That’s really the key here. Anyone comfortable with considering the legality or lack thereof of someone’s immigration status as the single most important classifiable aspect of that person is clearly demonstrating some very alarming dehumanization of another. That’s the kind of rhetoric that leads to people rationalizing barbaric and atrocious behavior towards the dehumanized class.
If I pirate aliens colonial marines and play it every day, I’m a one time pirate, but I’m still actively taking advantage of it every day.
As far as I am aware an illegal immigrant is just that, someone who entered the country illegally, which they did. Their method of entry in to the country doesn’t change if they’ve been here for X years.
I am a pretty big Democrat, I don’t think we should just deport all of these people, but trying to use a more friendly term just to be pc is silly. I might as well start calling myself an undocumented game owner.
And yes, the news does often refer to people by their crime. Many times people are also referred to in relation to their job as well, but even that isn’t the most important thing about a person. Deal with it.
Murderers are always called that, rapists never lose the label, anyone who ever committed a sex crime never loses the label, people who get divorced, etc. The usage of language like that runs rampant.
The real thing here is the PC effect. Let’s face it. Calling someone who broke the law entering the country an illegal immigrant is perfectly good use of the language. If they resolve the problem and become legal, or if they leave the country they will lose the label.
And you know what, if you drive a car without a license you are an illegal driver.
Okay…pile on.
So it all boils down to not hurting someones feelings? We are treating them like school children now.
In the vernacular, or in journalistic stylebooks that strive for neutral language? Because the latter is what this is. Also, do you think crossing borders without legal sanction is remotely as bad as murder or rape? We certainly don’t label people permanently for lesser crimes such as theft.
I think it’s less about the mental effect on the person being described than on the person doing the describing. Using language that describes the person as illegal dehumanizes them, and having one segment of the population object to another segment’s existence is not generally the start of nice things happening.
I would turn this around. Given that we can establish a dehumanizing effect (which isn’t just about feelings, it also hinders productive conversation), it’s up to you to make the case that “illegal immigrant” contains more descriptive power that “undocumented immigrant” or “entered the country illegally”, etc. I could probably argue that it’s less descriptive, because there are potentially multiple ways that somebody might be undocumented (expired visa vs. no visa, etc).
If it isn’t more descriptive than the alternatives, then it boils down to hurting your feelings because we aren’t using the words you’d prefer.
Personally I support the AP stylebook decision. Not on PC grounds, either. It’s because they’re right: “illegal immigrant” sounds stupid. In every other context, “illegal” modifies an action (e.g. “immigration”) or item (“drugs”), not the actor or user. “Illegal driver” sounds equally stupid. And so would “illegal addict” for someone addicted to illegal drugs. Or for that matter, “illegal cop” for a corrupt police officer.
Then again, I’m one of those people who winces when people say “to impact” when they really mean “to make an impact”.
Don’t get me started.
I was in a meeting the other day and someone asked “Is [program name] impacted?” I’m almost certain people near me could hear my knuckles cracking as I fought to keep quiet. It’s a big project – if it’s impacted, we’ll need a LOT of dentists to fix it.
and having one segment of the population object to another segment’s existence is not generally the start of nice things happening.
I have no problem with their existence. They are free to live a life legally.
Using language that describes the person as illegal dehumanizes them
Then maybe they shouldn’t commit illegal acts.
Jean Valjean? Is that you?
People who don’t have to follow the AP style book if they don’t want: Everyone in this thread.
Entering a country illegally is a little more serious than stealing bread…that is what that movie was all about wasn’t it?
How are human beings who enter countries in European countries handled? Are they allowed to stay and are not returned to their land of origin? Are they given benefits? What term do they use to refer to them? Is America the only place this is a problem?
America’s history with immigration is very different from European countries, though. There’s a very interesting conversation to be had about America’s immigration policy vs. America’s immigration philosophy (i.e. tired, poor, huddled masses, etc). Unfortunately, it’s the kind of conversation that is impossible in the current political and intellectual climate.
Journalism doesn’t work like this. Look at the articles I linked to earlier; none of them use language like that. Which is why the AP updated their style guide, to ensure that immigration offenses are treated the same as other crimes. The AP’s explanation in the original post made it pretty clear with the distinction between “skitzophrenic” and “diagnosed with schizophrenia.” Did that not make sense to you?
No, you’re not. First, because that doesn’t make any sense structurally, and second because you’ve never used that term before, and you know it. “Illegal driver” would be weird in casual conversation, and even more out of place in an actual professional news article. The only reason you’re pretending that “illegal driver” is ok is because you don’t want to admit that your knee-jerk “OH NO THE PC POLICE!” reaction was premature and stupid. You’re arguing in bad faith.
Only in the sense that we expect school children to complete writing assignments without making a total mess of them!
It’s pretty strongly implied by this, but I just want to clarify. Would “a person who commits an illegal act deserves to be dehumanized” be an accurate summary of what you were thinking here? If not, please rephrase.
“dehumanized” is in a great PC phrase for it is mean to label someone by their actions
Actually, when I use the word, I’m using its precise definition: to regard or portray someone as less than human. So now that we both know what “dehumanizing” means, would you like to agree or disagree with the above statement?
By the way, I’m trying really hard not to Godwin, but if you’re going to continue to be deliberately obtuse I can get more specific about the sort of portrayals I’m referencing.
to regard or portray someone as less than human.
Then calling someone an “illegal immigrant” doesn’t fit the definition, does it.
People who traverse hell in order to get here and hopefully scratch out a better life for their kids and grandkids? Yeah, fucking illegal scum.
Actually, it does. Objects or actions can be illegal. People cannot be illegal. A person cannot be classified as an action, but they can be classified as an object. Now, answer the question. Would you agree with the statement “A person who commits an illegal act deserves to be dehumanized.”?