Last week I had a brief (considering the scope of the topic) post involving my views on immigration and more specifically “anchor babies.” This week I am going to write not so much on immigration, but the discussion of immigration.
This all came about when Paul Ryan was taken to task for using a couple of terms that were determined by some to be “dehumanizing.”
Language is important. The terminology we use often conveys where we are coming from. If, instead of “welfare recipient” someone uses the term “Shaniqua and her seven kids” (unless counterbalanced with other examples) we can kind of figure that they are referring to a specific kind of welfare recipient. The welfare discussion is steeped enough in race that it’s best not to use specifically racial imagery if you are interested in an actual discussion. Unless it really is a particular type of welfare recipient you want to condemn, then have at it I suppose.
At the same time, I don’t think it productive to continually change the terms of acceptable terminology or declare acceptable terminology so narrowly as to hinder the actual discussion.
Most of the time, I am perfectly fine using whatever terminology is preferred, so long as it’s reasonable. Sometimes, though, a problem with terminology is used (unintentionally, I should add) as cover for a problem with the concept
This happened a couple weeks ago on Facebook when I got an ugly private message responding to my usage of the term “intergenerational dependence” because it was considered to be racial code*. As it happens, we had a productive conversation about it. Especially since this person messaged me privately, I believe entirely that it was in good faith and not trying to score rhetorical points. The problem I had, though, was that intergenerational dependence was describing a thing and it’s a thing that needs to be discussed, if only to convince me that it never happens (it does) or that it is an overblown concern (it is in the aggregate, but it is a problem in concentrated areas – not just minority ones).
On the immigration front, the two terms that Ryan was being criticized for were anchor babies and catch and release. I’ll approach them one at a time, then look at other terms that have been described as unacceptable by one side or the other.
The term anchor babies is crude. I would be more than happy to use another term, if there was another term I could use that other people knew what it meant. I used this term back when I was more fiercely pro-immigration than I am now. We could use the term “citizenship babies” though that isn’t entirely accurate**. We could use the term “residency babies” though, being married to a doctor, that has a different meaning for me. But it needs to be something that people will understand what I mean when I say it.
Now, the response to this is to say “Well, why say it using any term?” Well, because it’s a thing. It may be a mythical thing, but it’s a thing we think is a thing and that makes it important. You can’t even defend birthright citizenship without addressing the concern of people having children to stay in this country.
Believing that people would have a child or time the conception of a child to increase the likelihood of being able to stay in this country isn’t racist. Heck, it’s what I would consider doing if I were in their shoes. I’d love the child, I’d care for the child, but I’d have a child two years earlier than intended if it meant a greater likelihood that I could stay in a country I wanted to stay in.
Now, the laws on what an anchor baby does for you are a lot more restricted than they are in the popular imagination. This should be addressed. So, too, should any arguments that this is not actually a widespread occurence. Address these points. Don’t get bent out of shape because they used words that everybody understands. Especially if you have no substitutes.
The next term, catch and release evokes images of hunting. I can see why it’s not something that people are excited about. At the same time, it is rather thoroughly descriptive. Even if you’ve never heard the phrase, you know what it means. It’s four syllables of clarity. It’s going to be hard to replace. It also relates to a point that needs to be addressed rather than dismissing it because of the terminology.
There is also some objection to referring to people in this country illegally as illegals. I am actually rather sympathetic to this objection. I believe that critics of illegal immigration ought to heed it. There are countless phrases to use and this one isn’t a particularly accurate one. “Illegal” may be two syllables and “illegal immigrant” may be four, but the latter is more descriptive.
Of course, illegal immigrant is occasionally seen as contentious. To be honest, though, I more often see conservatives saying that liberals say it rather than liberals actually say it. More often, I see liberals using an alternate term. There’s an alternate term! Yay! By which I mean, undocumented immigrants. I use that term sometimes, but sometimes I stick with “illegal immigrant.” “Undocumented” can sometimes seen excessively euphemistic, though I will still use it if only to avoid repetition. And if referring specifically to someone who is working illegally, I find undocumented worker to actually be a great term. (I can’t quite put my finger on why I find this easier than undocumented immigrant).
Though technically accurate, it is best to avoid using the terms illegal aliens or aliens because not only is there a non-human connotation in modern usage but there are immediately available alternatives. A lot of conservatives respond to this with (as with many other things) “Yes, but the word is correct and I shouldn’t have to stop using it because they want me to.”
Well, you don’t have to, but if you want to discuss the actual issue rather than turn it into one of liberal sensitivity or acceptable terminology, it’s best to avoid terms that are going to sidetrack the debate. For your own sake as much as anyone else’s (unless, of course, you want it to be about liberal sensitivity, in which case you should own up to that rather than pretend that you’re discussing actual issues).
