A very short play (or maybe a future comic strip, if I think of a punchline):
SHERMY: Now, what William here proposes we increase widget production.
BILLY: Actually, it’s “Billy,” if you don’t mind.
SHERMY: I think I like “William” better. It seems more accurate to me.
BILLY: “Billy” is accurate – the two words mean the same thing.
SHERMY: You’re wrong, because “Billy” might also refer to a goat. Or a policeman’s club. Or maybe the 1969 musical, or the short-lived Steve Guttenberg situation comedy on CBS. Oh, my god, what about Billy Beer? What if I say “go get Billy!” and my assistant gets me a beer? The word “Billy” is just too confusing to be understood.
BILLY: Look, we’re talking about what I’m called. My preference should be deferred to.
SHERMY: Yeah, but I’m the one who has to call you something.
Although Billy is right on the merits, the merits are secondary. This is a conversation about power and respect. Billy would like to have enough power and respect to be seen as an equal, and one way he can test that is by asking others to call him “Billy” instead of “William.” As Billy moves up in the organization and has more power and respect, fewer and fewer people will call him “William.” (His mom still will, though, because you never have so much power and respect that your mom can’t call you whatever she wants to.)
Shermy, in contrast, wants to demonstrate that he still has more power and respect than “William,” and one way of doing that is by refusing to defer to Billy’s sensibilities on what Billy should be called.
This is a debate that has happened over and over. Remember when right-wingers bitterly objected to the terms “people of color” and “African-American”? Years before that, the same people were clinging to the word “negro.” In 1995, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, during an interview, called Barney Frank “Barney Fag,” and then – crucially – had to apologize. In the 1970s, for adults to expect to be called “women” instead of “girls” seemed like a big deal. I myself am still struggling to purge the word “lame” from my vocabulary.
Every marginalized group faces this fight – do they have this most basic level of power and respect, the ability to decide how they will be referred to in civilized discussion?
And the steps forward are often small and marginal. The AP has revised its style guide, and will no longer use the term “illegal immigrant”:
illegal immigration Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.
Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented.
It’s a step.
Describing someone in terms of their status is appropriate when their status is the topic of the discussion. I think the AP is wrong here.
Hey, I wrote my own! This was fun!
SHERMY: Officer, please arrest William and remove him from my yard. He is a trespasser.
WILLIAM: Actually, it’s “a person who may or may not happen to have the owner’s specific permission to be on their property at that moment in time” if you don’t mind. I don’t want to be defined by my status.
SHERMY: Screw that; I like “trespasser” better. It seems more accurate to me. And dude: I’m defining you by your status because I only care about your status. It’s what’s relevant.
WILLIAM: I am a person, not a trespasser.
SHERMY: I don’t care if you’re a fucking alien shape-changer or a post-surgical Bill Clinton. I don’t care about your hopes and dreams. I only care about a single, particular action, i.e. trespassing. And dude. Get the hell off my crocuses.
WILLIAM:I am not a trespasser; I am a person. More specifically, I’m “a person who may or may not happen to have the owner’s specific permission to be on their property at that moment in time.” Just call me what I want.
SHERMY: Seriously? It’s my property that you’re on. You’re breaking my rules. Let’s keep that in mind, OK? I’ll call you Sir William the Seventh if you want in another situation, but don’t walk on my lawn and tell me I can’t call you a trespasser.
WILLIAM: Look, we’re talking about what I’m called. My preference should be deferred to.
SHERMY: Yeah, but… you’re not getting this. What about MY preferences that you stay off my lawn?
WILLIAM: Those are not semantic in nature. I will agree to discuss them only if you refer to me as a “person who may or may not happen to have the owner’s specific permission to be on their property at that moment in time.”
SHERMY: Jeez. What about MY preferences that the issue of trespassing is what is important here?
WILLIAM: Those preferences are not semantic in nature. And I don’t agree that’s the issue at all. I will agree to discuss the issues, I suppose, but only if you refer to me as a “person who may or may not happen to have the owner’s specific permission to be on their property at that moment in time.”
SHERMY: So in order to discuss the fact that you’re trespassing I can’t call you a trespasser?
WILLIAM: Yes. Any effect on your ability to make a cogent argument in favor of anti-trespassing laws is, of course, an entirely incidental and unexpected outcome. (coughBIGOTcough)
SHERMY: What did you just say?
WILLIAM: Nothing! (coughBIGOTcough)
SHERMY: So let me get this straight. Not only did you walk on my newly planted grass, but having done so you’re suggesting that I have to use a term that doesn’t reflect the reality that you’re currently trespassing?
WILLIAM: Yes, that’s exactly right.
SHERMY: Jeez. So you want to exist in a world where you have the right to do what you want and also demand that I use your moniker of choice?
WILLIAM: Yes. I’m glad you understand.
SHERMY: That world ends at the border of my goddamn lawn.
The absolute guaranteed 100% effective way to NEVER EVER be referred to as an “illegal immigrant” or “illegal alien” is…. not to be one.
As Kevin Drum notes, the AP doesn’t have a guide on what to call such a group.
In your example, Shermy changes his position on what he wants to call William partway through. First he calls him “Billy,” then he insists that the name “Billy” is too confusing.
[Whoops! That’s embarrassing. Thanks for pointing that out. I’ve edited the post to fix the problem. –Amp]
You’re really quite wrong about that.
By the way, “illegal immigrant” has six syllables; “unauthorized immigrant” has seven. I don’t think the extra syllable will kill anyone, and the claim that having to call people “unauthorized immigrants” will have “any effect on your ability to make a cogent argument in favor of” laws to reduce unauthorized immigration is nonsense. If you have any cogent arguments, then those arguments won’t magically cease to make sense because you use the word “unauthorized.” (Or the word “undocumented.”)
But I guess if you don’t have any cogent arguments, then blaming your inability to defend your position on the awful circumstance of having to treat someone else with respect is as good an excuse as any.
As a former (and future) fully legal, documented alien in the USA, I am worried by this, because of the situation described in the link Sebastian H provided. Documented immigrants are *also* a marginalized group, and one of the constant worries is the fact that the general public, and some segments in law enforcement, do not differentiate between the two types of immigrants. I sympathize with the attempt to move away from problematic language, but there have to be clear guidelines about how to talk about the two groups because obscuring the difference between them hurts those immigrants that have legal status in the USA for no fault of their own.
(Note: If the AP had simply stated using ‘unauthorized’ instead of ‘illegal’, then I would have no concern. My concern is that the AP seems to have only done half the necessary work here)
But Amp:
it isn’t just about “respect,” is it? You’re not that naive. You certainly know that it’s about an attempt to use the public discourse to change perceptions of illegal immigration. It stems from a desire to de-emphasize the fact that laws were broken; de-emphasize any border issues, and focus on other facts instead.
That being a BS goal, it’s also a BS process.
In this context, Billy deserves power and respect. In the context of breaking the law on a continuing basis to both enter the United States and remain here and either work or subsist on public support, illegal aliens deserve neither.
G-i-W is correct. It’s the same process that seeks to remove the legal term describing a non-citizen who is in this country illegally – “illegal alien” – from public discourse. Equating the desire of someone to be called by the name they choose with the desire of a lawbreaker to be called by a term that disguises the fact that they are breaking the law is bullshit.
Amp, from that second link:
It seems to me that when a criminal lies to the cops about who they are its understandable that a mistake about your identity can happen – and that they might not buy off on your claims that you’re not lying again. Something that the government should take steps to avoid, but it’s not like she didn’t contribute to both the identity confusion and her lack of credibility. It appeals to my sympathy, but not my outrage.
No, but I remember that when I asked for a definition of the term I was told that I knew what it meant and that I was a racist for asking.
I’ve asked repeatedly in numerous places and I still haven’t seen a definition of the term.
My reaction to the wrongful arrests is: not good, but OK in general.
It’s not OK to have it as a GOAL. And it’s not OK in any specific instance. We should set up systems which attempt to avoid catching innocent people, balanced with our desire to catch guilty people. And we should act rapidly to free them if we catch them.
But systems are imperfect, and an imperfection isn’t enough to suggest we shouldn’t stop convicting rapists; ticketing speeders; or punishing criminals just because some folks are entirely innocent, right? I fail to see why the same logic doesn’t apply here, unless you’re deliberately trying to insist on perfection in an effort to make the process unsustainable.
Which, again, would be odd, because you don’t do that anywhere else, right?
G&W, you’re putting arguments I never made into my mouth. (Or keyboard).
You made a false claim, using extremely strong terms: “The absolute guaranteed 100% effective way to NEVER EVER be referred to as an “illegal immigrant” or “illegal alien” is…. not to be one.”
All I did was point out that your statement was false. The correct reaction from you would have been to say “okay, good point, I was exaggerating” or something like that (because your claim really was ridiculous).
Instead, you’re leaping to a new false claim: that I had argued that because the system isn’t perfect, therefore we should never deport anyone. Of course, I never made any such argument.
Please stop strawmanning me.
Ron:
According to Williams’ account – which is all we’ve got, since ICE has refused to say how they wound up deporting an American citizen – she was not interviewed, nor was ICE’s identification verified, before she was deported. This breaks with the procedure; people being deported to Honduras are supposed to be interviewed by the local consulate to confirm that the person being deported is actually Honduran.
This is one of many safeguards that are commonly skipped by ICE, which is under enormous pressure to deport enormous numbers of people. But the reason for the safeguard is to prevent exactly this kind of error from happening.
You seem to think that if a person has lied in the past, that justifies US officials assuming that they’re lying about being a citizen and chucking them out of the country. It’s as if you’ve never even heard of “due process” and “innocent until proven guilty.” No one should be exported without some kind of proof that they’re not an American, and any credible claim of being an American should be investigated prior to deportation. Saying “well, we think she’s a liar, so we don’t have to check out her story” is not reasonable.
But really, and with all due respect, this is your fault, Ron. You and the people like you, who demand an enormous apparatus to ship undocumented immigrants out of the country, but are opposed to raising revenues, even though the things you want the Federal government to do costs a lot of money. The result, inevitably, is a system that cuts corners, skips safeguards, is needlessly harsh and cruel to detainees, and makes more mistakes than it should.
If I could talk to the other person in that conversation, I sincerely doubt that they would agree with your account of it.
From Wikipedia:
You’re welcome.
G&W:
I’m not absolutely certain, but as far as I can tell, ICE has set up a system with far fewer safeguards against punishing the innocent than I’d like.
You’re right that any system will inevitably make the wrong decision once in a while; but if people are rushed out of the country in two weeks, while safeguards are reportedly skipped, and with no real oversight of the system, then clearly errors will happen more often than otherwise.
The fact that the executive branch is far more motivated to get good numbers (i.e., high numbers of deportations) than to protect the innocent makes matters worse, and guarantees that ICE will have the wrong incentives.
Oh, I see. Yes, I was exaggerating. Since we’ve had this discussion before and since you’re presumably aware of what I do it frankly never occurred to me that you would NOT understand that I was exaggerating. But I apologize if I wasn’t more clear.
If you want to look at straw men, though, perhaps you should revisit the OP above. You’re trying to suggest that people attack NAMES, when it’s perfectly clear that people are talking about STATUS. It’s obnoxious for you to call me rum-and-coke or for me to call you Ampy, but we refer to people w/r/t status all the time here and elsewhere; see, e.g., arrestee, detainee, defendant, rapist, victim, privileged people, oppressors, etc.
That’s OK when the status is the issue.
If you’re talking about white privilege then you might reasonably refer to me as “privileged.” But it would be obnoxious to refer to me as “privileged” in the context of a debate about football rankings, just as it is obnoxious to refer to someone as an “illegal immigrant” in the context of the Pepsi Challenge. But that’s not what you’re talking about here and I think you know it.
Who are these idiots, Ron?
These people who could read a news story about ICE attempting to deport undocumented immigrants who have overstayed their visa, or who snuck across the border, and say “DUH! I can’t tell what this story is about! I have no idea what ‘undocumented immigrants’ could POSSIBLY mean, even though the story involves them being arrested for being non-citizens and then deported. I guess the term must mean they manufacture ice cream, right?”
