The AP has a way to solve the “illegal immigrant” problem
They just won’t be called that any more.
After all, we wouldn’t want to offend anyone or hurt their feelings.
The article is a bit mum on what should replace the term, which is supposedly being jettisoned because it characterizes the people as illegal rather than their method of arrival in this country. And yet, strangely enough, NY Times public editor Margaret Sullivan says that that paper is thinking of substituting “undocumented” or “unauthorized” instead, which uses exactly the same grammatical device.
Make no mistake about it; this sort of thing may seem trivial but it matters. Words help shape attitudes. If we refuse to use the term “illegal,” it’s part of the process by which illegal immigration itself becomes no big whoop.
[ADDENDUM: In a comment somewhere I saw a suggestion for a new term to replace it the old one: future Democratic voter.]
The illegal immigrant ‘problem’ has been irresolvable because special interests on both sides don’t want it solved and have actively prevented it from being addressed.
No wall need be constructed, no greatly increased numbers of border patrol are needed. Nor do we need better apprehension of illegal immigrants.
All we need do is ensure that no jobs are available for illegals and they will return to their points of origin. The way to eliminate the availability of jobs is simplicity itself. Go after the employers. Make the penalties severe, mandatory and inescapable and enforce those laws and the problem will disappear.
The problem is NOT the illegals. The problem is the special interests that covertly defend the status quo.
See, e.g., George Orwell’s 1984
Early on this administration decided to call acts of terrorism “man-caused disasters”. This is another PC terminology to dampen down our perception of the real issues at hand. Words do matter, I will continue to use the terms wetback or illegal alien.
This has been going on for a long time; i.e. changing the meaning of words, or Liberals virtually banning the use of words that they don’t like. At the risk of being out of step step with the times, I point to “Gay”, “homosexual”, “abortion” and “choice”, “illegal immigrant”, “undocumented resident”, as a small selection of words with distorted meaning, or that have been virtually banned from public discourse.
Geoffery, I understand the intent of the strategy, but I do find it distasteful to suggest we cure a problem by putting the onus on a group who are not the real cause of the problem. Illegal immigrants, and the the people who make up that population are precisely the problem. It is not difficult to identify them; so, why go after a secondary target? Well, you do that if you do not want to confront the issue directly.
Another problem with your solution, sort of tongue in cheek, is that in places like here in SoCal, tracking down homeowner whose yard man is working illegally, and proving their culpability would not only be a gargantuan task, it would undoubtedly gore some powerful oxen.
On a more serious note, can you imagine the outcry from the bleeding heart Liberals, as opposed to the purely Statist Liberals, when all of the families of workers who just came her to improve their lot, lost their source of income. That is already the argument used by many for some form of amnesty. Human decency demands it.
While I am thinking about it, there would also be international relations ramifications to such a crackdown. If Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, et al suddenly lost the massive income from remittances (around $20B/annum to Mexico alone) they may well ally and declare war. Obama and Hagel, caught with a greatly reduced military force might just surrender.
The amount of money flowing south out of the United States with no value in return is no joke. It is not a joke to us, and it certainly it not a joke to Mexico, and others.This was printed in the SF Chronicle in 2006: “The money Mexican migrants send home almost equals the U.S. foreign aid budget for the entire world, said Arturo Valenzuela, director of the Center for Latin American Studies at Georgetown University and former head of Inter-American Affairs at the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.” The same article cited that 15% of the Mexican work force is employed in the U.S. The expert specifically said that we must accept this situation, or face the ramifications of an unstable neighbor, who hates us.
No, face facts. We bought this pig, now we have no choice but to carry it in our poke.
I personally have no complaints. I was privileged to live in the United States of America for over seven decades.
Habla Espanol, Usted?
Every foregoing post has some good in it.
The Left is clever, as a group, cleverer than we its opponents. How can you be effective against “Smart Growth” or “Comprehensive Planning”? Are you Stupid? Or don’t you give credence to Planning? If you do, why not a “Comprehensive” Plan.
But Oldflyer is wrong, fretting about a war if the money flows stop. That is like paying blackmail. I am glad he’s had 7 good American decades (as have I) but to let the place go to crap just because one is done with it….
Well Don Carlos, guess my tongue in cheek about the war was too subtle–or maybe too far off the mark. (My wife says no one really follows my sarcasm, so it is not surprising.)
