Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Why 'illegal immigrant' is a Slur (CNN)

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Why 'illegal immigrant' is a Slur (CNN)

    [QUOTE]
    Why 'illegal immigrant' is a slur

    By Charles Garcia, Special to CNN

    Charles Garcia



    updated 1:34 PM EDT, Thu July 5, 2012

    Editor's note: Charles Garcia, who has served in the administrations of four presidents, of both parties, is the CEO of Garcia Trujillo, a business focused on the Hispanic market. He was named in the book "Hispanics in the USA: Making History" as one of 14 Hispanic role models for the nation. Follow him on Twitter: @charlespgarcia. Lea este artículo en español/Read this article in Spanish

    (CNN) -- Last month's Supreme Court decision in the landmark Arizona immigration case was groundbreaking for what it omitted: the words "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens," except when quoting other sources. The court's nonjudgmental language established a humanistic approach to our current restructuring of immigration policy.

    When you label someone an "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" or just plain "illegal," you are effectively saying the individual, as opposed to the actions the person has taken, is unlawful. The terms imply the very existence of an unauthorized migrant in America is criminal.

    In this country, there is still a presumption of innocence that requires a jury to convict someone of a crime. If you don't pay your taxes, are you an illegal? What if you get a speeding ticket? A murder conviction? No. You're still not an illegal. Even alleged terrorists and child molesters aren't labeled illegals.

    By becoming judge, jury and executioner, you dehumanize the individual and generate animosity toward them. New York Times editorial writer Lawrence Downes says "illegal" is often "a code word for racial and ethnic hatred."

    The term "illegal immigrant" was first used in 1939 as a slur by the British toward Jews who were fleeing the Nazis and entering Palestine without authorization. Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel aptly said that "no human being is illegal."

    Migrant workers residing unlawfully in the U.S. are not -- and never have been -- criminals. They are subject to deportation, through a civil administrative procedure that differs from criminal prosecution, and where judges have wide discretion to allow certain foreign nationals to remain here.

    Another misconception is that the vast majority of migrant workers currently out of status sneak across our southern border in the middle of the night. Actually, almost half enter the U.S. with a valid tourist or work visa and overstay their allotted time. Many go to school, find a job, get married and start a family. And some even join the Marine Corps, like Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, who was the first combat veteran to die in the Iraq War. While he was granted American citizenship posthumously, there are another 38,000 undocumented soldiers defending our country.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and three other justices, stated: "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." The court also ruled that it was not a crime to seek or engage in unauthorized employment.

    As Kennedy explained, removal of an unauthorized migrant is a civil matter where even if the person is out of status, federal officials have wide discretion to determine whether deportation makes sense. For example, if an unauthorized person is trying to support his family by working or has "children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service," officials may let him stay. Also, if individuals or their families might be politically persecuted or harmed upon return to their country of origin, they may also remain in the United States.

    While the Supreme Court has chosen language less likely to promote hatred and divisiveness, journalists continue using racially offensive language.

    University of Memphis journalism professor Thomas Hrach conducted a study of 122,000 news stories published between 2000 and 2010, to determine which terms are being used to describe foreign nationals in the U.S. who are out of status. He found that 89% of the time during this period, journalists used the biased terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien."

    Hrach discovered that there was a substantial increase in the use of the term "illegal immigrant," which he correlated back to the Associated Press Stylebook's decision in 2004 to recommend "illegal immigrant" to its members. (It's the preferred term at CNN and The New York Times as well.) The AP Stylebook is the decisive authority on word use at virtually all mainstream daily newspapers, and it's used by editors at television, radio and electronic news media. According to the AP, this term is "accurate and neutral."

    For the AP to claim that "illegal immigrant" is "accurate and neutral" is like Moody's giving Bernie Madoff's hedge fund a triple-A rating for safety and creditworthiness.

    It's almost as if the AP were following the script of pollster and Fox News contributor Frank Luntz, considered the foremost GOP expert on crafting the perfect conservative political message. In 2005, he produced a 25-page secret memorandum that would radically alter the immigration debate to distort public perception of the issue.