Get real. The term “undocumented immigrants” in no way disguises what was done or what’s being talked about. Your claim that you object to the term for that reason does not pass the smell test, because it’s perfectly obvious what the term means.
You can pick on any metaphor by saying “look! It’s not exactly alike in every respect!” But I think my metaphor was on-target in what mattered.
There’s a few terms for undocumented immigrants – like “illegals” and “illegal alien” and “illegal immigrant” – that undocumented immigrants, as well as Americans who advocate for them, find offensive. There are alternative terms for those folks – such as “unauthorized immigrant” – that convey the status.
The disagreement here isn’t about conveying the status – whether we call them “illegals” or “unauthorized immigrants,” the status is conveyed. (The claim that people who talk about this issue don’t understand what “unauthorized immigrants” means is bullshit.)
The issue is whether we will use the term that includes contempt for the people being talked about, or not. This debate is about contempt (and it’s opposite, respect), not about status.
Amp(y):
But, it is not the most precise term, either. There are many different gradations here. There are those who enter legally and those who enter illegally. There are those who enter legally on “immigrant” visas and those who enter legally on “non-immigrant” visas. The word, “immigrant” is, consequently, more ambiguous than “alien,” because some “aliens” have no intention of immigrating.
Some would rather retain their citizenship in Mexico (or wherever), but would simply like to be able to pass more easily over the border (one reason why pushing a “Pathway to Citizenship” may be misguided, when some only desire a guest-worker status). And, ironically, the laws intended to keep them out are the same laws that keep them in.
I guess my point is: trying to find a single term that accurately captures the variety of situations AND pleases everyone involved is likely impossible.
-Jut(y)
Amp:
Now who’s strawmanning? I didn’t say it was O.K. I said it was understandable. I also said it was something that the government should avoid. Since when is something that’s O.K. something to avoid?
Thus substituting one non-specific term for another. What’s “not white”? My heritage includes 3/32 African (which has been verified) and possibly 1/16 Native American (which my late mother claimed but which I have so far not attempted to verify – and as it just now strikes me, coincidentally like Massachusetts’ junior Senator). Am I “not white”? Am I a “person of color”? According to the definition you have referenced, why or why not?
No, I’ve in fact asked that the Feds properly fund this function using the enormous amount of revenues that the government already raises. But Congress and the successive Administrations have ignored my request and allocated the money elsewhere instead. Blame them. I have a perfect right to demand that the government perform one of the most basic obligations that justifies it’s existence – secure the borders. If the government would spend more money securing them it would spend a lot less money dealing with the consequences of not doing so. It always costs more to clean up the mess made by not fixing a problem than it does to fix the problem in the first place.
We could also save money by withholding Federal law-enforcement subsidies from local law enforcement until they agree to assist the Federal government in enforcing the law and stop this nonsense of “sanctuary cities”.
By the way, it’s been noted by many that while the AP has asked to remove this term from it’s stylebook, it’s not supplied an alternative. Last night I watched Jay Leno also note this. He then suggested an alternative – “undocumented Democrats”. Apparently he recognizes that the GOP is nuts to think that helping to make citizens of people who came here illegally from countries (yeah, I said “countries”, not “Mexico”) where the citizenry expects a lot more services from their government than are commonly supplied here will get those people to vote for them. They’re going to oppose the GOP because of their principles (at least, those that they claim to have, as opposed to those they have often demonstrated), not because they did or did not oppose them becoming citizens.
I fail to see why I should have any concern whatsoever about offending either lawbreakers or those who advocate on their behalf on the basis of the term I use to describe them – especially when it’s a term used in Federal law to describe them.
JutGory also makes a point I’ve made a number of times. “undocumented immigrant” or “illegal immigrant” or “undocumented worker” all fail to properly describe the people being talked about. “Worker” fails because many of them are not workers. “Immigrant” fails because many of them do not intend to live here the rest of their lives. “Alien” is the term used in Federal law to describe non-citizens present in the United States. The term has been used in either U.S. law, it’s antecedents in colonial law or their antecedents in English law since at least A.D. 1500 or before. “Illegal alien” is the term used to describe non-citizens present in the United States illegally. And it describes non-citizens here illegally regardless of whether they work or not, whether they intend to stay here or not and whether they initially came over the border legally or not.
I never claimed that people didn’t understand what is meant by those terms. I claim that the terms are designed to obscure the issue. And it succeeds, to an extent. How often have you heard a politician or commentator described as “anti-immigrant” only to find, if you bother to check, that they really only oppose people being permitted to stay here illegally, but either have spoken approvingly of legal immigration or have never offered an opinion on it? The use of terms such as “undocumented immigrant” are meant to minimize that difference in the public mind, as if it was a purely administrative or bureaucratic issue.
It’s not alike in the way that matters. It’s a bad metaphor–not because it’s less than 100% accurate (no metaphor is) but because it is sneakily inaccurate in a way that occludes the issue.
I gave specific examples of other labels. You haven’t addressed those. I gave examples of why the status is relevant. You haven’t addressed those, either. You just keep saying “it’s relevant” but it ain’t.
So what? Avoiding offense is not my primary goal; nor does it appear to be yours.
I’d prefer not to offend people, all else being equal. But I won’t allow political opponents to attempt to limit discourse in an effort to stifle my position. Based on the actions and statements of such advocates, what they find offensive is things like limits on immigration, or the deportation of illegal immigrants, or the enforcement of immigration laws.
The statement “you do not have a right to enter or remain in this country without permission, and you need to leave” may be inherently offensive to such people. But again: so what? They think they have the right to be here; I think they’re wrong. It’s unsurprising that they are offended by it, but I’m not going to avoid saying so.
Some folks think opposition to illegal immigration is racist. This, too, is a big political issue: pro-illegal-immigration activists benefit from calling folks racist (whether or not they are) because it makes opposition more difficult. Both racists and non-racists fight against such labelling because it makes their opposition more difficult. But surely you wouldn’t require that people refrain from using that term. Right?
No, they fail to convey the illegality and fundamental issues of sovereignty. Which is surely intentional. Note, however, that the dispute between “illegals” and “illegal immigrants” does NOT have that difference. That’s why it’s reasonable to insist on “illegal immigrant” over “illegal.”
More to the point, it retreats to the BS concept that you get to tell me how I need to refer to something which is important to me. There are some very very limited exceptions to this, but as a rule it doesn’t fly.
And seriously, when do you normally uphold this rule? When cis folks don’t like being called cisgendered? When white folks don’t like being called privileged? When rape defendants want to have themselves described as “presumed innocents who may have been improperly accused? reading this blog, it seems like the answer is “pretty much never.” Which creates a problem.
I’ve given a very partial list of a few common labels, in my post above: arrestee, detainee, defendant, rapist, victim, privileged people, oppressors, etc.
Would you like to explain why you’re insisting on the accuracy of a will/william personal name metaphor rather than a status metaphor?
Again: You think it’s adequately conveyed. I don’t. OK, then you should use whatever term you want, and so will I. I certainly don’t think that I have a right to tell YOU what term to use, and I suspect you’d agree, right?
No. It is not. As the speaker, I’m clearly telling you–and I know better than you do about the thoughts behind my own speech!–that this is about contempt for conduct, not for people. I don’t blame people for wanting to break the law, but I don’t like the results.
I dislike their position, or in some cases, their actions. But if they change their position or actions then that dislike goes away. That is about as good as you can get for evidence that it’s about what they DO OR SAY, not who they ARE.
Now, you may say that as the listener, you feel that I have contempt for you, or for illegal immigrants in general. That is your subjective right, just as I may rightly feel that you are raising the “offense” issue as a back door around a difficult argument.
But you’ve got no moral standing to assign me a mental position which I am specifically disclaiming, especially in a post which purports to support self determination. That would be akin to my telling folks that they have “no right to be offended,” which I am 100% absolutely sure that you wouldn’t agree with. And that’s not exaggeration.
Actually, according to the AP “undocumented immigrants” isn’t ok either. So it isn’t undocumented vs. illegal. It is…… I don’t know what vs both undocumented and illegal. That is what strikes me as odd. It isn’t about respecting what people want to call themselves. It seems like an attempt to remove the category from discussion at all.
Look, the problem is that this is a road that has no ending. Fine, you draw your line where you like: when someone breaks the law, you’re no longer bound to do them the courtesy of using their favored term of reference. I’ll draw the line where I like: when someone expresses bigoted sentiments, I’m no longer bound to use their favored term of reference.
Pretty soon, we’re just calling one another names.
This is why there needs to be a more general rule, like, “call people what they’d like to be called.” Because, see, if you get to draw your own line, I get to draw my own line, and then we’re off to the races.
Maybe there ought to be a line neither of us cross.
—Myca
Myca:
Fine, but I don’t see how that’s germane to the issue here.
I’ve addressed “people of color” above. As far as “African-American” goes, the people I have talked to don’t object to “African-American”. They object to “[nationality/ethnicity]-American”, regardless of what nationality or ethnicity you plug in there. “Mexican-American”, “Irish-American”, etc. are all objectionable, as they imply that the person involved has a split loyalty – with the first one having primacy of place. Now, you may disagree with the thinking behind this, but my point is that the focus is not a racist one focused on “African-American” specifically.
They can draw their own lines. I can just draw my conclusion from it that they’re assweasels.
And if someone asks me to call them a thing I find unacceptable (e.g. if some group chooses to rebrand itself as the Rachel Swirsky is an Assweasel Group), I will refuse to do it. Then they can conclude I’m an assweasel. Which the people in that example already apparently did. ;)
As a legal immigrant, I have no problem with any of ‘illegal alien’, ‘undocumented immigrant’, etc… as long as they are applied to people who are indeed in the States illegally, or who are undocumented.
As far as I am concerned, they are people who have done something wrong, and the most to which they have a right is to be called ‘alleged’ before their guilt is proven.
As for the little sketch, I find it dishonest.
Would my friend Vanya have the right to insist on being called ‘Boss’, because his last name is Bosniak?
If a religious nut insisted to be referred as ‘Enlightened’, or ‘Saved One’, or ‘You who will not spend an eternity screaming in pain the way I will’… would you do so?
Because if you would not, then it all comes to your feelings about the people in question.
I call my Bosnian/Serbian/Croates friends ‘Ex-Yugo’ because that particular group prefers to think of themselves that way. But some of the recently arrived Macedonians have a name for themselves that is meant to be a put-down to Bulgarians. If they think I’ll use it, they’re crazy. But turnabout is fair play – I cannot complain when they call me Chernozapii.
It has to do with general standards of civil discourse. If you’d rather not have people referring to you in ways which you find offensive, you need to not refer to others in ways which they find offensive.
—Myca
“undocumented immigrants who have overstayed their visa, or who snuck across the border”
That right there is the problem with the phrase “undocumented immigrant.” Someone who overstaying a visa is documented, in the sense the the US government knows who that person is and gave him/her permission to enter; someone who snuck across the border is not. Those two methods of entry are treated very differently under federal law. If you want an umbrella term for all people who are here without permission, “unauthorized immigrant” makes more sense.
As far as I am concerned, they are people who have done something wrong
You are assuming that every person present in the US who does not have ‘papers in order’ deliberately came here knowing they had no right to. That….doesn’t make sense, to put it mildly. What has the two-year-old whose parents snuck him across the border at six months of age “done wrong” – failed to toddle into the nearest USCIS office and throw a tantrum until he was deported? What about victims of human trafficking, asylum-seekers, people who believed their immigration papers were being properly handled but weren’t? What about those people who are trying to make their status legitimate, but are trying to deal with the byzantine and often flat-out contradictory maze of our immgration system?
(When my then-fiance and I were trying to, legally, bring him to the US, we used to joke that INS was a secret Cold War experiment to try to replicate a Soviet bureaucracy that got way out of hand and escaped its keepers.)
It’s not a simple division of “people who filled out their forms like they were supposed to” and “evil leeches who snuck across the border on purpose”.
What about the people who intentionally entered illegally, are subject to deportation, are overstaying their visas, don’t have permission to be here, etc?
