It is also interesting that there is no neutral term for this topic. Actually, now I’m using euphemisms. It’s not interesting, it’s disheartening.
I don't know if that's a correct categorization, but given that framing the relevant differences are not at all about one "descriptive" term and one "euphemistic" one.
So “asylum seekers” or “refugee” would be better, since I agree that they are not undocumented, either.
A person can be undocumented.
However, a person cannot be illegal - they can only commit illegal acts. I.e illegal immigration.
Language is flexible though and I understand what people mean with the term. I believe those on the left take issue with calling people illegal, out of fear of promoting xenophobia.
getting into the semantics is ridiculous in this situation. 1/3 girls let over that border are raped according to doctors without borders. every person walking over is part of the cartels human trafficking ring, but yeah let's worry about what we called it in our legal books.
xenophobia is not the moral issue here, it's fucking human trafficking.
Also, as of this year the Biden administration has asked ICE, CBP to stop using the term “illegal alien”.
noone will believe you care if you squabble over what to call someone while letting them be trafficked.
illegal alien is not offensive, stop trying to make a false debate so you don't have to discuss the real issue, the cartels.
Biden can ask ICE and CBP to use whatever words he wants, like that does something, they're just following the laws he helped write.
maybe he should have updated the immigration laws in his half a century as a senator.
I was pointing out how bias in the media in this topic always turns to a word debate not a debate on the issue.
Keep in mind YOU brought up xenophobia and not the cartels. You continued the semantics debate, but not the root issue.
And on your second point I take issue with the premise. Like I said earlier, I think our understanding of words have consequences, debating their meaning is debating the issue. However, is it the most fruitful and meaningful debate? Perhaps not.. but again, we are in a comment section about word usage in media bias - so that’s why I’m focusing on it.
Even if the word isn't offensive, and you have no idea how many find it as such, if any. That's the priority.
All pointless to solve the actual issue, but makes a great show and distracts people.
Unlike Biden, you had no power to change the immigration laws, so I don't hold anything against you.
But yes, this is about media bias and word usage. Let's just chalk semantic debates up as a tool used in that bias.
You're the one arguing about replacing legal terms and xenophobia while gloating that I may be "triggered" by what you're saying.
Complete nonsense wrapped up in words, while ignoring the real world issues. Read up on the border, ease up on the thesaurus. Cheers.
> xenophobia is not the moral issue here
Unless you were selectively quoting parts of my sentences for another reason. You didn't exactly make a rebuttal.
> if we used more compassionate language to refer to these people
Which implies a greater interest in the politics of the language vs. semantic precision/grammatical precision.
The "illegal" in the phrase "illegal immigrant" refers to their illegal immigration, not to the legality of their person-hood, as your comment would imply. "Undocumented" is an intentional dodge of the legality of the immigration action undertaken by the person (aka their immigration status). The more factual phrase has been made controversial by partisans.
And btw, cards on the table, I support an expanded, rational immigration policy that recognizes the critically important role immigrants play in the U.S. economy and, more generally, society. And one that encourages legality and punishes illegality.