[Godstud]

Not an atheist, merely a doubtist and cynic. I'm against religion, not god.

You make a good point about how definitions can be influenced though, moron. (I always feel as though I am ending my sentence with an insult. If I ever use it as an insult I'll italicize it so you can tell the difference. )

[moron]

Zyx, that's what I get. Next time I want to start a silly thread like this, I think I'll just hit some journals and talk to some profs.

Godstud, I'm glad you can sort of see what I'm saying. I read somewhere about the ideology of language, but can't find any relevant materials. All I am finding right now is "language ideology" which is something completely different.

Now I have to go study. Got an exam tomorrow.

[NoRapture]

I can see how many people might not be offended by the use of the word "illegal" when referring to undocumented immigrants, but I am.

You shouldn't be. Illegal and wrongful are two different things. There are illegalities involved with people crossing the Southern borders of the U.S. today. Just a fact. Hopefully many of these penalties, inconveniences and illegalities will be done away with through more intelligent legislation in the near future. We'll all have to wait and see. As for the word, negro, I find it offensive. It's antiquated and has many old, bigoted connotations. Why not just call black Americans wogs if these are the kind of terms to be dragged back out. It's a tricky area this categorizing of people of color. There are so many shades of black and white nowadays that someone is sure to be offended by just about any identifying term or word used.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

I agree with NR. O.O

Illegal is not subjective, it's descriptive. They have not legally emigrated from their countries to our country, thus they are illegal immigrants. It's pretty basic logic as to why the words have been chosen.

[Potemkin]

Godstud, I'm glad you can sort of see what I'm saying. I read somewhere about the ideology of language, but can't find any relevant materials. All I am finding right now is "language ideology" which is something completely different.

I believe you're thinking of discourse analysis. This book, Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader, is a good introduction to the topic. By sheer coincidence, I used to share student digs with one of the editors of the book, Simeon Yates. He dropped out of a physics degree to do a sociology doctorate. At the time I thought that was odd, until many years later I dropped out of a physics career to do a film studies doctorate, which is even worse.

[Zyx]

What is a student dig? A dormitory?

Calling someone 'illegal' is the objection.

You can say that one illegally immigrated, but calling someone an illegal immigrant is clearly hostile. It's not even 'descriptive' of a person, like 'swimmer' is not descriptive of a person, but 'descriptive' of how you 'reduce' someone to a single aspect of their being. That, that aspect is 'criminal,' just goes to show how the word can be played on people's conscious to treat one who 'illegally immigrated' as less than human.

[Potemkin]

What is a student dig? A dormitory?

It's any kind of shared accommodation for students, whether in a dormitory or with a private landlord (it happened to be a private landlord in this case). The word 'digs' to refer to student accommodation is a Briticism.

Calling someone 'illegal' is the objection.

You can say that one illegally immigrated, but calling someone an illegal immigrant is clearly hostile. It's not even 'descriptive' of a person, like 'swimmer' is not descriptive of a person, but 'descriptive' of how you 'reduce' someone to a single aspect of their being. That, that aspect is 'criminal,' just goes to show how the word can be played on people's conscious to treat one who 'illegally immigrated' as less than human.

There, see? That's discourse analysis right there.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

You can say that one illegally immigrated, but calling someone an illegal immigrant is clearly hostile. It's not even 'descriptive' of a person, like 'swimmer' is not descriptive of a person, but 'descriptive' of how you 'reduce' someone to a single aspect of their being. That, that aspect is 'criminal,' just goes to show how the word can be played on people's conscious to treat one who 'illegally immigrated' as less than human.

Yes, every word has connotation. Anyone whose gone to middle school knows that. But connotation is cultural, it doesn't signify anything about the word except for people's perception of it. The fact is that being an illegal immigrant is significant and a useful description, regardless of whether or not you feel it's a "reduction" of someone. No one thinks that illegal immigrants define themselves as such or that they can understand the individual people based on what they are called, but when referring to them politically "illegal immigrant" is a group that needs a moniker because they are referred to a lot. Call them what you want. It won't significantly change anyone's opinions of them, because the fact is that people's opinion of these immigrants are separate from the name.

[Potemkin]

Call them what you want. It won't significantly change anyone's opinions of them, because the fact is that people's opinion of these immigrants are separate from the name.

Quoted for falseness.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Quoted for falseness.

Xenophobia is detached from names. How hard is that to understand?

[Potemkin]

Nothing is detached from names. We think using language. How else would we think? As someone once said, how do I know what I think until I say it?

[moron]

I definitely think that out values and beliefs are partly shaped by language. Alternatively, I think language is an indicator of values and beliefs. Cheesecake is right in the sense that we are talking about xenophobia. Whether it is possible to curb xenophobia by altering the public discourse is arguable.