Those things don’t make sense either. It’s the other side of the “can’t we all be reasonable?” coin, right? I don’t see a lot of reasonableness there, to put it mildly. It’s not as if folks are saying “look, leave the kids and asylum seekers alone but it’s A-OK to target other folks.”
Actually, there has been major legislation – The DREAM Act – written to help “the kids” and no one else, year after year.
Virtually all Republicans in Congress have opposed the DREAM Act. Since the last election, there has been some noise about the GOP softening its stance, but I refuse to believe it until it moves from talk, which is very cheap, to votes in Congress.
Which is unsurprising.
People want to make concessions in context. Here’s an example of something that folks would get behind: “help the kids and the asylum seekers; actively deport those general people who came in illegally as adults. Leave the middle categories (such as overstaying visas) alone for now; they’re complicated.”
But the pro-illegal-immigration lobby won’t sign on to that. And if they’re not willing to agree to active deportation of the one class who has absolutely no legal right to be here, why do them favors?
The Democrats in Congress would readily agree to that. (Obama has deported more undocumented immigrants than Bush ever did.) But the GOP will not agree to that.
I know that you want (for reasons that are unknown to me) to defend the idea that no one has ever, ever been unreasonable in this debate other than the so-called “pro-illegal-immigration” lobby. But that’s ludicrous.
Myca:
I’m still not clear here. Is your point that you are referring to me as bigoted, presuming I will be offended thereby, and equating that to offending someone someone here illegally by calling them an illegal alien?
Amp:
I can go along with setting up a path for citizenship for someone brought here under a to-be-determined age by their parents. They’d get permanent resident alien status immediately and then there would be some requirements designed to ensure that they are assimilated into American culture (e.g., facility in English, education past high school or military service, passing a civics examination, etc., all by some age) – not something unobtainable to block them from achieving citizenship, but enough to ensure they’ve bought into American culture.
However – no citizenship for anyone who came here on their own or as an adult. Ever. Period. If they have a work/education history, haven’t spent much time on government support, learn English, no felony record, then they can get permanent resident alien status. But no further. Not even if they marry an American citizen or have citizens as family. They can stay here (absent a subsequent felony conviction), have unlimited work privileges (unless it requires a security clearance), own property, participate in Social Security, etc.
Tied to this will be a requirement that this will all be dependent on an effective border security package. “Effective” is measured not by input but by output. In other words, “Well, we hired ‘x’ ICE personnel and spent ‘y’ on other security measures” won’t cut it. It’s too easy to play games with that kind of thing. What will have to be shown is “As of 2012 there were ‘x’ number of people either crossing illegally or going out of compliance once they entered on a work permit/student visa/tourist visa – as of 2016 ‘x’ had been reduced by 70%.”
Federal subsidies will be withheld from any State/county/municipal law enforcement authority that does not cooperate with Federal immigration law enforcement.
Any bank accepting ID other than a foreign passport or something issued by a State or U.S. authority that indicates that the person is in the U.S. legally to make a loan or open an account (including a credit card) would lose it’s access to Federal loan, insurance or any other programs. The bank would not be required to verify the ID outside of ordinary due diligence.
Corporate officers of employers would be subject to jail time if they employed illegal aliens. Use of eVerify to verify someone’s eligiblity to work would be an affirmative defense against such charges.
Now – is that something that the Democratic party will sign off on?
Interesting discussion. Two points:
1) Amp, Ron is right that you’ve evaded his definitional request. Wikipedia’s “Person of color (plural: people of color; persons of color) is a term used primarily in the United States to describe any person who is not white. ” is a definition by exception – and that’s an acceptable way to define something, if the exception is defined with clarity.
Wikipedia’s definition of whiteness is muddled beyond the point of usefulness and into the point of parody: “The definition of “white person” differs according to geographical and historical context. Various social constructions of whiteness have had implications in terms of national identity, consanguinity, public policy, religion, population statistics, racial segregation, affirmative action, eugenics, racial marginalization and racial quotas. The concept has been applied with varying degrees of formality and internal consistency in disciplines including sociology, politics, genetics, biology, medicine, biomedicine, language, culture and law.”
So that’s one gigantic handwave, which boils down to “it depends” and “ask again later – picture cloudy”. Which in turn makes the definition by exception, utter crap.
Crowdsourcing having failed to address Ron’s point, maybe you can take another crack at it. What’s a person of color?
I don’t think you can give a coherent definition that doesn’t ignore or evade biological science, rely on reductionism about people’s perceptions, or go the handwaving Wikipedia “it all depends” route.
2) Washington State just passed its own version of the DREAM Act. (Oddly, the liberals who loudly proclaim that immigration is a Federal bailiwick and the states should leave it strictly alone, didn’t have much to say.) Key takeaway of the bill:
The children of inappropriately-paperworked transnational migratory persons of color, maybe, now get in-state tuition at Washington state schools. The same in-state tuition that I (and thousands more like me in Washington alone, millions of people nationwide) spent years and years trying to qualify for so that we could afford college. In the intervening years, I’d say that I conservatvely spent $5k in 1990 dollars on out-of-state tuition and fees, at a time when a $20k income was a pretty good year. Probably about $10k worth today.
And which the admittedly blameless children of our Brothers and Sisters From Other Lands With Casual Attitudes Towards Border Respect will now get automatically. But you know, I was blameless too. I didn’t tell my parents to get assigned to Oklahoma during my high school years, giving me in-state tuition rates to the shittiest colleges in America.
So I don’t feel disrespected or put upon at all, and I only wish that I lived in Washington, so that I could pay state income tax to give the children of casual-border freelance libertarians a benefit that I as an American citizen wasn’t good enough for. I think I’d be wiping my ass on the tax documents. Blank ones, though, that I’d then carefully write YOUR name in on. No need to be foolsihly Spartacus-like in our activism.
OR
Here’s a simple concept:
All illegal aliens in the U.S., upon discovery, will be subject to the same penalties as American citizens would be if they were in that alien’s home country illegally.
@RonF, that is simple, all right.
@gin-and-whiskey: I’m not understanding your point. Sebastian said that everybody here without proper documentation is malicious. When I pointed out this is not true, you responded that hey, SOME of them did something wrong. Well, yes; and?
I don’t quite follow your attempt to separate people’s undocumented status into ‘simple’ and ‘complicated’; the lines are not that neat, and let’s be honest, whether someone is able to be here illegally because of deliberately overstating a tourist visa….as opposed to bring smuggled across the Arizona desert, say….is not a criterion free of a lot of problematic issues, like race and class. And, of course, the aforementioned immigration system.
I don’t see how it’s pro-illegal-immigration to think there should be a difference in our system between the guy who wants to pick strawberries to feed his family (working for a system that all but requires his labor) and the MS-13 leader who’s been deported once already.
There is a difference in the system for someone who wants to come here and do honest work and an MS-13 gang leader. It’s called an H-2A visa. According to an article in last Sunday’s Chicago Tribune, about 6% of agricultural workers come here using it. Those of the rest who are not American citizens are illegal aliens. The Trib (the common Chicago slang term for the Chicago Tribune) interviewed a farmer using the H-2A program. From the article (link to the L.A. Times, owned by the Trib):
This sounds like a pretty expensive program, and I’m curious why he has to provide all these benefits to people here on visas that he is not required to provide to American workers. I’m sure that some of them at least are in there so that these folks aren’t taken advantage of, and I understand some such protections are appropriate, but this seems a bit far down that road. I’m especially curious as to why he has to pay them above minimum wage – minimum wage for foreigners is higher than minimum wage for Americans?
This program needs to be made cheaper and more efficient (both of which I imagine is controlled by the Executive branch). And teeth need to be put into enforcement and penalties for the people who don’t use it.
Robert:
You need to read the laws those other lands have regarding crossing borders into their country illegally and then come up with a new name. They’re FAR from casual about that. It’s, shall we say, a one-way street.
RonF: Actually China does something similar, in that they mirror visa policy. This has a really unfortunate effect for US citizens in that the cost of a China visa, for me, is something like $180, because unlike any other country, the US makes people pay out the nose for visa application fees. (Most other country charge you just for the processing time and the printing: Usually it’s around $20.)
The effect of a mirroring policy in the US would be to dramatically reduce the penalties for overstaying a visa. I have been an unauthorized resident of a foreign country before, in Taiwan (ROC). I had to pay a fine (under $100, can’t remember the exact amount) and got a stamp in my passport saying I couldn’t enter the country without special permission for a year — in other words if I had a good reason to come back, I could, I just had to apply specially for it. As it happens, I didn’t, so I don’t know how arduous that process would have been.
This is actually stricter than most countries, and stricter than Taiwan was until very recently. They had a huge problem with unauthorized immigrant English teachers (who weren’t paying taxes) so they cracked down.
The story of why this happened is I was busy studying for midterms and I missed my deadline to extend my visitor (student) visa. I went to the police to see what could be done and they said “sorry, there’s nothing to be done, but if you don’t make a big deal about it, we won’t give you a deportation order so you can finish your coursework and won’t have to change your plane tickets.” Which I thought was awfully nice of them.
This would _never have happened_ in the US. If I was a Taiwanese student in a similar situation happen in the US, I would be fined considerably more, and deported (with no chance to finish my coursework) and I would be denied entry to the US for _20 years_, regardless of circumstances (no special permission possible). Furthermore, if I had gone to ICE with my situation they would have deported me immediately. Further furthermore, the visa extension process in the US is way more complicated and prolonged, so it is far more likely I would have missed the deadline due to too much schoolwork.
So I would love to implement your proposal. I think it could result in a serious expansion of immigration into the US (which we desperately need) and also a general reduction of border intensity and immigration law around the world (which the world desperately needs.)
I don’t see why we would tie our immigration laws to another country. They’re ours to decide. Moreover, they base realities are unequal: for most countries, the number of people who want to come here vastly exceeds the number of people who wish to move out of the US, so it’s not a relevant comparison.
One of the reasons we have stricter immigration laws is we have one of the loosest birth citizenship laws. There are many European countries who don’t ake you a citizen when you’re born there–even if your parents are legal immigrants.
I’m very pro immigration. I suspect we could easily triple or quadruple the number of legal immigrants and it would be good for us. But I understand how the citizenship laws might intersect with looser immigration laws to make people worry.
GiW, I was being facetious on that one. Interesting that people choose to comment on that rather than my more extensive comment. I was mostly thinking of Mexico’s immigration laws, which are rather draconian. Not just in how they treat illegal aliens, but also the legal rights that legal aliens have.
I’m pro-immigration myself. Anyone willing to follow our immigration (and other) laws is welcome as far as I’m concerned. Heck, when the woman 2 cubes down from me got her citizenship I got a couple of guys together and bought her a 3′ x 5′ American flag. She proceeded to pin it up on the outside wall of her cube, where it remains.
My argument against Amp’s position:
As someone who drives with a blood alcohol content of .1% on a regular basis, I am offended by the term “drunk driver” and, find the term “relaxed driver” less offensive.
My argument for Amp’s position:
Almost all Americans can be referred to as “illegal drivers”. An example sentence: Mitt Romney, an illegal driver candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, is refusing to reveal which tax loopholes he would like to eliminate.
I think that the first argument is stronger.
I do think that “undocumented immigrant” is not a usable substitution, as many of the people to whom that title is applied have plenty of documentation, just not the documentation that they would prefer to have.
As long as there are jobs here and restrictive immigration laws here there will always be illegal immigration. Or so I believe based on extensive conversations with my illegally immigratified grandfather as well as numerous conversations with immigrants over the years. Given that experience, I’d much rather our immigration policies concentrated on keeping out/arresting criminals, especially violent criminals.
I’m not sure the pro restrictive immigration/deportation/secure the borders folk have even the faintest grasp of the motives of the people they’re trying to keep out. I can’t help but think that if they did they’d be supporting very different policies. For example – and I know I mention this in every single immigration thread we have here – Jews were sneaking into Nazi Germany for work in the 30’s. And they knew the consequences of getting caught were likely to be death. Short of killing on sight (and even then you’ll probably only decrease, not eliminate illegal immigration), I don’t see how you’re going to stop economically desperate people from coming here. It seems like a waste of time and money that merely serves to make some people in miserable situations even more miserable.
