Language (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

In another thread, it was brought to my attention that we am not allowed to use certain centuries old definitions because they have been 'updated'. That discussion was about the definition of 'racism'. I asked who controls the 'words' and who exactly gets to update the meaning of those commonly used words.

I saw this yesterday and thought this would be a discussion to attempt to have.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-terms-like-birthing-parents-human-milk.html

https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-replace-women-birthing-people-033500864.html

IMO this is a move to be 'inclusive' to trans people at the sake of women (we are discussing birthing humans after all).

The recent call to change the word for a person who comes into a country illegally from Alien to undocumented. Why? What possible purpose does it serve?

Even 'white supremacy' doesn't mean 'white supremacy'.

I am sure we are all somewhat familiar with Orwell and 1984. So i thought this would be a good place to post and discuss the language that we are seeing right in front of us. If we can't even share a language with common definitions, how do we expect to share a government?

 

[samiam5211]

The guardrails I'm referring to is rules governing the process of legal entry into the country. Without the guardrails, chaos ensues on the border. Federal law does define/label them.

The term "illegal alien" is actually used in the federal code, although sparingly. The term alien is used extensively though. And is defined as any non-US born or naturalized citizen. You say we don't need a term to refer to the group of people who are here without legal status, but the federal code does precisely that and calls them aliens. There are numerous sub-groupings under that, but broadly speaking, whether unauthorized, undocumented or whatever, the point is, in order for federal law to be effectively enforced, those people have to have a definition applied.

Politics is beside the point. Whether they can afford the fees or not is beside the point.

the term alien doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a person is here legally. People here on a valid visa are also aliens.

 

[DaveXA]

the term alien doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a person is here legally. People here on a valid visa are also aliens.

Indeed they are, I didn't say anything about legal in the "alien" definition.

I probably should have added that the code does also address aliens here without proper documentation, which wouldn't include those with visas.

 

[samiam5211]

You say we don't need a term to refer to the group of people who are here without legal status, but the federal code does precisely that and calls them aliens.

Indeed they are, I didn't say anything about legal in the "alien" definition.

 

[DaveXA]

I edited my comment.

 

[SystemShock]

The OP is not about words that you find derogatory. However, many people find "illegal alien" to be derogatory.

Have you asked a person who entered a country illegally if they feel insulted when referred to as an illegal alien?

There are words/labels that are meant to be derogatory. Illegal alien is a legal term that is meant to describe a condition. How anyone feels about people in that condition, has nothing to do with the term; we surely can break down the term and see why the term is appropriate. And when it comes to terms like illegal alien, it is white people who are offended by the term, so they want to change it to make themselves feel better about themselves, as if they did something worthwhile for those people who are in the condition the term describes.

Personally, I believe removing stigmas from conditions via education and reasoning is the way to go, while merely changing labels is futile.

Why do you get to be the arbiter of what is derogatory and what isn't? Perhaps it should be the people to whom the label is applied that get to decide how they feel about it.

I don't want to be the arbiter of anything. I am just pointing out that merely changing labels is not going to make people change their minds on something they feel strongly about. Of course, I could ask you the same question.

Which brings me back to my original post - connotation vs. denotation. As you have now admitted, there is a difference between the strict definition of a word (denotation) and the underlying nuance conveyed in a word (connotation).

And I agree with you there.

It's why, generally, homosexual is being used less and less, even though, by strictest definition, it simply means a person who is attracted to the same sex. Today, the word tends to convey being gay in a negative light, even if that isn't the strict definition of the word.

Then again, gay can be used in a negative light, and many people still dislike/hate other people for being gay. It is the condition that is the issue, not the word you use.

It describes the condition of being black.

I think it goes much further than that, connotation vs. denotation and all that.

Being black is no more or less a condition than being "illegal".

Like being alive is no more or less a condition than being dead, right? Just conditions.

 

[SystemShock]

Yessir.

Got that right.

Do you believe that that definition applies to anyone present in the US without legal status? Read the definition.

There go the goal posts. Anyway, I don't now that it applies to everyone, but it certainly applies to people whose situations are as described in the code.

