is more accurate and not klutzy. Lots of folks use “undocumented immigrant,” but that doesn’t work because it implies some kind of paperwork problem. “Here without permission” works in terms of accuracy, but it’s too klutzy. So, I’ll probably fumble around until I land on something that works for me.

Thanks for sharing your view.

In my mind, descriptors/adjectives are important concerning communication. If someone enters a country to take up permanent residence and they do so illegally, the most accurate description of said person is an illegal immigrant. It really seems rather simple to me.

In addition, I don't see how accurately describing the actions of someone is dehumanizing. If Ceeboo parks his car in a fire lane, that would be illegal parking. It provides an accurate description of the illegal action. (Ceeboo is an illegal parker and Ceeboo would remain an illegal parker as long as he remains parked where it is illegal for him to park) - If Ceeboo enters a country illegally, the accurate way to describe that would be an illegal immigrant and as long as Ceeboo remains in said country illegally, Ceeboo would remain an illegal immigrant.

To describe the illegal action of a human being as dehumanizing is something that I do not understand. To describe actions with accurate words seems to be the most basic and rational way to communicate.

anyway, that's just how I see it.

Thanks Ceeboo. Just to clarify my own view, I don’t believe at all that there is only one right or accurate way to describe anything, especially when we are describing people. We each choose our own words.

I’m not suggesting there is anything wrong with accurately describing a person’s actions. I think that’s exactly what “person here without permission” does. It specifically describes the crime. So would “person here illegally.” So would “person without legal status.” But, the “illegal” in “illegal immigrant” describes the person, not the behavior.

Here’s how I think about your parking example. If you told me that you had parked illegally one time, why in the world would I insist on calling you an “illegal parker?” That would be crazy. In term of strict accuracy, you would be a person who parked illegally. We are all people who do all kinds of things — good things and bad things.

In my opinion, branding a person with a label that applies to something they did reduces the totality of that person to the one adjective out millions that accurately describe the person. It’s not really a problem if the adjective is positive, but if it’s negative, I think it’s dehumanizing in that it ignores the totality of the person’s humanity. If I define a person solely by the fact that they aren’t here legally, then I’m ignoring everything else about them.

The other thing I think about in choosing how I talk about people is tribalism and othering. Defining a person by a behavior that I am critical of separates me from them. I can easily imagine circumstances under which I would cross a border illegally. So, why not emphasize that they are persons, while at the same time accurately describing their conduct. That important to me especially right now when I the extreme degree of othering that’s happening. Within the last couple of days, I’ve heard more than one person say that I’m a demon, not a person. I read someone else describe me as an “unhuman” to be eliminate by any means possible. That’s scary stuff. So, I think it’s important for me to include “person” in my description.

All of this is simply to clarify how I think about descriptions of people. It’s a personal moral and ethical choice. But it’s my morals and my ethics and my choice. You get to figure out your own morals and your own ethics and to make your own personal ethics. It not my intent to claim that the words I choose to use are more moral or ethical than yours or anyone else’s.

[Res Ipsa]

I don’t use it because the people aren’t illegal — they performed an illegal act. We don’t call someone who steals a car an illegal thief. So, in part, it’s because I get persnickety about this kind of thing. In part, it’s because labeling a person as illegal seems dehumanizing to me.

The only problem I see with this, while I understand the concern, is that you give people an 'in' where they shouldn't have one. I'd say throw the right a bone and not wince publicly too much at the words "illegal immigration." Some of the most important points you've made and others have made is the threats to legal immigration not just illegal immigration, and how Trump did more to hurt and cause chaos with legal immigration than he did to realistically prevent illegal immigration. The wall itself was a huge failure, I've seen that admitted to by even strong Trump supporters who worked for Homeland Security. The threats to green card holders and naturalized citizens are next. It's obvious that legal immigration will become increasingly his target because it's much easier to issue executive orders that instantly screw over millions of people and cause chaos for the cheers of his base. Tracking down people who came over in the back of a van for the third time and sending them back for a third time is hard.

By focusing on the language, it just reinforces the idea that the left is overly sensitive, and it gives them a nonsense thing that they can talk about semi-intelligently that doesn't require any actual knowledge about anything. "I think words are important and calling a person who commits a crime a criminal is okay." Well, they aren't wrong about that. I'd say prevent opportunities that allow them to think that they are intelligent and have an actual point.

Hi Gad. Here’s how I think about it. Other than my thoughts, few things are more personal to me than my speech. It’s important to me that my speech track with my values. It’s something I aspire to.

So, the notion that I should take into consideration criticism from the intolerant and illiberal voices you describe makes no sense to me. Over the years, I’ve come to place more and more importance on harm reduction. In an era of highly weaponized language, I’ve started paying more and more attention to my own diction. And that led to an ongoing process of thinking seriously about the words I choose. That’s all personal values and choices. You’ll note that I haven’t criticized Ceeboos choice of words or tried to play language police. My values — my speech.

I think there is also a practical problem with what you suggest. The last 40 years have taught me that the voices you refer to will try to demonize me regardless of what I say or do. They will make stuff up about me at the drop of a hat if they can’t find something factual to mock. Appeasement is ineffective, so why should I compromise my personal values.

[Res Ipsa]

Pioneers?

Show me your papers handcarts!

[Res Ipsa]

Wow, a couple of great posts recently, thank you, RI, Gad and canpakes, and of course the OP for starting the thread. It really helps to be brought up to speed on various issues, and it's great that we can always count on posters here to help with that, across an exceptionally wide range of topics.

...Some of the most important points you've made and others have made is the threats to legal immigration not just illegal immigration, and how Trump did more to hurt and cause chaos with legal immigration than he did to realistically prevent illegal immigration.