Look, the problem is that this is a road that has no ending. Fine, you draw your line where you like: when someone breaks the law, you’re no longer bound to do them the courtesy of using their favored term of reference. I’ll draw the line where I like: when someone expresses bigoted sentiments, I’m no longer bound to use their favored term of reference.
So, calling bigots bigots is a bad thing, and we should use their “favored term of reference” instead? I can see arguing that as a practical strategy, but as a matter of principle?
RonF:
I’m especially curious as to why he has to pay them above minimum wage – minimum wage for foreigners is higher than minimum wage for Americans?
I don’t know the history of this provision, but I imagine it’s to discourage him from hiring foreigners–if Americans can be paid less, all other things being equal, employers should prefer to hire Americans. Of course, they’ll have less power over an American they’re paying minimum wage than the visa-holder, so it may not work out that way. If an employer wants to, say, create a substantial risk of heatstroke for their workers because they don’t give them enough water breaks, it may be worth it to pay a little more and get a guest worker.
Jake Squid:
I’m not sure the pro restrictive immigration/deportation/secure the borders folk have even the faintest grasp of the motives of the people they’re trying to keep out.
The right-leaning folks I’ve talked to/been talked at by IRL seem to mostly think they want to come here to live on government handouts. I doubt that that’s an accurate reflection of immigrants’ motives.
This is an interesting question. I’m not sure that I am in favor of calling people what they want to be called (when we’re talking descriptive terms and not nicknames). On the surface it sounds reasonable. All else being equal, sure. But I think I value accuracy a lot more than someone’s preference. If someone is obviously drunk and claims they’re “not really drunk, just a little tipsy”, I’m not going to defer to their preference. If someone claims that sleeping with a passed-out-drunk woman is “not really rape”, I’m still going to call them a rapist. If someone objects to being called “anti-abortion” or “anti-abortion rights” and insists that I call them “pro-life”, I won’t feel obligated to change my language. And if they want to call me “pro-abortion rights” rather than “pro-choice”, I have no objection. “Pro-abortion”, on the other hand, I feel is not accurate–and I wouldn’t call someone “anti-choice”. (Well, maybe I’ve done that occasionally when my patience was tried, but I agree that I shouldn’t do it.) Basically, using a term that I, in good faith, believe to be accurate, is different than using a word chosen to be insulting. I’m generally not in favor of using intentionally vague and/or emotive language that’s been chosen because it gives one side a political advantage due to the associations it calls up. (Note that the issue here isn’t–or isn’t mostly–that anyone genuinely doesn’t understand what the terms refer to.)
I think that the arguments against using “illegal immigrant” that are usually used are not the ones most convincing to me: as I said, the more I think about it, the less convincing “call people what they want to be called” becomes; and I agree with the part in the AP’s previous defense of the term where they say that “illegal immigrant” no more implies that the person is illegal than “illegal logger” or “illegal miner”. The history of the term and the fact that it has become a snarl word are a lot more convincing to me as reasons not to use it. I think “unauthorized immigrant” works well–before I’d heard that term I came up with “illegally present immigrant”, which, while wordy, makes it crystal clear what “illegal” refers to, and is maybe less emotive than plain old “illegal immigrant”. I think “undocumented” is inaccurate and gives the impression that the speaker wants to pretend that the lack of documents is the only problem–that if the immigrant had only filled out the proper forms, their presence would be approved (when in reality, they would likely have been denied entry).
I’m coming to dislike “illegal” immigrant not just because of its history and associations, but because many people use it with a message behind it of, “They’ve done something illegal, therefore they’re bad!” As a reflection of someone’s character, I think breaking the law to come to/stay in the country is closer to underage drinking, speeding, or smoking marijuana than it is to stealing someone’s car or assaulting someone. I suspect that hardly any people who use “illegal” in this way have never driven above the speed limit or been underage drinkers–so it comes off as hypocritical if not insincere. “Illegal=bad!” doesn’t impress me; if the worst thing about an action is that it’s illegal, that’s an indication that it shouldn’t be illegal any more. (I realize that there are other arguments against loosening immigration restrictions; my intention right now is to criticize the use of “illegal” as a snarl word.)
As long as there are motives to commit crimes, crimes will be committed. That’s neither an argument for making the crime legal nor an argument for not naming the criminal as a criminal. And concentrating on finding and deporting violent criminals is not to me a particularly good argument for not seeking out and deporting those who are not.
I think as long as the necessary content is conveyed, then … yeah.
I mean, I don’t think we should call undocumented immigrants ‘tiddlywinks’ or anything, and I am conscious of the need to avoid sanitizing thought and discussion by sanitizing language (which is what I tend to think objections to ‘bigot’ are), but if there’s a name that’s less offensive that still conveys the essential information, I think that’s more conducive to civil discourse, and that’s a good thing.
I mean, over here, in response to objections from those opposed to SSM, I suggested replacing “bigoted” with “unfair, prejudiced, and oppressive.” Bigoted is kind of an unusual case, though, as I think the folks opposed to SSM likely don’t object to the word itself in other contexts, just when applied to them … which is not the case with “illegal immigrant.”
—Myca
The equivalent would be the difference between saying, “don’t use the phrase ‘illegal immigrant,'” and saying, “don’t claim that I’m breaking any immigration laws.”
I think the first is reasonable, and the second, unreasonable.
—Myca
Robert:
No, I didn’t. Ron claimed that he had never seen a definition. The new claim is that he (and you) are not satisfied with the definition. He’s moved the goalposts.
Border enforcement is a federal matter. State schools tuition is a state matter. What about this is too complex for conservatives to understand?
In Oregon, a similar DREAM act was just passed. It will bring millions of dollars of increased tuition payments to the state, saving taxpayers money. Admittedly, not much money – it’s not even a percentage point in Oregon’s government budget – but it’s still a net gain, not a loss.
Also, “Students would qualify if they graduated from high school or its equivalent in Oregon, attended Oregon schools three years prior to graduation and U.S. schools for five years, and show their intent to obtain legal status or citizenship in the United States.” In other words, they face the same residency requirements that any other Oregon kid faces, plus some more requirements.
In Washington state, children of undocumented immigrants in Washington State have qualified for in-state tuition since 2003. They have to meet the same residency requirements as other kids. This new bill has nothing at all to do with that.
The bill you’re talking about would allow those kids – whose parents live and pay taxes in Washington state – to apply for the same tuition aid programs other kids apply for. It would cost Washington State about $1.7 million a year, which is (like our tuition gains in Oregon) less than a percentage point.
In general, I find your comment really ugly. I’m hoping the pathetic, mean-spirited resentment of poor kids who work hard and meet the residency requirements is a put-on, not your real feelings. And I hope you’re smart enough to realize that Americans in general benefit from more kids – but especially the exceptionally motivated ones who benefit from the various DREAM acts – going to college.
Amp, you are correct. Ron asked for “a definition”. I suppose that a retroactive emendation requesting “a definition which is not palpably useless” is, technically, moving the goalposts.
The definition you have presented is worthless. Ron asked a followup question: is he white? Is he a person of color? Your cited definition provides me with no guidance. If it provides you with guidance, I open-mindedly invite a disquisition on how and what it says to you.
Re: the DREAM act in Washington, I was going by a Facebook post (I know, could the cite be any more rigorous) by a Democratic lobbyist friend in the state, who characterized the measure as primarily providing in-state tuition for children of the border-underprivileged. If that actually happened in 2003, well, back-date my bitterness 10 years. I don’t know anything about similar or dissimilar measures in Oregon.
Boo hoo for the ugliness of my comment. I have no quarrel with the children of immigrants, legal or otherwise, and wish every human being on this planet well, except for Twilight fans who should all die. My bitterness is aimed at the legislators and lobbyists who give the children of non-citizen lawbreaking border-jumpers or line-leavers or visa-overstayers preferential treatment over the children of citizens. No, it’s not Immigrant Robert’s fault that his mom and dad broke the rules, but it’s not Nonimmigrant Robert’s fault that my mom and dad lived in a shit state for the crucial time period.
Additional tuition revenue to your state from giving people the in-state rate would indeed be a fiscally benevolent thing – if in-state rate were not a massively subsidized rate that does not cover the actual cost of providing the education. I am not intimately familiar with Oregon’s public university system, but as far as I am aware there is not a state school in existence in this country that covers its costs through tuition; even Colorado, which is zeroing out those subsidies, is losing money (at least in the short-term) with every student seated. Long-term, the money could theoretically be paid back by increased wages – but that is only differentially true for these immigrant kids *if there was a shortage of citizen kid who wanted to get the education*. I am aware of no such shortage.
The fact that the children of illegal immigrants have to meet the same residency standards as citizen children of that state isn’t the point. Yeah, if I lived in Washington State and went to a Seattle high school, I too could have gotten in-state tuition. But in-state tuition (that is, a subsidy by the state government of local kids who go to the state’s university) was not intended as a reward for going to the correct high school; it was intended as a directed subsidy to legitimate residents, legally permitted to be in the state, whose family had been paying taxes for years and years. I was not bitter about not getting in-state rates when I was trying to do it, because I could see why the state(s) wanted to limit that subsidy to its bona fide native sons and daughters. I wanted into the exclusive club, but they had a policy of not letting people with glasses in. OK, fine. Bastards. Then a few years later I walk by the same club, and now I see that they let people with glasses in – as long as their parents had committed a crime. Oh I see – my mistake was in not having parents with a sufficient record of breaking the law.
Re: the federal/state distinction – oh, so state actions that address illegal immigrants in a context of enforcing state-level laws are OK? I take it then that you approve of and/or accept the legitimacy of the various laws in Arizona that were such a cause celebre on the left? It would be OK for state governments to deny driver’s licenses to such immigrants, since that’s a purely state function?
Regarding higher ed in general: Countries in general benefit from education, and in general a more educated population is better, by most measures, than a less educated one. That does not translate into a categorical truth that we always benefit from “more kids going to college”. It depends on the kids. It depends on the college. It depends on the economy. It depends on the context. States which are struggling to find money to make sure that poor people aren’t dying from lack of medical care are probably not making a good fiscal decision if they subsidize the higher education of non-citizen children in preference to subsidizing the higher education of citizen, but nonresident, children.
“Whiteness,” like “Blackness,” is, properly speaking, an ethnic categories that have been racialized. The distinction is important because racialization, which is a social and cultural process, recreates what it means to be white as something essential, something biological, genetic. As RonF rightly points out, using himself as an example, this way of understanding “whiteness” versus “of-colored-ness” is so much nonsense. At the same time, however, it is important to recognize that there was a time when the 3/32 of Ron’s blood that is verifiably African–assuming it is Black African; Ron doesn’t say–would have gotten him classified in this country as Black, with all the detriments, legal and otherwise, that such classification would have brought him. In other words, while it is convenient to point out that terms like “white” and “of color” can be infinitely fungible, and are historically situated, to pretend that people in the United States do not, in general, understand what they mean and that they do not, as a result, have real meaning and real consequences in the lives of real people is to hide behind what to me seems like intellectual dishonesty.
In the spirit of returning to the original post:
Can those who are taking the “illegal immigrant is not appropriate because it’s not the preferred moniker” position explain how they differentiate between “illegal immigrant” and the many other status labels which are routinely applied (here and elsewhere) to people who fit within a certain status, whether or not those folks like the labels?
Amp, in response to the definition of “person of color” that you offered, I offered an example and asked how the definition can be used to answer the question “am I a person of color?”. So far I’ve received no reply.
Ron, I didn’t reply because you’re playing a rhetorical trick, and I’m not very interested in playing along. You said “I’ve asked repeatedly in numerous places and I still haven’t seen a definition of the term”; I provided you with one. Rather than admitting that you have now seen the term defined, you instantly shifted the goalposts; it’s no longer about providing you with “a definition of the term,” it’s about providing you with a definition of the term that has absolutely no ambiguity or gray areas.
Well, there is no such thing, not because the term is bad, but because the real-life concepts have ambiguity and gray areas. But unless you’re claiming that there no such thing as a legitimate term for something that is ambiguous and gray in real life, your objection is ridiculous.
