Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stating the obvious, but language is extremely important. The words one is allowed to use to describe different groups of people, defines how that group of people individually and collectively will be treated in that society.
So when it was ok to call black people n words in public that reflected how black people were treated in this society.
The ability to define yourself individually or the group you are lumped in for yourselves is important to how you get treated in this nation.
So conservatives know that calling mexican immigrants here without the proper documentation illegal aliens defines that group of people in an extremely negative light and allows for that groups' arguments for citizenship or better treatment to be dismissed because after all they are lowly illegals who don't deserve anything at all.
Many Democrats know that when you get people to use more humanizing language the treatment that group of people receives in society drastically changes.
He's chosen to identify himself and align himself with his Puerto Rican heritage. That's his right. You're butthurt about that too?
Though aligning himself with his Puerto Rican heritage shouldn't have any bearing on his immigration issues. Unless he's trying to make himself some voice of a non-existent pan-Hispanic bloc.
Puerto Ricans are always Citizens... there are no illegals of Puerto Rican descent.
Though aligning himself with his Puerto Rican heritage shouldn't have any bearing on his immigration issues. Unless he's trying to make himself some voice of a non-existent pan-Hispanic bloc.
Puerto Ricans are always Citizens... there are no illegals of Puerto Rican descent.
He sees himself as a prominent voice for Latinos regardless of origin. He made that clear in his book.
Stating the obvious, but language is extremely important. The words one is allowed to use to describe different groups of people, defines how that group of people individually and collectively will be treated in that society.
So when it was ok to call black people n words in public that reflected how black people were treated in this society.
The ability to define yourself individually or the group you are lumped in for yourselves is important to how you get treated in this nation.
So conservatives know that calling mexican immigrants here without the proper documentation illegal aliens defines that group of people in an extremely negative light and allows for that groups' arguments for citizenship or better treatment to be dismissed because after all they are lowly illegals who don't deserve anything at all.
Many Democrats know that when you get people to use more humanizing language the treatment that group of people receives in society drastically changes.
This is what the debate is about.
No it isn't. It is a 100% accurate in law and normal, everyday language to describe what a group of people are. The are criminals or "illegal" and they are unnaturalized, foreign residents who are not visiting or touring, they are attempting to reside or squat on the land. Those are what you call an 'alien'.
Like I told the guy before, you get upset at the definition of a word then try to make it into a pejorative.
Can you stop kicking the dictionary and kick your brain for being fail? It doesn't know any better.
No it isn't. It is a 100% accurate in law and normal, everyday language to describe what a group of people are. The are criminals or "illegal" and they are unnaturalized, foreign residents who are not visiting or touring, they are attempting to reside or squat on the land. Those are what you call an 'alien'.
Like I told the guy before, you get upset at the definition of a word then try to make it into a pejorative.
Can you stop kicking the dictionary and kick your brain for being fail? It doesn't know any better.
Again, if it was merely about a definition many other words could apply as well and be accurate. Undocumented immigrants is an accurate descriptor as well.
The debate is about using language to define a group of people.
conservatives know that the term illegal aliens defines that group of people in very negative terms, and this helps conservatives in their political goals pertaining to blocking this group of people.
Democrats know that using humanizing language to describe undocumented immigrants will help Democrats in their political goals pertaining to helping this group of people.
Again, if it was merely about a definition many other words could apply as well and be accurate. Undocumented immigrants is an accurate descriptor as well.
The debate is about using language to define a group of people.
conservatives know that the term illegal aliens defines that group of people in very negative terms, and this helps conservatives in their political goals pertaining to blocking this group of people.
Democrats know that using humanizing language to describe undocumented immigrants will help Democrats in their political goals pertaining to helping this group of people.
This is what the debate is all about.
It diminishes the legal immigrant workers who comes here and puts them on an equal terminology as someone who hasn't been approved, and has committed and is actively committing a crime.
The clearest, most descriptive word is 'illegal alien' which again means you want to also force it to only mean Mexicans, but it has no racial connotation to it what-so-ever.
Again, if it was merely about a definition many other words could apply as well and be accurate. Undocumented immigrants is an accurate descriptor as well.
The debate is about using language to define a group of people.
conservatives know that the term illegal aliens defines that group of people in very negative terms, and this helps conservatives in their political goals pertaining to blocking this group of people.
Democrats know that using humanizing language to describe undocumented immigrants will help Democrats in their political goals pertaining to helping this group of people.
This is what the debate is all about.
Since when is doing something illegal not negative?
Yes it paints illegal aliens in a negative light, because it is.
Again, if it was merely about a definition many other words could apply as well and be accurate. Undocumented immigrants is an accurate descriptor as well.
The debate is about using language to define a group of people.
conservatives know that the term illegal aliens defines that group of people in very negative terms, and this helps conservatives in their political goals pertaining to blocking this group of people.
This is what the debate is all about.
Why shouldn't they be described in negative terms, they are criminals which in and of itself is a negative thing. Is it to become the policy that one group of criminals deserves less or no negative connotations? Is the idea to get people to think that these illegals are just normal people doing nothing more than walking along looking for a better life?
If that's the case then you'd better start coming up with new names for many types of criminal behavior, especially theft of all types. He's not a bank robber, he just wants a better life for himself and his family and since he has found it's hard work to do it the regular way he'll just take it.
How about the term "convicted felon"? They've done their time, why be so negative and cause people to not like them.
Then we come up with the "those poor Mexicans or whomever living in a corrupt country just want the american dream". Really? So do many people who're born here and legally immigrate here. Their poor corrupt country is not our issue and instead of running away and forcing yourself on someone else how 'bout trying to fix where you're at?
I think the negative connotations need to remain, there are supposed to be consequences to committing crimes isn't there?
It diminishes the legal immigrant workers who comes here and puts them on an equal terminology as someone who hasn't been approved, and has committed and is actively committing a crime.
The clearest, most descriptive word is 'illegal alien' which again means you want to also force it to only mean Mexicans, but it has no racial connotation to it what-so-ever.
No it doesn't and that argument doesn't make any logical sense. This is the conservative lie, in order for one group to be respected, this other group has to be demeaned. This is dumb thinking.
I didn't mention race.
I will repeat there are many terms that are accurate. This is not about accuracy it is about defining a group of people.
conservatives want to use a term that negatively defines this group of people to further their political goals towards that group of people.
Democrats know that using more humanizing language to define undocumented immigrants will further their political goal of helping that group of people.
Since when is doing something illegal not negative?
Yes it paints illegal aliens in a negative light, because it is.
Again, that is the goal for conservatives. So why not admit it? conservatives should say we like the term illegal immigrants because it negatively defines this group of people who we are opposed to politically, and we understand that this language helps us in achieving our goal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
