“Illegals” carries negative connotations. That’s why racists love to use the term, because it’s less dangerous than any number of other racial slurs, but still carries weight. It’s as plain as the nose on one’s face.
I do understand that I’m not going to abandon enlightened thought for finger-pointing, though.
Why is not dehumanizing people to be dismissed ad political correctness?
How about an experiment?
I have a spare bedroom here in Tijuana. I invite anyone to come down and throw the word “illegals” around to see what happens. I doubt I could defend you if you get hurt, though.
Because it’s a moving target, and whatever term is used, its use by racists will soon enough make it unsuitable. Did you know “retarded” was the PC replacement for “moron” and “idiot”? Then it was replaced by “special”, which has now become an insult in its own right.
Maybe in the US. In Canada, not so much. Of course, we’re a little more sane about how we treat such people, especially with respect to tearing children out of their mothers’ arms.
So cheers yourself, and congratulations for doing more to rail at somebody who’s basically on your side while failing utterly to hold accountable the people in your own country who put a monster in the White House.
You’re joking, right? We are one small electoral victory from marching lock-step wit the US off that cliff.
Oh, and this Canadian is disagreeing with you about how “lesser charged” the term is. People are not illegal. Accepting “little” things like that makes accepting the big ones that much easier. Words and language are how it starts. Normalisation comes from words, not guns.
Believe me, we’re trying. Alas, nobody has a time machine, and assassination hasn’t been legalized.
Pray tell, why do you think they fell out of favor? Could it have anything to do with the fact that they were found to be offensive?
That’s why I would never refer to Canadians as Counterglows.
I’m echoing your comment here in case others missed it.
I think the dearth of likes for your initial comment—because what you’re arguing would find wide agreement here—is the sour note at the end with the use of ‘illegals’. It’s not ‘politically incorrect’—it’s just incorrect. A person cannot be illegal, only their actions. That’s why ‘undocumented’ has gained traction as a descriptor (that and it assumes the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’).
That’s all. Not going to belabor it.
Back to your message. I agree that those who hire workers without going through proper documentation procedure should be under much more pressure and threat of law than they are right now. Last I read up on the issue, only about twenty-five percent of those living in the U.S. without documentation are self-employed, which leads me to infer that the majority are being hired under the table.
‘They took our jobs!’, the anti-immigrant folks cry. No, your fellow citizens gave them jobs. Maybe you should reserve some of your anger—say, seventy-five percent—for them instead.
The faulty logic is not quite a slippery slope fallacy, but still, wheeeeee!
If it’s a “moving target” it’s a very slow-moving one that anyone with a modicum of intelligence, education, and basic human decency can track without much effort.
It’s not an employers job to snitch. But I’ll concede your point seems validated by the presence of strong xenophobia in the U.S. and powerfully enabled by the draconian immigration control agency known as ICE. I’d like to believe that employers would simply and quietly reject applications without proper documentation and leave it at that. But I suspect we have way too many people in this country who like to play little authoritarian with others’ lives.
Here in Australia there does seem to more done to target the employers - who are the ones really breaking the law, seeking out and employing someone who will not pay their way with income tax, will not be eligible for superannuation (so the employer keeps all those entitlements normally paid). These are much smaller numbers than the USA but a similar pernicious people smuggler/labour hire exploitation set up.
You’re right, it’s a moving target. The first time someone used the term, it was intentionally offensive. Since then, it’s traveled through Very Offensive, Rude, Good Way To Start A Fight, and is currently located at OK With Trump Supporters, But A Sure Sign Of A Bigoted Asshat. So, yeah, it’s moved around some.
It never did pass through Socially Acceptable, though. Hmmm.
If words don’t matter, and language is meaningless, then I choose to interpret everything you’re saying right now as a direct insult.
See? I can be an obstinate asshole too.
How about you just admit that words maybe do have meaning, and using them in certain ways is both wrong, and can be used to hurt people.
I don’t think you believe words are meaningless. I think you just are being defensive on being called out for using a term pretty much nobody here thinks is acceptable.
Like referring to people as wetbacks. My grandfather gets upset when you tell him he can’t call black people “negroes” either.
Look, if you’re a politician you can’t start cracking down on local businesses who are hiring undocumented workers, because then who would pay your bribes, ahem, I mean campaign contributions?
For the record, I didn’t block that post.
I prefer making an attempt to educate and enlighten an individual who is hampered in their perception, rather than negate them.
Our constitution being applied equally the way it is written, to citizen and denizen alike, would surely end capitalism as we know it. Our house is built on sand.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