What does the word “Jewish” mean? Who is Jewish? You might get one answer if you ask a reform Rabbi, another if you ask an Orthodox Rabbi, another if you ask a different Orthodox Rabbi, another if you ask a bureaucrat in Nazi Germany. Depending on context, the word itself can refer to religion, to ethnicity, or to culture. And yet we don’t say that therefore, there is no acceptable definition of “Jewish.”
What does the word “superhero” mean? I can tell you from a lot of experience that experts disagree. Is Buffy a superhero? Is Indiana Jones? (He has no superpowers. But then, neither does Batman). Is Jesus? (He has superpowers and fights for good.) Is a comic book about a working woman without superpowers, but who has friends who are secretly superheroes, a superhero comic? Most people in the comic book industry would answer no if we’re talking about Love And Rockets, but yes if we’re talking about Lois Lane.
The concept has ambiguity and borderline cases. And yet, we don’t say that therefore there is no definition of the word “superhero.”
So no, I don’t accept the premise that if a word refers to a category that in real life is ambiguous, any definition of the word is somehow invalid.
“Whiteness,” like “Blackness,” is, properly speaking, an ethnic categories that have been racialized.
There is no “white” ethnic group, nor “black”. There are lots of ethnic groups whose primary skin color is whitish, and lots of ethnic groups whose primary skin color is darkish, and there’s some overlap inside those groups (and some outside). But “black” and “white”, biologically, mean almost nothing other than in the narrowest sense of describing skin tone. They are not ethnic categories.
The distinction is important because racialization, which is a social and cultural process, recreates what it means to be white as something essential, something biological, genetic.
Huh? There is no “recreation” of what it means to be white; beyond having a light skin tone the only meaning of “white” is social/cultural. So what’s being recreated?
As RonF rightly points out, using himself as an example, this way of understanding “whiteness” versus “of-colored-ness” is so much nonsense.
Sure. All the old conservative(ish) racial ideology was obviously crap, and so is all the modern progressive(ish) ideology. That’s kind of what Ron is getting at.
At the same time, however, it is important to recognize that there was a time when the 3/32 of Ron’s blood that is verifiably African–assuming it is Black African; Ron doesn’t say–would have gotten him classified in this country as Black, with all the detriments, legal and otherwise, that such classification would have brought him. In other words, while it is convenient to point out that terms like “white” and “of color” can be infinitely fungible, and are historically situated, to pretend that people in the United States do not, in general, understand what they mean and that they do not, as a result, have real meaning and real consequences in the lives of real people is to hide behind what to me seems like intellectual dishonesty.
I don’t think Ron denies that one can (broadly) correctly identify whether someone is “white” or “black” in the absurd and contradictory racial categories we have inherited, perpetuated, and promulgated. If you hand me a math paper with all the problems done wrong, I can correctly categorize your errors and tell you which mistakes you’re making. The fact that your errors are part of a coherent typology of error, which other people can correctly parse and label, doesn’t make it all any less wrong.
Race is a garbage meme. Any consideration of the historical (and contemporary) events in which race plays a part that doesn’t start from that understanding, inevitably wanders off into error. It has to.
What would be another example of such a group who have organized in a large-scale manner to try and get the term changed?
Maybe black people? The whole Colored/Negro/African-American change would also be an example of the utility of finding a less offensive term that still conveys the intended information.
—Myca
Wow, talk about moving goalposts and ducking questions! You’ve asked a lot6 of questions but aren’t quite as jumpy to answer them, it seems.
Look, we can all imagine situations where the speaker has no reason to refuse to call someone a name of choice–black/colored/negro/POC is a great example, as is william/billy.
Similarly, we can all imagine situations where the speaker has a reason to prefer a particular label even if the recipient doesn’t like it, doesn’t agree, and/or doesn’t respond well. “Privileged” is a simple example.
You’ve had numerous people tell you that they have reasons for preferring “illegal immigration” or “illegal immigrant.” You are choosing to ignore what we’re saying.
You’re ignoring us even though we restate it; it’s not as if you can think we’re saying otherwise. You’re ignoring us even though you appear to be willing, in the context of other labels, to apply them even if the recipients aren’t happy because you think they’re accurate. (The most common such labels on this feminist-centered blog would probably be misogynist, MRA, anti-feminist, racist, rapist, privileged, and so on.) And you’re ignoring us while maintaining an entirely inconsistent position that we should not ignore other people’s requests.
Politely put, you’re not demonstrating your usual level of discourse.
Robert,
Damn! I hadn’t realized that comment posted. It wasn’t supposed to, at least not in the form it did, which is inexact in language and sloppily reasoned. (I had copied it out into another file to work on, and I thought I had deleted it from the blog comment box. Ah well.) Anyway, I am not, at this point in the day, going to try to reconstruct the argument I was trying to make.
In response to this:
Amp wrote:
Would women’s campaign to replace Mrs. with Ms. be the kind of thing–though it’s an example of a successful change–you are looking for? Or have I misunderstood this entirely?
Robert/Ron, it’s a process test and the label varies by context.
If you think of yourself as white there is nobody who will know since it’s in your head. Think of yourself as a Martian if you want.
If you are perceived by others as white then that is how they will label you absent other input.
If you are defined by a program as white (for, say, diversity data) then that definition is what it is.
If you actively present yourself as white then you will affect other people’s perceptions by your presentation but will not unilaterally control their labeling because, as we all know, that ain’t how it works.
Whether you think you’re white; whether you’re defined as white; whether you’re treated by the public as white; and whether you’re treated by those who know your details as white… are DIFFERENT THINGS. And by no means is that an exhaustive list.
I will not presume to speak for POC, but I strongly suspect the analysis is equivalent.
How can you seriously not know this?
We obviously know it, G&W. We simply point out that such a shifting, context-driven, relativistic label is useless for any productive purpose, and very, very dubious when used as a marker for morally-based reasoning or policies.
Amp – Is there any evidence that immigrants of borderinvalidationism ARE organizing in large numbers to have a change made? I mean, obviously some activists are. But there are some activists trying to do most anything one can think of. Is it a groundswell or is astroturf by a few frame-shifting visionaries? Beats hell out of me.
Regarding “black” – I grew up at the very tail end of the period when you might hear “colored” (more in the South), and the dwindling tail of the period when you would hear “black” or “Negro” much more often than “African-American”, from white people. I did not engage in systemic data gathering, but I can’t remember a single instance of hearing a request to use different language from a black person. Always, it was a white person, usually talking to another white person. The black people of my acquaintance used “colored” and “black” longer than their white neighbors, and – though this may be off-base – it seemed like they switched to “African-American” when around white people but continued to say “black” among themselves or when around white people who they felt comfortable about. I am SURE there was a very strong demand to have more social respect paid to them (or less/no disrespect at any rate) and that the group label was not immaterial to that desire…but that particular language reform didn’t seem particularly organic to the black community itself.
Other than personal experience, I have no evidence for that view – anybody? anyone? Bueller? – but I think it is buttressed by the embrace of “person/people of color” which is the exact same damn thing, but said without disrespect. Disrespect was the problem, not word choice so much. People who disrespected blacks had used “colored” for so long that the phrase took on the tone and freighting of disrespect even if that was absent from the intent of the speaker.
Hillbillies. Hillbillies don’t like that word; I come from hillbilly stock and I don’t much like it. I have heard hillbillies ask non-hillbillies to not use it; not frequently, not all the time, but now and again. It’s probably not the greatest aspiration of the community but it’s on the grievance list.
Richard – OK. That post did seem unusually incoherent. Even when I’ve disagreed with you strongly you’ve usually made a lick of sense. If you ever decide to reboot it and start fresh, I’ll be happy to engage on those terms.
Yeah, and I think for people to continue to use it after being asked not to is a jerky thing to do. Is there an alternate term that’s preferred?
—Myca
Beats me, I don’t hang around with their kind. :)
I honestly don’t know what genuine country folk would prefer, if anything, Myca, but something like “hill folk” would seem to be descriptive without having a put-down vibe to it.
“Y’all”, of course, is universally acceptable.
G&W, I wanted to know what other status labels you were talking about. Apparently you think that asking a question to clarify your question is a horribly unfair thing to do, evasive, etc etc.
Thanks for clarifying.
First of all, although the William/Billy thing was about a single person, this issue is about how we refer to groups of people. I think what determines what we call groups is mostly a matter of respect and/or power.
MRA seems an odd choice for inclusion on this list, since MRA groups routinely refer to themselves as MRAs. I’ve spoken to hundreds or thousands of MRAs over the years who don’t seem to find the term objectionable.
Admittedly, I’m out of the loop now, but if it turns out that the mass of MRAs has moved to using some other label that’s not something like “Feminazi Demon Fighters,” I expect that I’d switch to using that label instead.
(Incidentally, although I can’t prove this – it’s from the days before USENET was effectively archived, alas – I was the person who first suggested the term MRA, which stood for “men’s right advocate,” because the MRAs I was frequently debating at that time objected to the term “anti-feminist.” The term eventually spread, and the “advocate” evolved to “activist” somehow.)
Some terms I do avoid using in a group-classification way. For instance, although I do think MRAs are basically organizations of a bunch of misogynists, I’m not going to insist on calling the group “the misogynists” or the like. They prefer to be called MRAs, and typically I go along with calling them that, although I think the term is questionable in many ways if we take the words “mens” “rights” and “activists” seriously. But the point of a group name isn’t to be literally accurate in every way (any more than the term “hot dog” is bad because the words aren’t necessarily literally true).
On the other hand, I’m not simply going to drop the word “misogynist” out of my vocabulary. So while I’m not going to start calling that group of people “the misogynists,” I’m also not going to hesitate to write something like “this MRA proposal is misogynist, because x y and z.” I hope you’re not going to claim that there’s no difference between the two usages there.
“Racist, rapist, and privileged” aren’t terms that I’d generally use as my term for identifiable groups. There are no organized groups of rapists, that I know of, so that doesn’t apply. I do think the GOP can reasonably be called a racist organization, but I’m not going to start calling them “the Racist-licans” or something like that.
Although I mess up sometimes, as a general policy I call groups what they ask to be called – I call them the GOP or the Republicans because that’s what they call themselves. I don’t call them “wingnuts” or other such terms. When the Tea Party first emerged, they called themselves “Teabaggers,” and like most sensible people I sniggered at that. But when they started rewriting history and claiming that they had never called themselves “Teabaggers,” and wanted to be called “Tea Partiers,” I went along with it because that’s what I do.
But see what I said about about not dropping the word “misogynist” out of my vocabulary. Similarly, although I’ll continue calling the political party “the GOP” or “The Republicans,” I won’t hesitate to say “the GOP policy is racist” or “the Tea Party’s rhetoric is racist” if that seems appropriate.
Similarly, I don’t see anyone demanding that the word “illegal” be dropped from vocabularies. No one objects to someone saying “we should deport unauthorized immigrants because what they did was illegal” by saying “don’t use the word illegal, it’s offensive.” (They might object on other basis, including “I don’t think the word illegal is accurate for all unauthorized immigrants, because A B C,” but that’s not the same as saying the word is offensive).
You mentioned “cis” earlier. In that case, I tend to ignore the request because 1) I’m as cis as anyone, and I LIKE that word, 2) I personally know lots of cis people who don’t object to the word – in fact, I don’t know a single cis person outside of the internet who objects to it, 3) Although there may be some exceptions, the vast majority of people I see objecting to “cis” seem to be prejudiced against trans people, and 4) there are no groups organized to represent “cis” people requesting that a different term be used.
There’s also a point 5), which is that I do tend to look on the requests of unjustly marginalized groups with more sympathy than I do the requests of dominant, powerful groups. That’s not an absolute rule, but it’s a tendency, and it’s in the mix of my decision-making process. (I edited this comment to add in points 4 and 5.)
In contrast, as far as I can tell, every organization out there that advocates for the interests of unauthorized immigrants, without exception, agrees that they find the terms “illegal alien,” “illegals,” and “illegal immigrant” dehumanizing. Every Latino advocacy group I’ve ever seen comment on this also seems to agree.