This point sums up a lot of the damage Trump is doing in this area. His lies on this topic and on many others are ridiculous and shameful. It's an embarrassment to our country that a former president and current candidate would speak the way he does.

Thanks, Marcus. I’m glad you found something useful in my scribblings.

[ceeboo]

This doesn't work in my view. You can't be someone who steals a car illegally or legally. Due to our laws in this country, there is only one option to describe someone who steals a car. If you steel a car, you are illegally do so - the action is illegal. Immigration is not the same - it can be done either legally or illegally - When the action is illegal - Entering a country without the permission of said country is breaking the country's law and such an action ought to be called illegal - illegal immigration. An immigrant can be either legal or illegal and that is entirely dependent on how they arrived.


Thanks for sharing your view.

In my mind, descriptors/adjectives are important concerning communication. If someone enters a country to take up permanent residence and they do so illegally, the most accurate description of said person is an illegal immigrant. It really seems rather simple to me.

In addition, I don't see how accurately describing the actions of someone is dehumanizing. If Ceeboo parks his car in a fire lane, that would be illegal parking. It provides an accurate description of the illegal action. (Ceeboo is an illegal parker and Ceeboo would remain an illegal parker as long as he remains parked where it is illegal for him to park) - If Ceeboo enters a country illegally, the accurate way to describe that would be an illegal immigrant and as long as Ceeboo remains in said country illegally, Ceeboo would remain an illegal immigrant.

To describe the illegal action of a human being as dehumanizing is something that I do not understand. To describe actions with accurate words seems to be the most basic and rational way to communicate.

anyway, that's just how I see it.

Thanks Ceeboo. Just to clarify my own view, I don’t believe at all that there is only one right or accurate way to describe anything, especially when we are describing people. We each choose our own words.

I’m not suggesting there is anything wrong with accurately describing a person’s actions. I think that’s exactly what “person here without permission” does. It specifically describes the crime. So would “person here illegally.” So would “person without legal status.” But, the “illegal” in “illegal immigrant” describes the person, not the behavior.

Makes sense to me.

Here’s how I think about your parking example. If you told me that you had parked illegally one time, why in the world would I insist on calling you an “illegal parker?”

Because I am still illegally parked. As long as I remain in a position that is illegal, in this case parked, I am an "illegal parker" - If I were to leave the parking spot that I shouldn't be in (legally) then you can stop accurately referring to me as an illegal parker.

That would be crazy. In term of strict accuracy, you would be a person who parked illegally. We are all people who do all kinds of things — good things and bad things.

I agree. For example - If an illegal immigrant was to help an old lady carry her groceries, we would have a very nice, helpful, illegal immigrant. Other behaviors and actions have no impact of the illegal immigrant part.

In my opinion, branding a person with a label that applies to something they did reduces the totality of that person to the one adjective out millions that accurately describe the person.

I just don't agree - No worries though.

It’s not really a problem if the adjective is positive, but if it’s negative, I think it’s dehumanizing in that it ignores the totality of the person’s humanity. If I define a person solely by the fact that they aren’t here legally, then I’m ignoring everything else about them.

Everything else about them ought to be silent when discussing the sole topic of being in the country - They are either here legally or illegally. Of course an illegal immigrant can be warm, kind, and caring, but that doesn't change the reality that they are an illegal immigrant.

The other thing I think about in choosing how I talk about people is tribalism and othering. Defining a person by a behavior that I am critical of separates me from them. I can easily imagine circumstances under which I would cross a border illegally. So, why not emphasize that they are persons, while at the same time accurately describing their conduct. That important to me especially right now when I the extreme degree of othering that’s happening. Within the last couple of days, I’ve heard more than one person say that I’m a demon, not a person. I read someone else describe me as an “unhuman” to be eliminate by any means possible. That’s scary stuff. So, I think it’s important for me to include “person” in my description.

I am sure, under certain circumstances, I would do anything I could to get my family to America (including breaking laws) - So yeah, I am empathetic, and I do understand why people want to come to America. But, none of that Trump's the laws.

All of this is simply to clarify how I think about descriptions of people. It’s a personal moral and ethical choice. But it’s my morals and my ethics and my choice. You get to figure out your own morals and your own ethics and to make your own personal ethics. It not my intent to claim that the words I choose to use are more moral or ethical than yours or anyone else’s.

Fair enough - Thanks!

[Jersey Girl]

I'm doing this on 4 hours sleep. Hopefully it makes some kind of sense.

Ceebs: Because I am still illegally parked. As long as I remain in a position that is illegal, in this case parked, I am an "illegal parker" - If I were to leave the parking spot that I shouldn't be in (legally) then you can stop accurately referring to me as an illegal parker.

You are missing RI's point. RI is distinguishing between a person v. the person's actions or circumstances. I'll emphasize which statement is correct.

The immigrants aren't illegal. Their actions are. Watch...

An autistic child.
A child with autism.

An illegal immigrant.
A person who immigranted through illegal means.

An illegitmate child.
A child born outside of legally recorded marriage.

That last one was about some of my family members. They themselves were not "illegitimate". And just for general purposes...they weren't little bastards either as one uncle referred to my Ma when she was young and innocent and the wound from that stayed with her for life.

We as a society are lazy in our labeling of others. It's handy and hurtful at the same time, and it actually hurts all of us collectively. We use these terms because they are linguistic short hand. The consequence to those we label and to society as a whole is that we dehumanize and otherize large swaths of members of our society, polarize and segregate each other and set the "other" up for harassement and abuse.

We've seen that in the recent "cats, dogs, pet eating" claims re: Haitians by Trump and Co. Illegals! Law and order! Bad genes! Law and Order!...resulted in threats to actual human beings.

You're welcome. I'm going back to sleep now. Zzzzzz.