The point, as Geoffrey said, is that there are a lot of special interests involved in this situation. Among those are the governments of Mexico and the United States. Big money is involved for Mexico; and make believe stability on the southern border is important to the U.S.
My comment about the seven good decades was along the same lines.
Believe me I grieve. I have also written to my federal representatives for many years; and I donate to candidates who profess to share my values. To no avail it would seem.
One thing I learned from Navy lore is that Peeing into the wind is seldom effective.
This is the face of contemporary activism prosecuted through symbolic gestures. It is especially noteworthy in its selective character.
The illegal aliens and their domestic patrons demonstrate a distinct lack of interest for the rights and welfare of Americans and the aliens’ countrymen. They seem blissfully unaware of corrupt governments, criminal cartels, and fanatical environmentalists, which redistribute, murder, and displace people on both sides of the border.
I’m with GB on this. Actively ferret out those who employ wetbacks. And imposes stiff penalties in terms of fines and jail time. Wetbacks depress labor costs in a wide range of the economy from agriculture, construction, food service, domestic service, etc. And their extended families eat up welfare, medical, educational, and judicial resources. They come without penalty. The penalty has to fall on those who hire them.
“I do find it distasteful to suggest we cure a problem by putting the onus on a group who are not the real cause of the problem.” Oldflyer
I’m not suggesting that those who hire illegals are the primary cause of the problem. They are however the most effective point of leverage upon which to place the fulcrum. Employers aren’t going anywhere, they cannot run and hide and the employers to whom I refer are not the homeowner who employes a gardener to trim their lawn.
The employers that I would target are business owners and managers. It’s not necessary to stop all hiring of illegals, just enough to create the realization that employment of illegals in the US is no longer a paying proposition for either the businesses or for most illegals. Simply start with the largest employers and work our way down until the problem of illegal immigration ceases to be a concern.
Bleeding heart liberals are one of the special interest groups on the left to whom I referred.
Of course there would be international ramifications, that too are part of the special interests to whom I referred. The harm that unchecked illegal immigration is doing to this country however far outweigh whatever International resentment might arise.
“I personally have no complaints.”
Unfortunately, the social consequences of unchecked illegal immigration are impacting all of us and will impact future generations far more than it has us.
And we do have a responsibility to future generations, whether we acknowledge it or not.
Must I point out that had prior generations not made the sacrifices they did, in taking seriously their social obligations to our generation, we would not have been, nor would you have been “privileged to live in the United States of America for over seven decades”.
Everyone “just” wants something…
The illegal immigrant “just” wants work to feed his family. The legal immigrant “just” wants to obey the law. The liberal sobbing sister “just” wants a cause she can immerse herself in. The elite gated community “just” want their swimming pools cleaned.
I can hardly wait until someone jumps up and says they “just” want to act responsibly and be held accountable for their actions. Until that time happens though, perhaps we could trade a few liberals for working illegals on a 1:1 ratio. If that’s not possible, then hang both groups from the nearest tree and let’s get on with life. I just want a little peace and quiet!
I saw a Jim Geraghty tweet at NRO a bit ago. He suggested using the term criminal immigrants. Sounds good to me.
1) Future Democratic voter
2) Invaders
3) Moochers
What we call them doesn’t matter. Rule of law is important only to family oriented, conservative minded people.
The rest of the people are for pot legalization, no processes for immigrants, more and more federal and state spending – bankruptcy and no future.
Bill Whittle: ““Imagine a country where not only are the borders secured by armed guards, but once you entered the country, if you even spoke about politics – at all – if you even mentioned anything politically, you would be deported. Imagine a country where everyone is required to be tracked all the time. Where all of these immigrants are constantly monitored. Imagine where the idea of immigrants even having a word on the internal politics of a country would be enough to get them deported.”
“I can imagine a country like that. That country is Mexico.”
Mexico is a country with much less economic opportunity than the U.S. And much less freedom. They come for the economic opportunities. They come because the border is easy to cross and it’s relatively easy to find work as well as to use our medical and welfare benefits. We have laws against them doing this, but unlike Mexico, we don’t enforce them. They have broken the law. They know they have broken the law, but it continues because things continue to be bad in Mexico and we refuse to enforce the law.
