Full disclosure: My ancestor, Adolph Greenfield (Adolph was still a hip name back then) arrived on the shores of the United States in the 1850s, and thereupon set in motion such a poor series of choices that, 165 years later, his descendants still had to work for a living.
But he was welcome to push a cart on the lower east side of Manhattan until his grandchild moved to the suburbs, bucolic Newark, New Jersey, to live the dream. Yes, America’s been very, very good to me. Who am I to deny such opportunity to anyone else?
The latest salvo in the war on swarthy-skinned Spanish-speaking people comes from their inability to check into a suite at Trump Tower. And let’s be frank, no one is complaining about illegal immigrants from Sweden. While some say we must build a wall to keep them out, others say that’s not important. What is important is what we call them.
Advocates for immigrant rights see the relationship between how people talk and how the government acts and have proposed replacing ‘‘illegal immigrants’’ with ‘‘undocumented workers’’ or ‘‘undocumented immigrants.’’ ‘‘In an increasingly diverse society in which undocumented immigrants are integrated in all walks of life, language belongs to the people whose stories are being told,’’ Jose Antonio Vargas, a journalist and activist who revealed his own undocumented status in The New York Times Magazine in 2011, wrote in Time.
So those people want to be called “undocumented immigrants.” Got it.
Ten years ago, the political strategist Frank Luntz issued a proclamation about the language of immigration. ‘‘Always refer to people crossing the border illegally as ‘illegal immigrants’ — NOT as ‘illegals,’ ’’ Luntz instructed fellow conservatives. ‘‘Illegals’’ sounds harsh and spiky.
So those people who hate those people but want to get those people to vote for them anyway want to call them “illegal immigrants.” Got it.
The more common phrase, ‘‘illegal immigrant,’’ also implies suspicion, but strip the noun from it and the entire identity of a person who crosses the border without permission, or outstays his or her visa, is reduced to that of a criminal: What rights could he or she be entitled to? ‘‘Illegals’’ becomes the noun, the insult and the dismissal.
So it’s not gonna work as long as those people are called “illegal” anything? Got it.
Except I’ve had the discussion with more than a few folks from countries like the Dominican Republic, El Salvador and the dreaded Colombia, as they stood before judges, realizing that whatever sentence they receive, it would come with a kicker called “deportation.”
Some of them had been here since they were babies. Some had babies who were American citizens, businesses that were thriving, a nice home and a tall pile of tax returns showing that they paid their dues. Some had green cards. Some had, well, no green cards. Some committed big crimes. Some committed the sort of crime most of us would shrug off with a chuckle. They weren’t laughing.
You know what they all wanted to be called? Anything other than “deportable.”
We’re an absurdly schizophrenic country when it comes to people who want a shot at the (Trigger Warning: highly offensive phrase coming) American Dream. We tolerate, if not like, having those people around when our lawn needs mowing, our fruit needs picking, someone has to climb on the slippery roof or stick their hand in the whirling blade. But we don’t like it when they sit on Main Street, sip a cerveza and show their appreciation of the flowers of young womanhood in the manner of their homeland, after they’ve survived another day of doing the dirty work that we wouldn’t touch at a price we would laugh at.
The fact is, they are aliens. They are here illegally, if they entered the country through the side door that we keep trying to slam shut, and they did so because it beat the hell out of living wherever they were. Nobody’d go through what it takes to get here illegally if they were leaving their mansion behind.
You would do anything you could to give your children a better life? So would they. Why is it fine for you but not them? And don’t play the illegal card, as if you wouldn’t commit a violent assault, a crime, if someone screwed with your kid.
And yet, here we are, squabbling over semantics as if that’s all there is to fix a very serious, very important problem. Words matter in the conveyance of ideas, but we’re well past the point of Orwellian shenanigans and up to our neck in spin.
While effort, TV time and inches in the New York Times is wasted on arguing over the semantics, our attention is diverted from finding solutions. Lenny Bruce fixed this problem more than 50 years ago.
Would it really piss anyone off if you called them illegal immigrants and fixed a system that penalizes people for the outrageous desire to become a contributing member of society, just as our ancestors did before Americans decided that we had enough immigrants and slammed the door on the guy behind them?
Yes, it’s all different now. They’re not like us. Right, because Adolph was so waspy. Those people are you, no matter what you call them.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
https://youtu.be/rdeO-uyeJfw
Also, using “undocumented” as a synonym for
“illegal alien” defines out of existence the
millions of US citizens who don’t have and
often can’t get any form of
government-issued picture ID, as they don’t
have the papers to get the papers.
