Adjectives such as "illegal" as a rhetorical tool

[Oruc]

What? I already said that everyone does it, I gave you an example of how the left uses it, and I said quite explicitly that I use it myself all the time. I didn't even say it was bad, that I disliked it, or that it shouldn't be used; I described how it was used, said that it was interesting, and asked for more examples.

This is a discussion about rhetoric, not about left or right. Jesus Christ

You should consider it a bad thing.

Not about left or right? you brought up the left, I even quoted where you said the left should start saying "undocumented" alot more.

Right wingers are non-progressive by definition.

Because the right-wing is terrible at the language game, progress can be anything, you can progress towards a more moral society. It doesnt have to be left-wing degeneracy

 

[Hygro]

This is a discussion about rhetoric, not about left or right. Jesus Christ

People don't know how to read. They see some key words, it ignites some emotions, and then they act accordingly.

Oh wait funny how it loops back like that.

 

[Quackers]

Again, the first doesn't necessarily follow from the second. I mean, that's kind of the point of political rhetoric - to stop people from thinking logically and to get them thinking with the more partisan parts of their brains. It's not like this is a new concept: the idea that appeals to emotion and appeals to authority, as distinct from appeals to logic, are persuasive was famously described Aristotle. Pathos, logos and ethos -- surely you've heard of that? I kind of assumed that everyone was on the same page here but I guess not.

I have no philosophical training.

Mate, if you think that, then you really need to read some books about Alastair Campbell, Peter Mandelson, and so on ("about", not "by", obviously ). Seriously, there is a reason why they're called spin doctors... I borrowed this book from the library a few years ago about it in the US, written by a Republican "guru": http://www.amazon.com/Words-That-Work-What-People/dp/1401302599 . It was incredibly eye-opening. Highly recommended. Also see the links in the spoiler in my OP.

I did think about those spin doctors but they took a different approach to what your describing in the OP. For one, after the last general election Alastair Campbell was spinning it as a conservative defeat because they failed to get an overall majority. They try to emphasise a half-truth or a forgotten point beneficial to them, then any shadowy wordplay. Although as I said politicians are extremely careful with the words they choose, you can notice a novice when they emphasise a word like "omg neo-cons!" as if it's the end of the discussion because the other side have been outed.

 

[warpus]

@warpus: Okay, I guess you're right -- perhaps the left should start saying "undocumented" a lot more than they currently are.

I guess undocumented works. In this case you could argue that people say "illegal" because it packs a stronger emotional punch and so makes for a better rhetorical tool.

 

[Oruc]

@warpus: Okay, I guess you're right -- perhaps the left should start saying "undocumented" a lot more than they currently are.

This is a discussion about rhetoric, not about left or right. Jesus Christ

People don't know how to read. They see some key words, it ignites some emotions, and then they act accordingly.

Oh wait funny how it loops back like that.

I don't know what to tell you man.

 

[aelf]

That's just another subversion, just one you happen to appreciate.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I have no philosophical training.

You don't need philosophical training to know that.

 

[Hygro]

I don't know what to tell you man.

That we're talking about the power of rhetoric in the political debate, and not carrying out the political debate itself?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

That we're talking about the power of rhetoric in the political debate, and not carrying out the political debate itself?

Some people would rather be the example of that power.

 

[Zelig]

Because the right-wing is terrible at the language game, progress can be anything, you can progress towards a more moral society. It doesnt have to be left-wing degeneracy

Neither of those are what "progressive" means in a political sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

 

[aelf]

Because the right-wing is terrible at the language game, progress can be anything, you can progress towards a more moral society. It doesnt have to be left-wing degeneracy

Really? And here I thought the right has nothing but word games to deflect attention from their moral degeneracy.

 

[illram]

What's the alternative though? What else can you call illegal immigrants?

Undocumented immigrants. That's what they are. It's also the technically correct term, since presence in the United States without documents is not "illegal" per se (i.e. it does not carry criminal penalties). Entering the country without proper documentation or by evading immigration is a crime, however.

That means not all undocumented immigrants are illegal. You could overstay your Visa or fail to renew your work permit and you would never have committed a crime. Using the term illegal immigrant is therefore confusing and counterproductive, unless someone has an agenda.