As Robert says, I can’t know for certain – it’s not like there are polls available. But given the evidence I have, I have every reason to believe that the term used as a group label is in fact objectionable to
mostmany members of the group.There’s one other category you didn’t mention – what about people who want to be called “feminist,” who I don’t call feminist? In some cases, I’ve decided not to call someone a feminist, despite their claiming of the label, because I think what they’re doing is false advocacy – using a label of a group they aren’t actually part of, and in fact dislike, in order to gain unearned credibility for attacks on that group.
It would be as if I insisted on self-identifying as a Republican, or as an MRA, in order to make my critiques of the GOP or of MRAs seem more credible. In that instance, I think it would be fair play for someone to point out that I’m not at all a Republican or an MRA, and in fact I’m consistently anti-GOP and anti-MRA in my views.
* * *
In the end, I still think this comes down to power and respect.
I respect the folks who advocate for unauthorized immigrants. As such,
I’m going to use the term that they say works for themI’m going to avoid using the term they say is dehumanizing to them.Ron has explicitly said that he doesn’t respect unauthorized immigrants (see his comment 8 on this thread, for example). And I think that, more than any other thing, is the reason he keeps on using the term “illegal alien” (see his comment 8, again), even though I’ve told him several times not to use that term on “Alas.”
I don’t think the “it’s the most accurate term” argument is very strong. First of all, all terms are technically inaccurate in some ways, including “illegal immigrant.” Second of all, it’s not a problem with using other terms. White people aren’t literally white, nor are black people literally black, nor are African-americans necessarily literally from Africa, nor are Tea Party members literally drinking tea at celebrations (or even throwing crates of tea into Massachusetts bay to protest taxes being lowered), etc etc etc.
No one actually insists that group names be literally accurate in any other case. It is only in the case of unauthorized immigrants that suddenly literalism becomes sooooo important. I find that telling. And in any case, since we are so often not literally accurate in group names, I think that it’s reasonable to think that avoiding using a term that the folks in the group find dehumanizing is more important than literalism.
Oh, I forgot to cover “Hillbilly.” It’s an obviously objectionable term, as far as I know I don’t use it. (But if I have ever used it, it was a mistake on my part, not a general pattern.) Ditto for “white trash.”
ETA: I could imagine either term being okay if it was used by someone to describe themselves. Or, rather, it’s not for me to say if that’s okay or not; it’s a debate to be had within the group.
Hillfolk? You’re damn straight it’s not a put-down. I contributed to their Kickstarter.
—Myca
“Unauthorized immigrant”? Is that the preferred term of art?
What’s the difference between unauthorized and illegal? If one’s presence is objected to by the government of a place, whether by statute or simply by executive will, and having that status referenced explicitly is “dehumanizing” – then how is “unauthorized” any improvement at all?
Here’s the difference:
The folks representing unauthorized immigrants have said that they find the terms “illegal immigrants” “illegal aliens” and “illegals” dehumanizing, and have requested that they not be used.
They have NOT said that they find “unauthorized immigrants” or “undocumented immigrants” dehumanizing. They use these terms themselves (although I think that “undocumented immigrants” is becoming the default term, so I should try to discipline myself into using that term).
That is the difference.
For the sake of argument, let’s agree that there is a legalistic accuracy to the terms “illegal alien” and “illegal immigrant” that is missing when the adjectives unauthorized or undocumented are used. People arguing for these latter terms are not arguing on the basis of inaccuracy; they are arguing that the harm done by the dehumanizing effect of the former terms is significant enough that they shouldn’t be used. (At least this is the argument as I have understood it.) So I have a question with multiple parts:
1. Do the people who insist on the language of illegality agree that it is dehumanizing in effect–and by that I mean the way its use in political and other public discourse, and the groups of immigrants to which it is most commonly and visible applied, has shaped policy and practice, not what it means in any particular instance to call any given individual an “illegal” anything? (And if you don’t agree, why not? And saying that someone who has broken the law has lost the right to this kind of consideration, I would point out, is essentially saying that you agree the language is dehumanizing; it’s just that criminals deserve that kind of treatment.)
2. If you agree, what effect do you think that dehumanization has on our ability to address the many issues surrounding immigration, illegal and otherwise, that need to be addressed?
There are other parts to my question, but I will leave it at that.
Richard Jeffrey Newman says:
April 5, 2013 at 2:47 pm
No, That said…
Sigh. So, just like it’s supposedly not OK to use “illegal immigrant,” it’s now “dehumanizing” to do so? That’s yet another grammatical power grab. Illegal immigrants are human, of course. Who the hell else would we be discussing, “illegal immigrant cattle?” “Dehumanizing” is just one of those random catchprases for “shit we don’t like.”
But i’ll stick with your definition for a moment:
Actually: I can’t stick with it because I’m not honestly sure what you mean by this–it seems like something that is based on an understanding that I don’t share. I’d be happy to respond if I got it though.
I just don’t think that the application of a general rule or policy such as immigration law is inherently dehumanizing. Similarly, discussing people in a term meant to draw attention to those laws is also not inherently dehumanizing.
Certainly there are consequences from breaking all laws. But “automatic dehumanization” isn’t one of them.
I’d generally say that it is impossible to trust someone to act in good faith when they demonstrate the willingness to violate your basic laws without any embarrassment; that there are a variety of people who would be willing to make sweeping changes in immigration laws if they felt like they could actually make them stick; and that the
But at heart there’s a basic disagreement between advocates of illegal immigration and the other folks.
Advocates of illegal immigration believe that we need to give great weight to what the illegal immigrants want.
Other folks believe that “caring about the wants of the citizens of ___ country” is generally a job for ____ country’s government, not for the folks in the U.S. government. Of course there are charitable exceptions for refugees, etc. And of course there’s political issues. But at heart it’s a debate about whether the desires of non-citizens (many of whom non citizens who have broken the law) should govern the conduct of citizens.
In the minds of the pro-illegal-immigrant lobby, “Joe really wants to come here” is a really good reason for Joe to get in. in the minds of the rest of us, the question is “do we really want Joe to come here or not?” which, generally speaking, is an analysis of “does joe help the country more or less than the other applicants, given that we have limited space?”
Amp – so in essence, there’s no rational reason accessible to the outside observer and defensible on logical grounds. You’re saying that we should humor the children. We know that their tree fort is not the Fortress of Ultimate Power, but when I call it the tree fort it makes it harder for them to be immersed in their game, so please don’t be a meanie and call it “the kids’ little tree fort”; call it the Fortress of Ultimate Power and don’t do that little thing where you snigger when you say it, that’s just as bad.
I’m afraid I don’t see it working that way. These are adults, and in fact, people who want to be taken more seriously and to take a seat at the table as full participants in the polity. OK, well, our polity has a lot of customs and practices around symbology. One of the big ones is that everybody gets some say in what they are referenced as, but most everybody also gets some (less, but some) say in what other groups are called too. “Wetbacks” has been ruled out of bounds; fairly so, it’s derogatory and uses idiom as an inside joke, an us-against-them tendentiousness that has no place at the table. So it’s out.
But by the same token, if you come to the table making claims that [[statement with semantic value X]] is dehumanizing and awful and just the worst thing ever, so please use [[nearly identical term with semantic value X]], we are not obliged to honor that request. We are not obliged to honor it because it is stupid. If the label is not factually descriptive, pick a label with *different semantic meaning*. If the label IS factually descriptive, then efforts to change it without changing it are the phoniest of framing maneuvers and serious people may say “harrumph” and wave their fingers at you.
I say “harrumph” and wave my fingers at you. I concede that “illegals”, full stop, is a rude shortening of the valid term, one that could cause legitimate hard feeling and which does nothing to serve discourse. I try not to say “illegals” (just as you work on “lame”) for that reason.
But “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien” (as a specific legal subclass) are the correct and accurate terms. They are descriptive, they are non-derogatory, they do not dehumanize (so there’s YOUR answer, Richard). What they DO do is denote lower legal status. That may be humiliating or upsetting or something which people with that status wish to reject and change – but the lower legal status is REAL, not fictional, and INTENTIONAL, not just a contingent effect of some random history which right-thinking people should unite to overcome.
I am willing to hear suggested or requested alternative labels that are similarly descriptive of the actual legal status that is germane, but that (somehow) are less objectionable to the holders of that status than the current term. As a conservative, I am not anti-immigration; quite the contrary. Half of my family consists of immigrants from a very small number of generations ago. I’m glad America was here for them, and I want it to be here for current and future generations of immigrants as well.
But legal immigrants, people who honor the polity they seek to join by obeying its basic legal structures.
Oh, and by the way, we all got together and decided that “conservative” is dehumanizing. From now on, please refer to us “Hugely Endowed Thought Leader Geniusfolk”, and always avert your eyes from us when we share a public restroom. Our gender presentation is beyond your simple progmind’s ability to parse, and if you try you’ll damage yourselves. Just genuflect and duck your heads, it’ll be for the best.
Robert:
I don’t entirely disagree with this, which is why I said that I think we need to grant that the “language of illegality” has an accuracy that unauthorized, etc. doesn’t. My question, then, is what happens when “illegal immigrant” begins to connote the same thing that “illegals” does, which is my sense of why people are asking for the change in language. In their experience it has come to connote the same thing.
For myself, I would have a lot less difficulty with language like “illegal immigrant” if I were confident that it meant, in public discourse, all people who have either entered or chosen to stay in this country illegally, rather than being used, mostly, as a code word for those people trying to cross our southern border. My reason is simply this: as I understand it, we, the United States, have played–we continue to play–a significant role in creating the circumstances that drive them to do that. I am not saying that they, therefore, have not broken our laws or that we should therefore turn a blind eye or that they had absolutely no other choice but to try to come here and should therefore be automatically granted amnesty. I am saying that I think there is not a little bit of double talk involved because calling them “illegal immigrants”–however accurate the term might be legally–obscures almost entirely our role in bringing them here.
They ARE the same thing, just as “negro” and “African-american” are the same thing. One is just
less politeincredibly rude.That is unlikly to ever change, and there’s a simple and basic reason for that: The vast majority of illegal immigrants who come into the US do so over the southern border and hale from central and south america. Moreover most people have some sort of internal hierarchy of immigration violations, in which “sneaking across the border” is at the top: for obvious geographical reasons, we associate that with our southern border.
Eh. Yes and no.
It places the primary determination on the person who is responsible for it, i.e. the person who makes the choice.
As I reread this, it comes off wrong: I intended to convey that “negro” was a highly inappropriate term, and I don’t think I did so sufficiently: “less polite” is a vast understatement and a poor choice of words. Perhaps a mod can replace “less polite” with “incredibly rude” for me….?
Done! –Amp
It is true to some extent that in the popular conception “illegal immigrant” means Mexican. But this is a function of knowledge, not of selective outrage; inform the person fulminating about Mexican illegal immigrants ‘takin our jabs’ that there are a lot of illegal Russian and Polish immigrants overstaying their visas in the northeast, for example, and he or she will start throwing in references to them as well.
US responsibility for the conditions that encourage migration: Yes, we are responsible: we built a country rich enough that (some) shit jobs here pay better than (some) middle-class jobs there. Did we turn Mexico into a (by turns) crony-capitalist, crony-socialist kleptocracy? No.
I’d say that the one area where we really did fail our neighbor is that, beholden to US labor interests who did not want to compete with nonunion Mexican workers, we did not create a foreign guest worker program that would have accommodated the many Mexicans who would have liked to come to the US to work for periods of a few months to a few years, and then return home (or in some cases, apply legally for permanent immigrant status). That would have been an enormous stress release valve for the economies of both countries. Protectionism takes its toll, alas.
Amp:
Understand that what I said was true – I’ve asked people of a left-wing political persuasion for a definition of “person of color” multiple times and you are the first one who has answered with an actual definition instead of invective. Thanks!
Loved that you gave a definition of “Jewish” as an example of multiple definitions for a term referring to a group. My freshman year in HS in English we read Merchant of Venice and had to do a report on it on any part we chose. I selected Shylock’s monologue – “I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? …” and used that as a base for discourse on how slippery the definition of being a Jew is – here a race, there a religion, etc. I got an A! I haven’t thought about that in years.
