> I would argue people complaining about seeing this twice are trying to pull the article without coming out as a bigot
I would argue that you probably need to step away from the keyboard, if you're willing to jump to the conclusion that someone truthfully posting a very customary "this is a dup" comment is a bigot.
Okay, it seems like you're talking about me. I don't particularly support Trump and didn't vote for the guy but his immigration policy is one place I agree. I believe that every single illegal should be deported and probably barred from re-entry or citizenship as a punitive deterrent. I do not believe anyone besides Trump will actually do this.
I do, however, disagree with Trump's targeting of pro-Palestinians. If Mahdawi originally immigrated illegally we should block a pathway to citizenship, as we should for every other current or former illegal. However, this appears to be done for the wrong reasons.
Tarring everyone who dislikes illegal immigration and believes the "soft" solutions have utterly failed as a bigot is inaccurate and unproductive.
There's already no path to citizenship for anyone that entered the US without a visa or parole, and if deported it already eliminates the eligibility for a visa for 5 to 20 years.
There are periodic amnesties granted every so often. The prior administration also radically expanded temporary protected status by hundreds of thousands of people to protect them from deportation. Near the end of his second term, Obama attempted to do this for millions of immigrants. We also issue I-601A waivers, the U visa, and of course the mass abuse of the asylum system.
I think this should be pretty straightforward: we need a somewhat more streamlined immigration system. However, we should still cap the overall proportion of immigration any country can represent, should limit uneducated, unskilled labor, and should block anyone who immigrates illegally from ever obtaining lawful permanent residency, any benefits or privileges, and certainly citizenship.
It's dehumanising. They have committed an illegal act. The respectfully term would be "illegal immigrants." It's the difference between "black people" and "blacks." The latter was also once incredibly common parlance.
This is BS. I call people illegals or blacks just like I call them millennials or Christians. This is still standard parlance. You have to make a case as to why it’s dehumanizing if you want people to listen; you can’t just say it.
> You have to make a case as to why it’s dehumanizing if you want people to listen; you can’t just say it.
He (and his fellow travelers) assert it, therefore that is the way it is. It's an obnoxious but super-common way of driving ideological change (and keeping people on the outside).
For the most part, all these formulations (illegal, illegal immigrant, undocumented immigrant, person experiencing un-documentation) have an objectively equivalent meaning. The newer ones are kinda foolish attempts to use language games to change people's beliefs and perceptions, and really only function as shibboleths.
Correct, we could ban undergrads reading Wittgenstein and half of this BS would go away.
I generally ignore this because these changes both carry some level of significance in how people think, linguistic determinism wise, and because they turn into Havel’s Greengrocer type situations.
I did make a case, I thought that anyone using HN would have a good enough reading ability to take the inference about human first language from my examples. I understand you might have missed it because of your emotional reaction, evidenced by your jumping straight to swearing at me.
It's not bullshit, though, it's actually also extremely common parlance if you care to get out of your bubble. Watch a speech from a Democrat and you'll see that they probably prefer terms like "undocumented migrants." Look at style guides from publishers like the Associated Press and you'll see that they specifically warn against using agressive language like "illegals." This is not a fringe idea and it's strange to argue for your own term on the basis of it being "common" without recognising how commonly people feel that it is inappropriate, and without having the decency to offer a case as to why you feel they are wrong.
Maybe you use the term blacks just like you use Christians. Ok? That's specifically ignoring the explicit requests from various advocacy groups and ignoring the historical problems associated with the use of the term. If you're still making the case that you aren't a bigot this looks very unconcinving. Especially when you start talking about banning philosophy books just because you can't handle questions being raised about language. The world and its people are various and it's time that you learned you have to share it with people who have different views. You are on the wrong side of history today.
