Hacker News Reader

Comment by pclmulqdq | Hacker News Reader

When the completely descriptive term "illegal immigrant" becomes somehow an immoral thing to call people who immigrate illegally, it was a bit absurd. Literally every illegal immigrant has committed a crime, by definition, and that crime is immigrating illegally - "illegal" describes the mode of immigration. The previous administration used "undocumented immigrant" (and often shortened it to "undocumented") as a sort of "softening" language game.

View on HN

You're talking about the term "illegal immigrants" but I was responding to the use of the term "illegals." The term you're using includes the word migrant and is therefore not dehumanising in the same way. The difference is between using illegal as an alternative or a noun. Sorry if that wasn't clear from what I said

I'm sorry but these are the word games that drive the right. In essence, no one gives a shit. You are only signaling to other liberals and accomplishing nothing. Why not focus on a fight that matters.

You've made a good example of the danger of using words like this to group people. You've made an incorrect assumption that I am a "liberal" and you've made no argument beyond that I am serving a boogeyman in the nebulous concept of "the right," perpetuating a black and white idea of us-and-them politics and shoe-horning every possible opinion into one of two camps.

If you genuinely want to change my behaviour then please substantiate your claims, give arguments for the points you're making and speak to me like an individual rather than a hologram of whatever group you're projecting onto me.

I don't care about political labels. These niche arguments are useless - they don't change anyone's mind. Both sides use these debates as examples to portray the other as extreme. I'm tired of discourse that claims to enlighten but only pushes people further apart, regardless of intent.

You don't care about political labels but your entire argument was that my position "drives the right" -- no reasoning was offered, only the claim that your boogeyman of choice was somehow being strengthened. You don't care about labels but you made sure to accompany your claim by pointing out that I was "only signaling to other liberals" making again a point with no content other than the boogeyman and now with the addition of now placing me within that group on the basis of my position.

I've read back on this exchange several times. I see that I am positing something about language and explaining my reasoning, then you're responding with cries about "word games" without saying anything of substance. Do you see the same thing? What are you trying to say and why?

The word games I was referring to were your overly technical analysis of the term "illegal." In everyday conversation, people don't care about logical breakdowns of words. They find such arguments absurd and view those making these claims as out of touch. While you might see it as a justified position, most people perceive it as someone being pedantic/elitist with too much time on their hands.

I'm sorry that I assumed you belonged to a group on a political thread where everyone was trashing Trump. It was a dumb mistake to assume you are worried about the rise of the far right.

If we should call things what they are, we should definitely start by calling Americans who emigrate to other countries what they are: immigrants in the other country. Of course most choose to cutely refer to themselves as "expats".

Sure, I agree you should call them that. "Expat" is short for "expatriate" which is about where they come from. They are both expatriates of America and immigrants to wherever they go.

Glad you agree!

I'm just pointing out that the most plausible reason your fellow countrymen choose to call themselves "expats" wherever they go, is because the rhetoric in your country has dehumanized or made the word immigrants/illegal "dirty".

Not hard to imagine such rhetoric can lead to nastiness all around, ending even in violence against said group. If you don't mind that and see no problem with that, then of course there's absolutely no common ground for us to have any discussion on :)

I don't agree with you that the words "illegal immigrant" create violence. Also, "immigrant" does not carry a negative connotation in most uses as far as I can tell. The negative connotation comes from the word "illegal," which marks someone who commits a crime (illegal immigration) as a criminal. Of course, aside from arrest and deportation, they do not deserve to be subject to violence or maltreatment. That is how every country in the world treats people who immigrate illegally.

> I don't agree with you that the words "illegal immigrant" create violence.

Heh I guess you've never been subject to taunts such as "go back to your country illegal" or "you don't belong here!". Must be nice!

I am a second-generation American and actually have been told "go back to your country" and been given the "you don't belong here" before, too. The people who say that shit are assholes and are worth ignoring (it's very easy). But thank you for informing me that disliking the people who jump the line invalidates my perspective.

When the completely descriptive term "illegal immigrant" becomes somehow an immoral thing to call people who immigrate illegally, it was a bit absurd

I think you're missing GP's point. It's "illegals" that's arguably dehumanizing. Similar to "blacks" or "the blacks" versus "black people".

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with GP, but I've definitely picked up on racism from people who talk about "blacks" instead of black people, and the homophobia from people who talk about "the gays" instead of gay people.

Why, then, is "the undocumented" not dehumanizing? This is the language that has been used under the prior administration.

Who says it isn't? If you want my opinion, it's the same habit creeping into the new language. Whether or not that's dehumanizing, I don't know, and I don't care. I'm fine with the term "illegals". I was just explaining what I understood GP's point to be.

The real problem is the totality of it. We've gone far past calling them "illegal" to saying "they're poisoning the blood of our country", which incidentally is also language used by Nazis.

The things they say consistently ratchet toward justifications for genocide rather than away from it, and that's how it works - one small step at a time, where people explain each one away as not that bad.

But each step is toward the day when you can say "... and therefore we must implement a final solution for the problem of illegals. I wish it didn't have to be this way, but they forced us to by poisoning and invading our country."

It's a long way to go from the word "illegal(s)" and large-scale deportations to Nazism and genocide. Deportation of illegal immigrants is a good thing. Illegal immigration is a violation of the law, and it is routine for people who overstay a visa to be deported (and usually banned from entry to a country for 10-20 years).

There are people who wait decades to legally get a visa, and all of the people who saunter over the border thinking they are above the law make a mockery of the people who do it the right way. While you keep imagining an unavoidable slippery slope to genocide, I will celebrate the return of the rule of law to immigration while making sure that it goes no further.

As I said in my initial comment those are all points that can be made respectfully. I have no issue with someone arguing in favour of deporting those who have illegally emigrated. That argument is indeed a far way away from Nazism.

Where it becomes concerning is when this dehumanising language begins to creep in. When the administration begins talking about people as "vermin" it becomes very concerning.

Where the fear of Nazism comes in is when we see Nazi salutes and plans to move "the illegals" to purpose built camps outside of normal American jurisdiction in Guantanamo Bay.

We're far past "illegals" tho. Like I said, we are at "vermin poisoning the blood of the country". We are past "detention facilities", and we are on to "military controlled black site known for torturing terrorists where media can't see". And the political climate has moved from "we need to build a wall" to "we need to deport 11 million people and challenge the constitutionality of citizenship".

We are closer than you think. All they need at this point is to start defying court orders and there are no more guardrails. None. They have the authority. They have the social permission structure. They have immunity from laws. They control the police and military. What's left?

If you disagree, please point to what would prevent this administration from carrying out a "final solution" against immigrants?

I really don't want to get into de-railing the conversation away from the very real concern of the rise of facism in the US, but "undocumented" here is a factual adjective whereas using the term "illegals" as a noun is a clear scare-word. The more neutral equivalent would be "illegal immigrants" and the more charged version of "the undocumented" would be "undocumenteds."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com