So: the point that the definitions for the terms “white”, “black” and “person of color” have a high level of BS is well taken. I don’t remember any huge uproar when the term “people of color” began to be used. Not that I’ll say there wasn’t one, I just don’t remember it. But the problem with a term like that comes not in personal discourse but when people start calling for set-asides, preferences, etc. for “people of color”. If a government or a company or a school is to institute such, then you need an objective definition. Or else you end up with my situation. When I found out about my ancestry I – on a whim – called my HR department at work and asked if and on what basis I could change my racial classification from “white” to “black”. I was told “yes” and “we don’t challenge it, we put down whatever you tell us.” Which sounds pretty useless to me.
Amp:
Well, that’s telling. What an odd phrase – “like most sensible people”. I’m not sure how to classify it. Self-congratualtory? Insular? Smug? I suppose I should break out the thesaurus. Really? Do you think that awareness of the term referring to a man’s testicles covering someone else’ nose during fellatio (if I understand it correctly) is so widespread that “most sensible people” know it? Do you think that not knowing that term means that one is unlikely to be a “sensible person”?
I’m not sure that any great number of them claimed that they had never called themselves “Teabaggers”. I think it was more that once they came to understand – as I did – that the term had a sexual connotation and that it was being used to snigger at them (to chose your term) they wanted it changed, as the sexual connotation had nothing to do with (and was being used to distract from) what they were about.
Why does a group have to be organized for a term to be used to apply to it? Hell, then how do any of the terms you’ve used apply to what I call illegal aliens?
That’s way too overbroad. What I said was “In the context of breaking the law on a continuing basis to both enter the United States and remain here and either work or subsist on public support, illegal aliens deserve neither [power or respect].” Context is important. We have a Hispanic congregation that has joined my parish. I’ve helped their musicians connect up to our sound system, I’ve sung with them, I’ve helped as an usher and coordinator during a funeral they held at our church, I voted to help elect two of them to our Vestry board, I’ve worked on learning how to sing in Spanish (what the hell, if I can sing in Latin and German I should give Spanish my best shot). I’ll bet my paycheck that some of them are here illegally. But they’re here to worship God according to our usages and I respect that. I respect their basic human rights. I respect the people leaving water jugs in the desert so that people sneaking across our border don’t die of thirst. But I don’t think those basic human rights include coming into the U.S. at variance with our laws. I know our law doesn’t hold that such a right exists. I think I have a right to see that our laws in this regard, established in due fashion by our duly elected government, should be upheld, and that they should be changed by those same processes if necessary and no other. And I think that when people break the law, the respect they are due as human beings does not extend to granting them or their advocates any influence over what they are called when it comes to describing them on the basis of their illegal behavior.
Tell me how the term “illegal alien” is inaccurate.
None of those terms are used to define groups on the basis of something they’ve done, it’s defining them on the basis of an inherent characteristic that is very slippery to define, as we’ve discussed. But there’s little slippery about whether or not your presence in this country is in accordance with the law. Yes, there’s a few people who are in limbo, so to speak. But overall, for likely 99.9% of the aliens in the U.S., their legal status is pretty much binary.
No, my reason is not something you’ve made up. My reason is what I’ve stated.
And since then I have pretty much avoided using the term. But here the thread topic is specifically what non-citizens here illegally should be called, what’s valid and what isn’t, so here I’ve used it. In other discussions where we are talking about such people but the topic is not aimed towards what they should be called I will continue to avoid it.
Richard:
No.
I don’t see how referring to them on the basis of their behavior and legal status has caused them to be “dehumanized” in policy or practice or any of the fashions you describe.
Do you? If so, please tell me why.
Robert:
Or, as I’ve pointed out before, here in the Chicago area there are plenty of Irish and Polish illegal aliens around, so many so that you can read advocacy for making changes to our immigration system in their local papers (or even in the more mainstream papers on occasion).
Well, we did – it’s the H-2A visa program – but the combination of ready access to illegal labor and a program that is hella expensive in both time and money to use means it’s not used much. That needs to be fixed. But –
the purpose of American immigration law is to meet our needs, not those of other countries. A lack of information and time to investigate means that I’ll be agnostic on the validity or need for the above (except to note that this looks like an internecine fight), but the fact that our government has not chosen to make the process of bringing foreign guest workers into the U.S. either efficient or inexpensive for either employers or employees is a good reason for us to change how the government works but is not justification for those who choose to ignore the law (regardless on which side of the border they reside). If the H-2A program needs to be fixed, it should be fixed to meet America’s needs, not Mexico’s or Poland’s or Ireland’s or Canada’s.
The crucial distinction here, which I think that some folks keep trying to avoid, is that the terms “illegal immigrant” or “illegal alien” are not immutable. It’s something that you DO (and can stop doing,) not something that you ARE.
There’s an entirely different set of rules when we describe people’s immutable traits. We use kid gloves and try desperately to avoid offense. With the annoying exception of religion, we don’t usually do that (and should not) for traits which can be changed.
I’ll also join RonF in noting this issue:
Who the fuck cares what Mexicans would or would not have liked, in the context of US immigration policy?
Meeting the personal desires of Mexicans, Brits, Argentines, Australians, or anyone else IS NOT OUR JOB. If you are analyzing immigration with the goal of accommodating what some non-US citizens want, then you’re starting from the wrong set of blocks.
There’s nothing wrong with taking other countries’ desires into account. But that’s an ancillary issue, not a primary one.
gin-and-whiskey:
This is arguably true for many or most cases, but note that it’s not true for all. Someone born elsewhere and arriving as an infant with his or her parents would not be in the country legally, but would have no life experience other than an American one.
Grace
Minors don’t bear the same culpability, and few folks specifically target them. But they do complicate the issue significantly.
One thing that I think is useful in analysis is the “zero sum question.” Assume that there’s a limit on immigration, and that there are more potential applicants than there are slots.**
You have two minors who want to be citizens. Bob’s parents followed the law and have applied for a visa from Canada. Mary’s parents broke the law and snuck over the Canadian border (with Mary) when Mary was three years old.
If you ignore their parental status, Mary gets kicked out and then Mary and Bob flip a coin to see who gets in.
If you have a bias towards following the law, then Mary gets kicked out and Bob gets in.
If you have a bias towards helping Mary, then she gets in and Bob gets denied.
Now, in my experience most people only focus on Mary. They say “oh, we shouldn’t hurt Mary; she hasn’t done anything.” And that is true….but it’s not the WHOLE truth. Because Bob hasn’t done anything either, right? And if you don’t give Bob a chance then Bob gets screwed, too. Bob is no more morally culpable than Mary. He hasn’t had the benefits of living in the U.S. and he hasn’t had parents who broke the law to try to benefit him.
Are you sure you want to put Bob at the bottom of the pile? Does it matter how old Mary was when she came in and how much agency she had? Does it matter how long Mary’s been in the US? Does it matter if one of Mary’s parents stayed in Canada, so she can go back there? Does it matter if Mary’s in-canada situation would be better off than Bob’s?
There are always those pernicious limits on immigration. If we admit 300,000 immigrants because we feel sorry for them, then there is ANOTHER set of 300,000 immigrants who don’t get admitted.
It reminds me of a recent phone solicitation for a BS charity, in which I asked them to explain why I should give them money instead of the food bank. They responded with the normal “well, just increase your charity by $20 and give it to us” answer. To which I asked “If I did so, why should I give that $20 to you instead of the food bank?”
The question is NOT “Should Mary get in?” because that’s not really answering the issue. The real question is “given these various applicants, who should be admitted and who should be denied?” and that is a hell of a lot more complex.
If you give preferences to people from central/south america (which is a common theme), that means you let in fewer people from everywhere else. But I don’t see why someone from Ecuador deserves entry more than someone from Kiev, or Addis Ababa, or Seoul. Do you?
**This is the foreseeable situation for any US immigration policy. Even if we vastly broaden immigration we will not increase it to the level where we let everyone in.
“Who the fuck cares what Mexicans would or would not have liked, in the context of US immigration policy?”
Pragmatists.
Mexicans have the power to break the US law at a tiny fraction of the cost and effort that would be expended by someone in any other country, except Canada. (And Canadians are lazy welfare-state socialists who don’t want to come down here to work, so they aren’t a problem.)
Successful legal regimes must take into account not only what is right and what is attainable, but the likely reaction of the populations most affected by and interested in the legal regime. Mexican worker wannabes have absolutely no *moral* claim to consideration in our immigration law regime.
It’s just that they are the people who can casually fuck the whole thing up anytime they feel like it, and so if we don’t to be complete dumbasses about things (or unless we WANT a fucked-up immigration scheme), it behooves us to restrict our choices to things that they can live with.
That’s a pretty low standard, Robert. It seems to me that what they can live with is a completely open border. I think that the U.S. Government’s primary concern should be what I and the rest of the electorate can live with – and what we’re willing to pay for.
What they can live with and what they want are two different things. They don’t have a completely open border now; ask Mexican migrant workers whether they would rather have status quo ante, or whether they’d rather have a workable bracero program, and I’ll bet your life AND a box of donuts that 90% would emphatically go for the program.
I agree that the US government’s primary concern should be with what its own citizens want and can live with. I don’t want and can’t live with an immigration regime that is so badly thought-out that it can be and is routinely outwitted by millions of people. Therefore, the government needs to change the system to one that I can live with, which happens to mean one that the millions do not wish to outwit, but rather to cooperate with.
Wouldn’t you rather have Julio and Claudio coming to the US through the border station, signing in with their bracero ID card, driving out to the farm for their three-month contract job in an inspected vehicle driven by a licensed and insured American driver, paying income and payroll taxes in the US, spending their money at Wal-Mart and then at the end going home? Most of the people illegally crossing the border now are not intending permanent residence; they want to WORK. But the border crossing itself makes the transaction costs of “commuting” too high, too risky – so they don’t go back and forth. Well, why the hell not let ’em go back and forth with documentation and taxing and control over the process?
It’s not like they’re not going to come if we just make the crossing itself perilous enough, or if we make life here uncomfortable enough. Amigo, the entire US government concentrating its entire power on making things rough for them here, is not going to make life here as shitty as it is if you’re broke in Mexico. Mexico sucks, Ron. If the people coming here to work were an actual plague, like if they were something vile and inhuman like Canadians or Oregonians, then we could probably patrol the border effectively and stop illegals, by simply killing everything that tried to come across.
But Mexicans are OK, and nobody wants to kill ’em. That being the case, wouldn’t it make more sense to have an effective work-visa program so that you and I could get some reliable day workers for $5/hour, instead of the way it is now where it’s just the chicken processors who can get away with it?
It’s a cybernetic system. Demand total control of everything, and we end up with none. Understand which parts of the system have autonomy, which can be controlled a little, and which can be directly controlled, and you can get the whole thing moving quite effectively.
From what I can see during my infrequent visits, Julio and Claudio are spending their paychecks at Wal-Mart now.
To your larger point – I’ve already stated my preference for a workable H-2A visa system (which is what the bracero program would be) over what we have now, so I don’t see what you’re talking about as controversial. That would have to be coupled, however, with much better security and law enforcement than what we have now.
G&W, you’re wrong to think that Bob and Mary are in a zero-sum game. They are not.
“Should Mary get in” is not the question because Mary is ALREADY in. She lives here. Almost no one has any expectation that she’ll leave. Realistically, Mary should be included in the baseline of “how many people already live here” when we decide how many additional immigrants to let in.
The upper estimate of how many people in the US might qualify for the DREAM Act is 1.4 million (including around 425,000 people under age 15 who don’t qualify now but might in the future), which is a number that has built up over the last 30 years (people over 30 years old do not qualify for the DREAM act). The US could certainly absorb 1.4 million people who already live here without having to reduce the number of slots for new immigrants by even one.
What specific measures do you mean?
BTW – is $5/hr below minimum wage for agricultural workers? Do you propose that? Or were you just pulling a number out of the air?
For starters, see my post #33. Add to it improved physical security at the borders themselves, in proportion to the magnitude of the problem at each border (i.e., the number of people crossing them illegally).