On the other side, I have a friend who took me to task repeatedly when I would talk about being being anti-immigrant. “We’re not anti-immigrant,” he’d say, “we’re anti-illegal-immigrant.”
To be honest, I have a hard time with this one because it’s my experience that those who are most hot-and-bothered about illegal immigration are also disinclined to support legal immigration as well (they are very likely to be critical of H1B visas, for example). Assurances that “if we only got illegal immigration under control, we would be open to more legal immigration” frankly ring hollow.
That being said, I’ve retired the term “anti-immigrant” unless I am actually referring to people who not only want to send illegal immigrants back but also want to further restrict legal immigration. Here is another case, though, where those objecting to the terminology often don’t have a good replacement. I consider the proposed one “anti-illegal-immigrant” (to the extent that it is proposed) to be often inaccurate and always clumsy.
Another word I have gotten in trouble for using is nativist. I understand that there is some undesirable historical context of the term, but I don’t consider it something that has be negative (or even racist). However, since it derails any conversation, I have dropped the term.
I heard the phrase border hawk somewhere and took to it. I use it regularly and have gotten no complaints. People know what I mean as soon as I say it.
Oddly enough, I’ve heard complaints about the term sanctuary city from border hawks and border doves alike. The former complain that it is euphemistic when they should be called something-something (no repacement suggested, just something that sounds less benign I guess). More often, though, I hear complaints from the other side. But… no substitution phrase suggested there, either. Since elements of both sides don’t like it, I’m open to hearing a better term. Or maybe since elements of both sides don’t like it, that makes it a good phrase?
* – The context was not such that I was using the concept to lambast having welfare, merely that it is something to be concerned about.
** – I do use the term for something related but not the same: babies by foreign nationals that are born on American soil where the timing was not coincidental – this may have nothing to do with parental residency, though. I try to imply or quickly define the meaning when I use the term since it is not widely used.
The use of “illegals” as a term is something I find incredibly disturbing. It removes the idea of illegal immigrants as people, and always comes across to me as incredibly dehumanizing. It’s become something of a trigger for me – if a person refers to “illegals”, I stop respecting or caring about any views they have on immigration. I think it would improve the debate greatly if people would stop using it.
The only time it bothers me personally is when it appears in what is ostensibly a serious publication (even then, it can depend on the context, but the context usually does not justify it). In colloquial language or comments it doesn’t bother me as much. I get why it does bother some people, and I think it should be avoided for the reasons mentioned in the OP, but there are bigger fish to fry, in my view.
Does the term criminal make you feel better? How about persons here in violation of the law? They are here illegally so I fail to see what is so wrong with that term. Frankly I think you are reading too much into the word.
Seeing as how most laws broken by someone coming into this country improperly are actually civil violations, and not criminal violations, criminal would be grossly inaccurate.
Frankly, I couldn’t care less what liberals want to call them, the gov’t should do its job and secure our borders. Liberals seem more worried about what to call theses folks than fixing the problem.
If you couldn’t care less what folks want to call them, why’d you ask our opinion on a given term?
And the government is doing it’s job… last I checked, Obama has lapped the field in deportations.
“secure our borders”. Okay. You go sink the ferries to Vancouver.
frankly, sir, there are more things to be concerned about than securing our borders from external threats. When libertarians within this country are actively smuggling guns across the border… which was is the problem, again? What is the EASY way to solve it? (actually, the secret service).
Well at least you admit to being closed minded, so I appreciate your honesty.
Well, considering most of the real natives aren’t complaining about immigrants (because they’re dead)…
I guess “moatdigger” is right out, then.
The very idea of “illegal” immigration is an insult to human freedom the way I see it. Really, just thinking about the need for prior authorization to cross an imaginary line so as to comply with inherently racist and misguided social engineering and provide a useless salve for people who assume everything that goes wrong is because of The Other…it’s ridiculous.
Provided you are not harming others, there is no reason whatsoever for them to care where you’re going. None.
This is where we are on different wavelengths. I do think the lines matter.
But what if the lines were as pertinent as US State lines? Which do matter, but are easily crossed.
We could make it so. I support more immigration but am wary about truly open borders. I am concerned that there is a limit to the number of people we can bring in while maintaining a cultural integrity via assimilation/acculturation.
I’m not going to say that cultural integrity is *entirely* unimportant, (helps keeps the parts of civil society lubricated) but it’s severely overrated. And can quickly elide to genteel talk about gentrification and not so genteel talk that ‘those [whatevers] are ruining this neighborhood/city/country’
There is always the danger of seeing the need for cultural integrity as one for cultural homogeneity. I’m a real believer in our ability to incorporate immigrants into our society. I don’t know what the limit is, if any, to our ability to do so. I don’t want to find out by our having passed the limit. So I support a more liberal immigration policy, just not an unlimited one.