I wouldn't have a problem with people using the term if they are referencing that very specific section of law, that is actually talking about the federal government reimbursing state and local governments for detaining a criminal alien who has already been convicted of a felony.

You will still have a problem. A few minutes ago you weren't even aware of the law.

 

[samiam5211]

Got that right.

There go the goal posts. Anyway, I don't now that it applies to everyone, but it certainly applies to people whose situations are as described in the code.


You will still have a problem. A few minutes ago you weren't even aware of the law.

I was aware of the law. Are you? Do you know what law you quoted and when it was written and what it is describing?

You were not quoting the immigration and nationality act.

 

[SystemShock]

Rucker, Juliam M. et al. "The immigrant labeling effect: The role of immigrant group labels in prejudice against noncitizens." Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2019, Vol. 22(8). (https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Rucker Immigrant Labeling Paper.pdf) extends "research documenting how the perceived negativity of group labels (e.g., those describing gay people) affects people’s downstream attitudes" and found that "relatively negative (vs. neutral) labels (e.g., illegal aliens vs. noncitizens) engendered more prejudice, punitive behavioral intentions, and greater support for punitive policies."

I didn't read the paper (I'm too busy replying ) but I find the example in that snippet interesting, illegal aliens vs. noncitizens. Non-citizen describes everyone who's not a citizen of a given country. Could be a tourist, a diplomat, someone with a work visa, a resident alien, a refugee (the last three still disliked/hated even if legally in the country)... all of which would be people who entered a country through legal means. Seems deceptive. Sounds like saying "there are fish in the water" vs "there are sharks in the water".

Any results on what happened once the condition was explained?

Similar effects have been seen in medicine, where studies have shown that different terminology used to refer to the same condition can influence management preferences, shifting preferences towards more invasive treatments, and psychological outcomes (Nickel, Brooke et al. "Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences." BMJ open vol. 7,7 (https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/7/e014129)).

Do you think anti-vaxxers would change their minds about vaccines if we start using "disease prevention measure" instead of "vaccine"?

 

[SystemShock]

I was aware of the law.

"Illegal alien" is not a legal term. It is not defined anywhere in the law. It is a political term that intentionally attaches a negative connotation to people.

 

[DaveXA]

I was aware of the law. Are you? Do you know what law you quoted and when it was written and what it is describing?

You were not quoting the immigration and nationality act.

That's actually not the only place it's used in the federal code. And I do believe SCOTUS used the term illegal aliens to describe those in the country who are here without legal permission.

 

[RobF]

I didn't read the paper (I'm too busy replying ) but I find the example in that snippet interesting, illegal aliens vs. noncitizens. Non-citizen describes everyone who's not a citizen of a given country. Could be a tourist, a diplomat, someone with a work visa, a resident alien, a refugee (the last three still disliked/hated even if legally in the country)... all of which would be people who entered a country through legal means. Seems deceptive. Sounds like saying "there are fish in the water" vs "there are sharks in the water".

Any results on what happened once the condition was explained?

It was defined right from the start: "Noncitizens were additionally described as “those who have come to the United States without documentation or visas” to clarify their (il)legal status".

Do you think anti-vaxxers would change their minds about vaccines if we start using "disease prevention measure" instead of "vaccine"?

I think you'd elicit different responses from them, depending on the context. But I'm not sure what your argument here is. It seems to be (to offer a crude paraphrase) "terminology won't change the minds of extremists, so it does nothing", but the population consists of more than just extremists, and the studies linked (and their references) show terminology has a very real impact on responses and behaviour generally.

 

[samiam5211]

That's actually not the only place it's used in the federal code. And I do believe SCOTUS used the term illegal aliens to describe those in the country who are here without legal permission.

The other places it shows up in the law are section titles and headings. That example is the only place that the term is defined anywhere in US law, and that definition is very narrow and only applies to that specific law. In the example SS gave, it is only describing individuals who's detention by state and local governments will be reimbursed by the federal government.

The only reason i went down this trail of pedantry and semantics is because i always hear people hide behind the notion that "illegal alien" is a legal term, which it isn't. The only definition you will find anywhere in the US law is the one SS referenced, and even that example doesn't fit the way it is used by the general public or our politicians.