    The secret memorandum almost perfectly captures Mitt Romney's position on immigration -- along with that of every anti-immigrant politician and conservative pundit. For maximum impact, Luntz urges Republicans to offer fearful rhetoric: "This is about overcrowding of YOUR schools, emergency room chaos in YOUR hospitals, the increase in YOUR taxes, and the crime in YOUR communities." He also encourages them to talk about "border security," because after 9/11, this "argument does well among all voters -- even hardcore Democrats," as it conjures up the specter of terrorism.

    George Orwell's classic "Nineteen Eighty-Four" shows how even a free society is susceptible to manipulation by overdosing on worn-out prefabricated phrases that convert people into lifeless dummies, who become easy prey for the political class.

    In "Nineteen Eighty-Four," Orwell creates a character named Syme who I find eerily similar to Luntz. Syme is a fast-talking word genius in the research department of the Ministry of Truth. He invents doublespeak for Big Brother and edits the Newspeak Dictionary by destroying words that might lead to "thoughtcrimes." Section B contains the doublespeak words with political implications that will spread in speakers' minds like a poison.

    In Luntz's book "Words That Work," Appendix B lists "The 21 Political Words and Phrases You Should Never Say Again." For example, destroy "undocumented worker" and instead say "illegal immigrant," because "the label" you use "determines the attitudes people have toward them."

    And the poison is effective. Surely it's no coincidence that in 2010, hate crimes against Latinos made up 66% of the violence based on ethnicity, up from 45% in 2009, according to the FBI.

    In his essay "Politics and the English Language," Orwell warned that one must be constantly on guard against a ready-made phrase that "anaesthetizes a portion of one's brain." But Orwell also wrote that "from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase ... into the dustbin, where it belongs" -- just like the U.S. Supreme Court did.
    So, there you go. Soon, the term Illegal Immigrant will be culturally verboten.

    I especially like this part:

    George Orwell's classic "Nineteen Eighty-Four" shows how even a free society is susceptible to manipulation by overdosing on worn-out prefabricated phrases that convert people into lifeless dummies, who become easy prey for the political class.
    Indeed. Sounds familiar, though not in the way I'd expect this author to agree with.
    Last edited by Warfish; 07-05-2012 at 03:07 PM.

  2. #2
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,024
    Post Thanks / Like
    The article should be titled "Why my customer base should be allowed to stay in the country."

  3. #3
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,460
    Post Thanks / Like
    As soon as he invoked the Nazi argument I stopped reading.

    If you're here illegally, guess what -- you're an illegal immigrant.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Journalism . . .

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    Journalism . . .
    not really

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by piney View Post
    not really
    You agree with this article?

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,902
    Post Thanks / Like
    According to the AP, this term is "accurate and neutral."
    Sums it up nicely.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    You agree with this article?
    no, but this isn't journalism, it is an op-ed piece.










    I'm just being a little dickish, nit picking,
    Last edited by piney; 07-05-2012 at 11:04 PM.

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,039
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is my favorite part.
    In this country, there is still a presumption of innocence that requires a jury to convict someone of a crime. If you don't pay your taxes, are you an illegal? What if you get a speeding ticket? A murder conviction? No. You're still not an illegal. Even alleged terrorists and child molesters aren't labeled illegals.
    It's OK to call people who murder "murders" people who commit terrorist acts "terrorists", and people who molest children "child molesters".

    HOWEVER,

    it is hateful and inaccurate to refer to people who cross our borders (immigrate) illegally, "illegal immigrants"? Really??

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Always easier to argue about words than actions. Plus there's the distraction thing.

    Good job.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,467
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by shakin318 View Post
    The article should be titled "Why my customer base should be allowed to stay in the country."
    Or "Why the 1%'s Landscaping and Painting Crew Are Allowed to Stay in the Country"...

  12. #12
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,875
    Post Thanks / Like
    A person who was migrating across the US Border because his compass was lost.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Or "Why the 1%'s Landscaping and Painting Crew Are Allowed to Stay in the Country"...
    Maybe in the country, just not in the Hamptons.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,471
    Post Thanks / Like
    So you can't say someone is an illegal immigrant because that denotes the action not the person? In that case the same media that's so sensitive about this subject should stop identifying armed robbers as armed robbers in their news stories.

    If you comply with the law you are not doing anything illegal, that's quite a difficult concept to grasp.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,467
    Post Thanks / Like
    I can't believe Frank Luntz has gone and worked for the enemy.

    Dark days indeed.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us