They only matter because they’re there.
The lines give a view of humanity as neatly divided — i.e.: on this side are people like this & on the other side are people like that. Gradients are more accurate. It’s not like if you’re in Northern Mexico and keep walking north it’s just *boom* white people all of a sudden and vice versa.
“It’s not like if you’re in Northern Mexico and keep walking north it’s just *boom* white people all of a sudden and vice versa.”
Well, if some folks had their way…
The people of El Paso and Juarez may be of the same hue, but there are some pretty significant differences between the two places. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t let people from Juarez in, but that line is exceptionally important and not a part of a gradient.
My general preference when talking about topics that are very controversial today (e.g., abortion, immigration, antitrust policy in Chicago and Toronto as it may or may not have applied to coal dealers from 1880 through 1940, and healthcare reform), is to use the euphemism provided it is does not beg one side’s question too much, is not wildly inaccurate, or is not otherwise offensive.
Therefore, I prefer “undocumented” to “illegal” in most cases when applied to people.
As far as “anchor baby” (which is obviously not a euphemism), I’d prefer in my ideal world that people not use it unless they are actually talking about the “thing” the term represents. It seems to me that “anchor babies” gets thrown around a lot as a rallying cry to appeal to our baser instincts when the actual phenomenon is being overblown. Maybe there’s not a good way to draw that particular line, and I certainly had no objection to Will’s use of it in his last post, but that’s more or less where I stand.
I agree that the content of the phrase is found wanting. I just have a preference we focus on that rather than decry usage of the term. Not to say that there isn’t a place to nailing down the semantics “Are you referring to a baby that was specifically had to increase the likelihood of staying in the country or any baby that is had here by an illegal immigrant?”
The next term, catch and release evokes images of hunting.
Can’t say I’ve ever heard of catch and release hunting. Is that before or after you treat the bullet wound? I have done a fair bit of catch and release fishing, though. 😉
Actually, I don’t know what the phrase means in the context you’re referring to. I’ve never heard it used regarding immigration. Does it mean catching people coming across the border illegally and just sending them back to Mexico? If so, what do people propose as an alternative, building prisons to hold tens of thousands of people a year or just gunning them down on the spot?
Interesting. I knew immediately that it meant catching an illegal immigrant and releasing then right back instead of turning them over to immigration.
Yeah, hunting wasn’t the right term to use. Fishing and trapping would have been better.
I guess I’m just confused about why people would use the term derogatorily, since there doesn’t seem to be a better alternative. I mean, unless they really do want to imprison or kill them, and I don’t think most people worried about illegal immigration are that hardcore (with the exception, perhaps, of those whose properties lie on the actual routes).
The issue is where they are released. Well, some of them would want them imprisoned for at least a time, but I think (?) most would just as soon deport. Catch and Release does not refer to deporting them, or releasing an El Salvadoran in San Salvador, but releasing them right back in San Antonio where they were caught without sending them through immigration and on to deportation.
I mean, technically, releasing them in San Salvador is also “catch and release” but they are processed and flown home in between.
Ah, I see. A polite, “Sir, you’re here illegally, please show yourself out,” as opposed to a “let me escort you to the door and see you through it”? I can see objecting to that, although I’m all for catching them only for the purposes of giving them papers to make them legal myself.
“Illegal” may be two syllables and “illegal immigrant” may be four,
I’d have said three and six, respectively. Is this a difference in regional accent?
You are technically correct. It’s technically 3 and 6 for me, though said as easily as two and four. Not much emphasis on the “il” of the “mig” in the way that I say the words. (Maybe they should count as a half-syllable.)
Which may mean I have more of an accent than I think I do.
“Dik derk der!”
But if you take away my ability to hear dogwhistles, then how will I ever manage to call people racist who aren’t saying or doing anything racist?
“At the same time, I don’t think it productive to continually change the terms of acceptable terminology or declare acceptable terminology so narrowly as to hinder the actual discussion.”
The one thing we should be mindful of is that some terms become “newly” objectionable only because we previously silenced or ignored objectors.
As a general rule, if I’m talking about people, I try to use their preferred term. If there isn’t consensus, I’ll either ask the individual or if that seems inappropriate or impractical, I’ll use whatever seems to be the most common term used by that particular group of folks.
I think that the easiest way to decipher the larger meaning (if there is one at all) someone is conveying with a term is to see how they respond to objection.
Well KatherineMW, not everyone admits to being closed minded, so I appreciate your honesty.