The new description of illegal immigrants is aimed at defining criminality down. We are no longer a nation of laws. We are a nation only of laws that the executive decides to enforce. Closing the border is entirely possible. Yes, it would cost money and take effort. There was a time when we could have done it. Today, the dems want the illegals as a new source of party members and businesses want them as cheap labor. The will isn’t there at this time.
Ten years after Victor Davis Hanson wrote “Mexifornia” (Which advocated closing the border, return to the melting pot, offer earned citizenship to most aliens of long residence in exchange for acceptance of English and American culture.) his ideas are still dreamed of by conservatives and many legal immigrants. However, they are still only a dream at this point.
Here’s what he said five years ago, “And the concerted effort by Chicano activists to drive from popular parlance the descriptive term ‘illegal alien’ in favor of the politically correct, but imprecise and often misleading ‘undocumented worker’ has largely failed. Similar efforts to demonize opponents of open borders as ‘anti-immigrant’ or ‘nativist’ have had only a marginal effect in stifling debate, as has the deliberate effort to blur illegal and legal immigration.” Unfortunately, he was wrong to believe that the effort had failed. It has continued and is heard in some iteration every time someone debates the issue of illegal immigration.
Hanson’s article in City Journal is here;
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_mexifornia.html
The problem can be solved. Close the border and crack down on businesses hiring illegals. Provide green cards to those millions already here illegally. Provide a very difficult path to citizenship for those willing to make the effort. Reinstitute the Bracero program to allow guest workers to come for temporary employment. All this can work only if the border is secure first and always. But like so many issues today, this one divides the country. It may drag on for years before a solution (and not a complete one at that) is cobbled together.
The special interests opposed to implementing the policies and enforcing the laws that would solve illegal immigration are NOT going to go away or change. Newton’s First Law of Motion can apply to animate as well as inanimate objects; ‘An object at rest tends to remain at rest until acted upon by an outside force.’
Our borders will be secured after a nuke is smuggled into the US and detonated in a successful nuclear terrorist attack.
Unfortunately, that will engender a ‘fortress America’ mind-set, nationwide martial law and for leftist tyranny to use crisis as opportunity.
“Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant.” James Madison
this will take care of the use of “illegal firearm” as well, won’t it?
The FCC announced they were doing the same thing.
“The FCC said it has reduced the backlog of indecency complaints by 70 percent, down by more than 1 million, since last September by eliminating complaints …”
We could do the same thing with crime, or anything else that bothers us.
Jay Layno said they are now “undocumented Democrats”.
JJ, I have seen some of which you speak. While working in Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas many years ago I did not notice any reluctance to speak on the part of the middle class, although the subject of politics simply did not come up.
Two things I did notice. When the Governor was going to fly in or out in his Lear Jet, the airport swarmed with armed military, and all other activity ceased. Also during the work day, there was an armed soldier on every downtown street corner. (I was told there were banditos in the hills and the banks needed protecting.)
A couple of years after I left there was an extremely bloody uprising in the very center of San Cristobal de las Casas, a couple of hours drive up the mountain. It was put down with serious loss of life.
I’ve been in Mexico a number of times. In 2004 we passed thru a large # of very poor small villages in Eastern Mexico, utterly devoid of men who, we were told by the Mexicanos, had gone to the USA for work. Their previous lot in Mexico was at subsistence levels.
Mexico has shipped the bottom of their social order to us, and they send $ back. We educate them, health-care them, food-stamp them, employ them. This is a tide that has raised ALL Mexican boats- get rid of the poorest, least educated, and have them ship Billions back every year.
Meanwhile, thanks to Roe v. Wade, we have enabled the deaths of 50 million fetuses, some 25 million males, so there are lots af US jobs that no American will fill. Because they’re dead. Mexicans fill that self-created void. We need Mexican labor because we have killed our own.
Connect the dots, people!
In re: the ref’s to Orwell’s 1984 and the Ministry of “Truth’s” twisting of terminology.
Most of us read that book with the horror it deserved …and were repelled by the blatant dishonesty of the Ministry, and recognized the inherent immorality of their actions.
When the Left read it, they went “Hmm. Now there’s an idea.”
Don Carlos:
They’re not “fetuses”. They are developing human lives from conception to grave. The term “fetus” has been misconstrued as a license to murder. Presumably because opportunists feel justified to prematurely terminate a human life when it is identified as a “fetus”. However, we are in a constant state of development from conception to grave. There is no justification for elective abortion, or capital punishment, without cause and without due process under or laws.