But if I don’t get to ascribe value judgments to others based on their failure to keep up with my constantly changing demands about their use of language, then I won’t be able to justify my smug contempt for my fellow Americans. What other motivation will I have to ignore legitimate concerns about sovereignty, border security, or the potential economic consequences of importing the poor of other countries? If I have to have a dialogue without the implicit assumption that anyone who disagrees with me is racist, then I’m just gonna go play Xbox.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the only folks offended by the term “illegal immigrant” are the social justice warriors that have nothing else to do with their lives.
We should admire those who have the grit and determination to travel far from home to make a better life for themselves, regardless of what they look like. As long as they don’t get into any real trouble (felony level offenses), I am happy for them to live and work here until such time as we can come up with a workable solution.
Or we could just ask people what they want to be called.
For those who don’t have anyone to ask, one place to look could be the Spanish-language news media (in my experience, led by those of Hispanic ethnicity) which tends to refer to those who are “without status” or “out of status” (in the parlance of immigration proceedings) as “inmigrantes indocumentados” or “undocumented immigrants.”
Ironically, that’s the one thing we can’t do, because this isn’t about what makes them happy when they are the problem to be addressed. Making what they’re called more important than what is happening to them is the worst thing we can do as it deflects attention and interest into a nonsensical battle while people’s lives are being ruined. Don’t let the trivial battle take your eye off the big war.
You’re a very smart lawyer, so it seems impossible that you don’t see clueless your comment is. By what conceivable reasonable argument do you think people antagonistic to undocumented immigrants will suddenly become deeply concerned with using a name that makes them, and their SJW language police, happy? It’s ridiculous.
Seriously, I want to believe that you’re just trolling, and you can’t possibly not realize how ridiculous your comment is.
This is the reason for the post, how the sides are so utterly blinded by their semantics that they make arguments like this that are laughable by anyone who doesn’t agree with them. It’s not that Kathryn isn’t a smart lawyer. She’s quite brilliant. But passion is the death of thought.
Please don’t think that the English-language media’s characterizations of me represent my preference.
So you’re saying Spanish language media gets you? Or Serbo-Croatian? French perhaps?
I can’t recall having been asked by any of them how I would like them to refer to me.
“Or we could just ask people what they want to be called.”
I have done that.
My friend, who happens to be an illegal immigrant, from Guatemala likes to be called “Jose”
My friend, who happens to be an illegal immigrant, from Kenya likes to be called “Kimi”
My friend, who happens to be an illegal immigrant, from Italy likes to be called “Elisabetta”
……..
Because they are individuals I value them.
But, that doesn’t change the fact they are illegal immigrants
But, that doesn’t change the fact that our immigration system is fucked up.
Very well said. Thanks.
“The fact is, they are aliens.”
As I was driving into work this morning, a story came on NPR (link omitted per rules, I think it was part of Morning Edition) describing efforts to stop using the term alien or illegal alien as it has been determined by some to be too racially tinged. The story explained that the term alien was originally ok, because it was better than “wetback” or other terms that were focused mostly on Mexicans or other Latinos coming across the southern border. However, now some Latino groups feel that alien has been co-opted to refer only to them, and want to use a different term.
I found this frustrating for all the same reasons listed in the post – while I respect the power of language and how it can be used to frame an argument, constantly moving the semantics goalposts wastes a lot of time and effort that could be far better spent on addressing the real issues surrounding immigration.
There are a couple of really important points in there, Joe. First, that illegal aliens was reform language, until the other side picked up on it, and now it’s evil language. It wasn’t because it was inaccurate, but that it’s perceived as being uttered with disdain and hatred. That being the case, no language is safe from those opposing its cause and you’re never going to win the battle.
Second, it’s not comparable to other semantic disputes, like pro-choice v. pro-life. The question isn’t what they want to call themselves (see Kathryn’s comment), but what other people will call them. We don’t get to dictate what others will call someone, and in this case, the anti-immigration side has co-opted the pro-immigration side’s language, and now they complain about that. As you say, you can’t keep moving the semantic goalpost.
Important subject. Timely. The stews on my flight this morning were babbling about it.
It’s rare to get more than one guy named Stew at a time on a flight in the same conversation. Oh, wait.
Funny visual. In County Cork I’ve two Mick cousins named Stew who are constantly talking. Two named Stew. If slurring words can be considered speech.
But are they brothers?
Of course. It’s an Irish family.