[Potemkin]

To use Hegelian terminology for a moment, there is a dialectical interaction between abstract thought and discourse. Our thinking shapes our language and stategies of discourse, which in turn shape the ways in which we can think about the world. Changing the public discourse can, in principle, change our thinking. The attempt to do so has become known as 'Political Correctness'. I can assure you that it's working.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Nothing is detached from names. We think using language. How else would we think? As someone once said, how do I know what I think until I say it?

People don't like foreigners not because they're called illegal immigrants, but because they're different and an economic threat.

[Potemkin]

...and also because they're called 'illegal immigrants'.

[Zyx]

It's rather true, the immigrants in the South of the U.S. hardly negatively effect the economies of we Northerners: one can even say that they positively affect us in that they perform cheap labor, like farming, that makes our products more cheap. Nonetheless, a person from the North of the U.S. would use the argument, "My parents immigrated here legally."

Were it simply economics, the Northerner would be in favor. It's the Southerners, if anyone, who lose jobs to immigrants--at least as far as immigration more consumes the South then the North. I am aware that illegal immigrants are in the North, but most 'illegal immigrants' can not maintain the jobs that we work.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

...and also because they're called 'illegal immigrants'.

Whatever, I haven't drunk the cool aid of Marxism so I'm not going to agree with you there. Also, what you're saying now is a little bit different then what you were saying by stating "quoted for falseness". Previously you seemed to be implying that it's all what we call them, and now you seem to be agreeing that there are other properties that illegal immigrants have that might make a person dislike them. Personally I don't see what's so contentious about that idea, since really all I'm saying is that xenophobia is the root cause of the dislike of illegal immigrants, and you're allowed to feel however you'd like about that.

It's rather true, the immigrants in the South of the U.S. hardly negatively effect the economies of we Northerners

Eh whatever, besides if I worked in construction, I'd probably work a lifetime and never be economically effected by illegal immigrants. It's low income blacks and whites that are seeing their incomes either reduced or wholly stripped (in the form of lost jobs) by illegal immigrants. Also I'd hardly say that it doesn't effect northerners living in the city, because if I'm not mistaken there's a lot of puerto rican illegals in new york or some other hispanic minority. Anyhow I hardly see how ignoring the economic hardship of another section of America just because you're not from there is productive at all, though you'd probably say that you don't care about America in general so whatever.

Nonetheless, a person from the North of the U.S. would use the argument, "My parents immigrated here legally."

A hispanic person, but that's a little bit self-evident, don't you think?

Were it simply economics, the Northerner would be in favor. It's the Southerners, if anyone, who lose jobs to immigrants--at least as far as immigration more consumes the South then the North. I am aware that illegal immigrants are in the North, but most 'illegal immigrants' can not maintain the jobs that we work.

Are you positing that there are no low-income jobs in the North? That's silly. The North has cities, and where there are cities, there are slums.

[Zyx]

Cheesecake_Marmalade, you must understand that it's not wholly economics as not everyone is negatively, economically affected. What you said, of "another section," is nationalist, but 'nationalist' insofar as the people are 'illegal,' as nationalist do not oppose 'legal immigrants.' Clearly, the opposition from the middle class is more to do with the name, as your 'economics' argument doesn't hold and your 'nationalist' argument doesn't either.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

you must understand that it's not wholly economics

Duh, it's also xenophobia combined with nationalism. Seriously, if you care about lower class workers to any degree whatsoever, then you'd be against unchecked immigration, especially from low income countries.

but 'nationalist' insofar as the people are 'illegal,' as nationalist do not oppose 'legal immigrants.'

False. Don't tell me what nationalism entails, you clearly don't understand it. If a nationalist says that he doesn't oppose legal immigrants, especially an open borders policy, he's a fuckhead and an idiot who is hating on little more than a word and I'd agree with you guys. However, what most nationalists interpret as "legal immigrants" includes a stringent vetting process and a merit based selection process that is indicative of economic nationalism.

Clearly, the opposition from the middle class is more to do with the name, as your 'economics' argument doesn't hold and your 'nationalist' argument doesn't either.

You haven't demonstrated this at all. All you're doing is saying that I believe things that are only loosely connected to my position and then arguing against those. I'm not arguing that it's all economics and I'm not arguing that it effects middle class, what I'm arguing is compassion for your neighbor and fear of the stranger, both of which would lead you to being against illegal immigrants. Whether or not you think xenophobia is a bad thing is a wholly different subject than whether or not dislike of illegal immigrants is all in a word.

[DanDaMan]

Well, I was taking a test and one of the questions was an essay question about (and I quote) "illegal immigration."

America is a Republic based on the law. A law that should apply to all evenly.
Not to worry though... those like Sotomayor will pervert the law to accommodate "social injustice", as she has done before.