As to the thesis of the OP, I don't necessarily disagree. I think if you use a term enough times the association sticks. However I think it is more blunt; i.e., the thing they are attacking is much easier to attack when it is demonized by criminalizing it. Which is a popular and proven way to make people dislike something, I mean no one likes criminals right? Illegal immigrants? Criminals! Illegal downloaders? Criminals! It fits neatly into our black and white 5 second soundbite culture where no one likes to think very long about anything. For example the nuance I explained above would be way too complicated for a talking head news show to talk about and would seriously upset the current agenda item that all non-white immigrants are dangerous and taking all of our jobs.

 

[RobAnybody]

I guess undocumented works. In this case you could argue that people say "illegal" because it packs a stronger emotional punch and so makes for a better rhetorical tool.

You probably could argue that. Someone should start a thread about it.

 

[Patroklos]

Undocumented immigrants. That's what they are. It's also the technically correct term, since presence in the United States without documents is not "illegal" per se (i.e. it does not carry criminal penalties). Entering the country without proper documentation or by evading immigration is a crime, however.

Its the right term, as you explain yourself in the last line. They are not being called "illegal immigrants" because they are people missing some personal documentation, they are being alled illegal immigrants because they entered the country illegally for the purposes of immigration.

Shop lifting is illegal. Jay walking is illegal. Parking without feeding the meter is illegal.

Perhaps you are thinking of the word "criminal" which requires a felony? I am not sure if illegall immigration counts as a felony.

That means not all undocumented immigrants are illegal. You could overstay your Visa or fail to renew your work permit and you would never have committed a crime. Using the term illegal immigrant is therefore confusing and counterproductive, unless someone has an agenda.

Only if you purposely conflait the two, which I have never seen anyone of importance do. Again, this sort of claim requires proof.

As to the thesis of the OP, I don't necessarily disagree. I think if you use a term enough times the association sticks. However I think it is more blunt; i.e., the thing they are attacking is much easier to attack when it is demonized by criminalizing it. Which is a popular and proven way to make people dislike something, I mean no one likes criminals right? Illegal immigrants? Criminals! Illegal downloaders? Criminals! It fits neatly into our black and white 5 second soundbite culture where no one likes to think very long about anything. For example the nuance I explained above would be way too complicated for a talking head news show to talk about and would seriously upset the current agenda item that all non-white immigrants are dangerous and taking all of our jobs.

This is all well and good if you are providing a blanket generalization, but so far the conflation of illegal and legal immigrants into a singe group in the mind is completely unattested.

What we really see here is the rather insidious opposite motivation, trying to combine a completely distinct positively percieved group into another being percieved in a negative fashion so that you can falsely accuse some of the invented blanket negative description.

Seriously, who exactly is calling for the end of legal immigration?

 

[illram]

Pat, do you personally distinguish between people who are currently living, working, and raising families in the United States without documentation (i.e., overstayed some form of previously "legal" immigration, or "Group 1") between those who are currently living, working, and raising families in the United States who entered the country by slipping past immigration officials (Group 2")? When you use the term "illegal immigrants" are you only talking about Group 2? Because Group 2 are the only ones who, at some point, committed a crime relative to their immigration status.

 

[Patroklos]

Pat, do you personally distinguish between people who are currently living, working, and raising families in the United States without documentation (i.e., overstayed some form of previously "legal" immigration, or "Group 1") between those who are currently living, working, and raising families in the United States who entered the country by slipping past immigration officials (Group 2")?

Yes, though they are both illegal immigrants at that point. At some point someone overstaying a visa can be considered to have immigrated, and they would have still done that via illegal means.

When you use the term "illegal immigrants" are you only talking about Group 2? Because Group 2 are the only ones who, at some point, committed a crime relative to their immigration status.

No, they both committed an illegal act (I don't know if its a crime or not). Overstaying your visa for the purposes of immigration and crossing the border without permission for the purposes of immigration are both illegal. They are both immigration, and they are both illegal, hense illegal immigration.

Howver, this is all irrelevant as the thread started with the unsupported allegation that the word illegal immigration is used to tar LEGAL immigrants. So, where is the proof of this.