"illegal alien" is a political term, not a legal one.

 

[DaveXA]

The other places it shows up in the law are section titles and headings. That example is the only place that the term is defined anywhere in US law, and that definition is very narrow and only applies to that specific law. In the example SS gave, it is only describing individuals who's detention by state and local governments will be reimbursed by the federal government.

The only reason i went down this trail of pedantry and semantics is because i always hear people hide behind the notion that "illegal alien" is a legal term, which it isn't. The only definition you will find anywhere in the US law is the one SS referenced, and even that example doesn't fit the way it is used by the general public or our politicians.

"illegal alien" is a political term, not a legal one.

My point isn't that illegal alien is a legal term, even if there are some limited uses of it in the federal code. My point is that it's not a derogatory term. For the sake of discussion of the topic, what description would you give to aliens within our borders not legally authorized to be here? It seems to me illegal or undocumented aliens would be appropriate terms.

 

[SystemShock]

It was defined right from the start: "Noncitizens were additionally described as “those who have come to the United States without documentation or visas” to clarify their (il)legal status".

I scanned the pdf but I couldn't find what was presented to the people who participated; just numbers. Presenting many different descriptions of the same term (additionally described as) is not very assuring. You present a term in a vacuum that has 5-6 descriptions, with only 1 has a negative connotation, and even try to camouflage it ( (il)legal ) it seems obvious that, when asked about the term, the response wouldn't be as "passionate" (can't think of a better word now) as if you use a term to describe just the one negative condition.

And of course, as soon as someone tells them that non-citizens are bringing drugs, taking their jobs, raping the women, not only do you go right back where you started, it gets worse, as now all of those "benign" descriptions are lumped with the negative one. And that is not going to change by merely changing labels.

I think you'd elicit different responses from them, depending on the context.

Such as...? Whatever context you give, once you pull out the syringe with the liquid inside...

But I'm not sure what your argument here is. It seems to be (to offer a crude paraphrase) "terminology won't change the minds of extremists, so it does nothing", but the population consists of more than just extremists, and the studies linked (and their references) show terminology has a very real impact on responses and behaviour generally.

That is indeed a crude way of paraphrasing it. How do you define an "extremist"? Someone who has a strong opinion? Someone who'll kill you if you disagree with them?

Do you know what people in México call undocumented Mexicans in the U.S.? Indocumentados.
Do you know what people in México call undocumented Central-Americans in México?
Indocumentados.
Do you know how Mexicans feel about indocumentados?

 

[MT15]

Are you all unaware of what samiam does for a living? I probably wouldn’t argue with him about immigration law and facts.

 

[DaveXA]

Are you all unaware of what samiam does for a living? I probably wouldn’t argue with him about immigration law and facts.

I'm aware, but it's still a good discussion.

 

[dtc]

So a sterile woman or a woman who chooses not to have children is what?

Stallion?

 

[samiam5211]

My point isn't that illegal alien is a legal term, even if there are some limited uses of it in the federal code. My point is that it's not a derogatory term. For the sake of discussion of the topic, what description would you give to aliens within our borders not legally authorized to be here? It seems to me illegal or undocumented aliens would be appropriate terms.

I don't think we need one word to describe them all. That is part of the problem i have with it. The politicians and public need a word to lump them all together, but that only makes the problem harder to address.

There is a difference between visa overstays, EWI, TPS, and DACA are all examples of people who are technically here without true legal status. TPS and DACA are quasi-legal statuses, but they are just temporary.

In the past several years, the number of people who overstay their visas has been higher than those who enter illegally. Those are two different situations and can't be addressed by a single policy.

We have people here on TPS who initially got TPS because of hurricane Mitch. That was over 20 years ago. TPS was intended to be temporary, but it has not worked out that way. The TPS population is an entirely different group from visa overstays or EWI's, although most of them were either EWI or visa overstays before they got TPS.

My point is that our language determines how we see the issue, and it oversimplifies a very complicated situation. The public just thinks illegal immigration is a problem, but it is really several problems.