… just waiting for it … … I know it’s coming…
Neither side is going to fix the immigration problem. If either side actually fixed the problem they’d have to find a new cause to champion and all that ‘brilliant’ work they have done would be forgotten. A new cause will have a bunch of other people who are already established that we’d have to compete with. Instead, they prefer to engage in unfulfilling mental masturbation (masturbation is fun, right?) at week long all expense paid conferences in places like Las Vegas or Dinseyworld.
They ignore reality preferring to debate the metaphysics of the situation. The fools prefer puffery to reality.
An personal example of reality:
/ My Neighbor blah blah blah deported blah be back monday morning blah blah blah coyote blah blah blah blah only the head blah blah more money blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah paid the extortionists blah blah blah home safe now blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ‘murica, fuck yeah! / (after writing this story it turned out to be about 2 pages long so I edited it down to the sapient points.)
One of the most compassionate inscriptions on any government structure I know of is on Lady Liberty and it gives the true direction that America needs to face.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
Unfortunately, America has given up compassion. Your blog points that out almost daily.
I haven’t given up. If I had, I would limit my writing to fun stuff my son does.
I don’t think Americans have a compassion problem. A surfeit of bad government, sure. But as private actors, you’re the world’s most charitable givers by a wide margin, and anti-immigration folks aren’t heartless bastards because they’re interested in more than care/harm.
Inscription, version 2.0
Bring the young, energetic and healthy,
Who arrive by means other than steathy.
We can also arrange
To cash foreign exchange
If they happen to be super wealthy!
now that was good..
” But we don’t like it when they sit on Main Street, sip a cerveza and show their appreciation of the flowers of young womanhood on the manner of their homeland, after they’ve survived another day of doing the dirty work that we wouldn’t touch at a price we would laugh at.”
Wut? Yeah, I DON’T like hearing sucking noises and hollering and stupid piropos and”hey, mamacita, chupa, chupa mi bicho!”or seeing crotch grabs and waggling tongues from ANY COLOR of person when I’m on my way to get lunch. But god forbid my right to walk down the street without aggressive harassment supersede in anyway the rights of any men anywhere.
See? Exactly why they should be deported, separated from their families and children, their homes and business, all because of your feelings. That’s what America is all about: women.
I’m not defending their doing so, but that people want all the illegals deported because they “aggressively harass” women. But then, that could be my patriarchy speaking, right?
By the way, where exactly did you get this right to walk down the street without anyone doing anything that annoys you? I want that right to, because I have a ton of stuff that annoys me, especially narcissists who think the world revolves around them.
I actually favor having a generous immigration and amnesty policy and wouldn’t deport a one of them. Our economy and farming in particular would collapse without them.
I’m pointing out that like a lot of progressive men, you seem willing, in fact eager, to throw women’s wellbeing under the bus in pursuit of worthier goals. And all the piropos and shit? That’s not just annoying, it’s threatening and accompanied by groping quite often. Funny how we can pass laws banning “aggressive panhandling,” which affects all people, but ignore essentially the same behavior when it’s directed at women.
But I think you already know you have a problem with women, since you got preemptivly dismissive when I even raised this issue.
I am not a progressive male. Rumors to that effect have been greatly exaggerated.
But that does not mean I am not deeply saddened to see the offspring of women who fought for equality reduced to whiny, infantile, narcissistic, fragile teacups.
Yeah, I don’t like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin either.
Good save. I like your spunk.
Even legal immigrants were certainly slurred by whatever word was in fashion at the time.
The real problem is the broken immigration system, generous welfare state and insatiable taxation system.
If green cards were easy to obtain (or not required) and immigrants were not perceived to be consuming state benefits paid by taxation, the issue would be moot.
“from countries like Dominican Republic, El Salvador and the dreaded Columbia”–> the country in South America is spelled “Colombia”
“We tolerate, it not like, having those people around when our lawn needs mowing”–> I’m guessing that is supposed to be “We tolerate, if not like…”
“their appreciation of the flowers of young womanhood on the manner of their homeland”–> “…in the manner of their homeland”
“anything you could to give your children and better life?”–> “… a better life?”
Thank you.
Shg you are a blowhard
And I’m ugly and dress funny too.
“The concept manifests itself as a little floaty cloud in which a flustered gent with Victorian moustaches verges on apoplexy.”
‘POPPYCOCK!’ shouts the little imaginary man
‘ARRANT NONSENSE,’ shouts the angry poppycock-gentleman
‘STUFF! POPPYCOCK!’ The imaginary man is beet red and his mustaches quiver