Amp:
You’re right. The question is not “Should Mary get in”. The questions are “Should Mary STAY in”, and “IF Mary stays in, should she be permitted to become a citizen?”
True. But it’s on the table.
Nope. Mary – and every other illegal alien in the U.S. – gets counted against the total number of immigrants and non-immigrants (just because you’re permitted to enter the country doesn’t make you an immigrant) we decide to allow into the U.S.
I can’t accept that on the basis of a simple assertion. The U.S. admits immigrants and non-immigrants into the country to meet it’s needs. Illegal aliens came into the U.S. in an uncontrolled fashion to meet their needs, not the U.S.’s. An analysis needs to be done on what the U.S.’s needs are, how permitting immigrants and non-immigrants (the latter including such as H-2A and H-2B visas) will help meet those needs, and overall how many of what kind of people with which qualifications and properties we want to legally admit. As far as determining what the U.S.’s needs are and what’s the best number of what kind of people to meet them, anyone here illegally goes into the pool. And not in a preferenced position.
Robert:
Yup, but maybe if we make so hard to get into the U.S. that we’re no longer the safety valve, the people who can no longer sneak into here will do something about fixing Mexico instead. They’ve had revolutions before. Seems to me they need another one. Mexico sucks? Mexico needs to fix that, whether it’s in the context of “I got my car fixed” or “I got my dog fixed”. Right now Mexico is using the U.S. We can adopt any foreign policy and any immigration policy we want towards other countries, but fixing what’s wrong with a foreign country ultimately lies in their hands, not ours.
No you don’t. What you’re wishing for is that undocumented immigrants, whose parents have been living in the same state and paying taxes for years, and who meet the same residency requirements that other residents meet to get the local tuition rate, should be charged far more to attend college. Since you’re not an idiot, you know that the practical effect of the policy you favor is that fewer of those kids will be able to attend college.
UI (undocumented immigrant) kids don’t get preferential treatment. In Washington State, to use your example, kids who aren’t US citizens “must have: earned a high school diploma or equivalent (GED) from a Washington State high school; lived in Washington State for three years prior to receiving a high school diploma or GED, and lived continually in Washington since earning the high school diploma or GED” in order to qualify for in-state tuition.
US citizens who live in Washington state have those same requirements if they’re applying straight out of high school. But they also have an additional option: If they’ve lived in Washington for a single year without being a student, they can also qualify for in-state tuition that way. And if they take more than six months off from school, they will retain their ability to qualify for in-state tuition, whereas immigrant students would lose it.
Objectively, Washington residents who are US citizens are being given preferential treatment over Washington residents who are immigrants, when it comes to in-state tuition requirements. My guess is that it’s pretty similar in every state in which immigrants can qualify for in-state tuition.
Yes, but yanking in-state tuition away from Immigrant Robert does nothing to solve Nonimmigrant Robert’s problem. It’s just petty and vindictive.
Are you seriously saying that in-state tuition should be available to people who haven’t lived or paid taxes in that state, as long as they’re American citizens? I’d be totally up for that, as long as we can raise taxes to pay for it. Agreed?
As I understand it, many costs of running a university are basically fixed, and will not be changed by the addition or subtraction of a relatively small number of students. Even if you expel 100 students, all those administrators will still be expecting to receive the same paychecks, the buildings won’t get cheaper to heat, and the payments on that multi-million dollar super gym complex the university built won’t go down.
Of course, the immigrant kids who qualify for Washington’s in-state tuition do have parents who have been paying Washington state taxes for years and years. And many of them and their parents are legitimate residents, legally permitted to be in the state.
But as for the UI kids – whose parents have been paying taxes for years, but who aren’t “legitimate” residents – who are you to say what the in-state tuition is intended for? The Washington state legislature disagrees with you, and they – unlike you – were chosen by Washington state’s citizens to make these decisions. If they say that in-state tuition to qualified UI kids is part of what the in-state tuition is for, then they’re right.
It’s true that not every last kid will earn more if they get a college degree. But statistically, most of them will.
Many of the Arizona laws were either an attempt to enforce borders – a federal matter – or effectively abrogated civil rights. However, as I understand it, it’s “okay,” in the sense of “legally allowed,” for state governments to deny driver’s licenses to UIs. I accept that it’s a state function, and merely because a state’s decision is stupid and harmful does not mean that they don’t have the right to make that decision.
(But I know very little about the driver’s license issue – that’s just my initial impression of it.)
Ron wrote:
In what way? Republicans don’t dare openly call for mass deportation of DREAM act kids. They won’t introduce legislation calling for that, because they want to be able to win a national election again someday, and they can’t do that without independent and Latin@ voters.
For the same reason, it’s unlikely that a future Republican president is going to undo Obama’s executive order allowing DREAM kids to avoid deportation.
As far as I can tell, it’s not currently on the table.
Certainly, we should include Mary when we count (or, rather, estimate – you can’t count a hidden population) the total number of immigrants in the US. But allowing her a path for citizenship doesn’t require us to reduce immigration in another area, and logically it shouldn’t, since Mary will be here regardless of if we let Bob in.
What is a logical reason that the US couldn’t do that?
You have opinions about what the US shouldn’t do. But “shouldn’t” and “couldn’t” aren’t the same word. Legally, nothing about passing the DREAM act requires us to reduce the number of immigration slots available to non-DREAMers. And from a practical matter, Mary will be here in the US regardless, so I don’t see any practical barrier.
There’s no reason to consider H-2A and H-2B visas while discussing the DREAM act. They are two separate subjects.
It is bad for the USA for Mary, and a million or so kids like Mary, to be living in the US, to be culturally American in every way but technically, but to be limited in what they can achieve economically by their lack of citizenship. We are collectively better off if everyone living in the US is allowed to be as productive as they can and will be.
DREAM Act kids are socially and culturally American; they are part of American culture, speak English like the native speakers they nearly all are. They are required by the Act to either seek higher education or to serve in the armed forces. And denying them citizenship is bad for the economy.
To me, that means that they are people we SHOULD be giving preference to. Why do you think it’s a bad idea to give DREAM Act kids a preferenced position, when it comes to becoming legal American citizens?
gin-and-whiskey:
That misses my point, and it doesn’t matter much whether you’re specifically targeted if the shrapnel still gets you.
You had defined “illegal immigrant” as
For someone brought over by parents as a young child, this definition is untrue. They ARE. They didn’t DO. They were DONE TO. They ARE.
Grace
Ron, granted about the security – but I’ll bet you two of Amp’s kidneys that with a working visit system in place, they’d turn out to be largely superfluous. Re: the minimum wage: large amounts of labor movement from Mexico to here are going to wipe out the minimum wage, full stop. De facto or de jure; you cannot continue the pretense that people’s labor adds $8 worth of value in the face of a million guys with the same value who will take $4 for it.
Amp:
“Objectively, Washington residents who are US citizens are being given preferential treatment over Washington residents who are immigrants, when it comes to in-state tuition requirements.”
I am not talking about Washington residents who are citizens. I am talking about residents of other US states who are citizens. Objectively, Washington residents who are immigrants are being given preferential treatment over non-residents who are citizens.
“Are you seriously saying that in-state tuition should be available to people who haven’t lived or paid taxes in that state, as long as they’re American citizens? I’d be totally up for that, as long as we can raise taxes to pay for it. Agreed?”
It’s up to each state, he explained patiently, so there is no “we”. But wait, why would they need to raise taxes for it? According to you, each marginal new student is a boon to the treasury.
You are right, though, about the Washington state legislature being the appropriate decisionmaker. Please note, I am not saying that they cannot make this decision; I’m just saying that it embitters me towards them that they decided that noncitizens should be treated better than I should be treated.
“Many of the Arizona laws were either an attempt to enforce borders – a federal matter – or effectively abrogated civil rights.””
I was about to write a whole big thing about this, but one paragraph in, deleted it. I’ll just say that there was little or nothing about border enforcement in SB 1070, and that if the things that were knocked down by the courts were done so because of “civil rights”, then having a national border or the concept of citizenship itself must both be violations of “civil rights”.
In Oregon, immigrants who qualify for residency and enroll are expected to be a very minor boon to the budget, because there aren’t many of them – no one is going to have to build new dorms to accommodate them, for instance. I’m not at all sure the same thing is true if we opened up the in-state rates to every single American in the country; are you?
In other words, Washington residents are being given preferential treatment over Washington non-residents, without regard to immigration status.
It doesn’t hurt you that kids less than half your age – students who are presumably just as worthy as you once were, most of whom probably don’t have Oberlin as an option – get an opportunity that you didn’t have a quarter-century ago.
I don’t buy that Washington state law that excludes non-residents from resident tuition rates is reasonable as long as they exclude immigrant residents, but unreasonable the moment they treat immigrants the same (actually, not quite as well) as other residents. There really doesn’t seem to be any logic to that at all other than the logic of envy and resentment.
If you want to attend WSU, then move to Washington. You’ll qualify for in-state tuition in just a year – which is not something an immigrant could do.
As for SB 1070, I don’t agree, but I’m happy to let the matter rest. It’s pretty off-topic here anyhow.
I think if every state gave the “preferred” pricing to all comers, it would probably cause some states no pain at all (nobody wants to go to Ole Miss) while states with exceptional state institutions would be flooded.
You’re right that it doesn’t hurt me directly. I think it does hurt the system overall, though. What message is sent to people living in places with much less opportunity, who would like to immigrate to America, apply legally, but get turned down or waitlisted for years and years? Essentially, “you were a fool. You should have snuck in. Then your kids could go to USC on much the same terms as the citizens could. Instead you obeyed the law, and if your kids can even get into USC on a visa, you’ll have to pay extortionate rates for it.”
I just think that in general it is a very bad idea for any system to set things up such that the people who obey the system’s rules end up being the stupid ones. These college tuition programs are small bricks, but they’re bricks in the Temple of Only Dumbshits Follow The Rules.
Robert:
There are indeed legal immigrants who resent UIs in the way you describe; plenty of legal immigrants speaking out to advocate for undocumented immigrants, so clearly it’s not a universal reaction.
The motivation for UI – and LI, for that matter – is typically economic. As far as I can tell, most UIs would prefer to have stayed home, but that simply wasn’t an option, especially if they wanted their children to have a chance to not be in poverty.
A system where the choice is “remain in poverty, raise your kids in poverty, or break the law in a nonviolent and essentially harmless way by sneaking over the border” is a stupid system. That you think the solution to this is to try and make life harder for their children suggests that you’ve lost some perspective.
Most people aren’t so hardharded that when they see someone raised since childhood as an American, who is in all ways outside of bureaucracy indistinguishable from other Americans, their first thought is “let’s punish this person, and try to reduce their life chances, as a way of sending a message.” These people are every bit as important as you are; their lives are not post-it notes to be scrawled on and discarded.
That the harms are not immediately visible does not make them nonexistent. And I was not speaking of legal immigrants vs. undocumented so much as attempted legal immigrants who were denied – and denied in no small measure because the tolerance of the nation for immigration is limited, and every person who evades the legal system for immigration burns a bit of that tolerance away.
It is honestly too bad that not everyone who wants to live in the US can; I favor as large a pool of immigration as the country can manage. But saying that the system is stupid, and therefore we can pretend that the people who cheat it aren’t hurting anyone, is moral blindness. They hurt the people who obey the rules. They hurt the country, by damaging the functional legitimacy of its governing institutions. They hurt the culture, by reducing the level of diversity it ought to enjoy and that it seeks to attain through the legal quotas, by swamping the pool with people who happen to have the ability to walk here.
Of course they are as important as I am. But the people that they are displacing and blocking, in turn, are as important as they are. THEIR lives aren’t post-it notes to be discarded, just because they happen to be in a room that we don’t see.
Oh and by the way, the US admits more permanent legal immigrants than any other country on Earth, by a huge margin. How huge? Most years, we admit more PLIs than *every other country on Earth combined*.
So if there is cruelty or stupidity in our heartless limitations on immigration, maybe a first step would be to get some of the other rich countries of the world to open their doors a crack, rather than act like the US is being appallingly uncaring by only having MOST of the doors and windows flung wide.