 

[illram]

I am using the term "illegal" as in, denoting something criminal. According to the US Code, overstaying your papers is not a crime and hence not illegal, so no, both groups are not actually committing crimes. You can still be deported in an administrative (or civil) proceeding, but it is not technically a crime. Illegal entry is a crime. (Entering legally and then overstaying your papers is not illegal entry.) Therefore calling both groups illegal is inaccurate, and most likely used to further an agenda if the user is aware of this inaccuracy.

 

[Mise]

I have no philosophical training.

Well I learnt it in English GCSE, but that was in Wales so maybe your regional exam group doesn't have that in the curriculum.

I did think about those spin doctors but they took a different approach to what your describing in the OP. For one, after the last general election Alastair Campbell was spinning it as a conservative defeat because they failed to get an overall majority. They try to emphasise a half-truth or a forgotten point beneficial to them, then any shadowy wordplay. Although as I said politicians are extremely careful with the words they choose, you can notice a novice when they emphasise a word like "omg neo-cons!" as if it's the end of the discussion because the other side have been outed.

Nah, it's not just about spinning facts, it's also about using words that resonate with the public as part of an overarching political strategy. Consider "coalition government" vs "Conservative-led government". Whenever a bit of bad news comes out (like unemployment rising) the Labour opposition use the latter phrase, because it reminds people not to vote Conservative. The Conservative party use the former phrase, because it spreads the blame around to the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems, for their part, use the phrase "coalition government" when good news happens, to remind their supporters that entering a coalition was, in fact, a good idea. (Labour also use "Conservative-led government" more and more because people actually seem to like the idea of a coalition, now that it's not scary and new anymore.)

More generally, left wing governments tend to use phrases such as "investment in public services" instead of "raising spending"; right wing gov'ts use "tax relief" over "tax cuts", because a "relief" has positive connotations. These aren't just thought up on the spot, they're part of an overarching political strategy to get people talking about things using language that fit with the party's political goals. For example, when Labour reinvented itself as a "post-Thatcherite" government, it used the passive voice to indicate that businesses didn't have a social responsibility, but the active voice to describe when those same businesses "created jobs". That switching between passive and active voice isn't something that each Labour minister came about independently; it was part of a co-ordinated strategy to convince Labour's base supporters on the Old Left that working with globalisation instead of against it was the right way forward, by both acknowledging (in the passive voice) that globalisation has happened, and showing (in the active voice) that it can be a force for good. New Labour's use of language during its 1997 election campaign and its first term of government changed the course of political discourse in this country for the next 14 years, and made the country resolutely liberal in an economic sense. It made the whole country talk about "choice" and "competition" in schools, hospitals and public services throughout Labour's term. It didn't happen by accident.

 

[Patroklos]

I am using the term "illegal" as in, denoting something criminal.

Then you are simply using the term wrong. Not all violations of the law are considere "criminal." For instance most moving traffic violations while constituting an illegal act are not criminal. I have no idea whether Visa violations are criminal, but they are illegal.

Any violation of any law is by definition, illegal.

According to the US Code, overstaying your papers is not a crime and hence not illegal, so no, both groups are not actually committing crimes.

I have no idea whether it is a crime or not, but I know they are both illegal.

You can still be deported in an administrative (or civil) proceeding, but it is not technically a crime.

And the reason you can be deported is because your presense is illegal. Again, things as trivial as parking tickets and jay walking are still illegal actions, they are however not criminal.

Illegal entry is a crime. (Entering legally and then overstaying your papers is not illegal entry.) Therefore calling both groups illegal is inaccurate, and most likely used to further an agenda if the user is aware of this inaccuracy.

You are simply wrong. I suspect the first is a crime, the second isn't, while the are both illegal.

But again, this is a tangent. The claim by the OP is that calling illegal immigrants (the crossing the border without permission kind) is a deliberate ploy to tar LEGAL immigrants. Do you agree? If you do can you provide an example.

 

[illram]

If you got a speeding ticket would you be OK with being called an illegal driver?

 

[Patroklos]

While I am speeding, thats exactly what I am. Or rather, driving illegally.