Adjectives such as "illegal" as a rhetorical tool

[illram]

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

And a drunk driver is also driving illegally yes?

 

[Hygro]

Driving illegally =/= illegal driver. Part of the thing Mise brings up here, perhaps slightly inadvertently, is the issue of identity. Greedy millionaire, illegal immigrant, they are all identities, which is why this is so powerful.

 

[illram]

Well that's kind of what I am getting at here. A speeder and a drunk driver may both technically be "illegal drivers," but obviously referring to both of them as such is missing a critical distinction and, ultimately, is misleading.

 

[Patroklos]

Again, the OP is not talking about conflating different types of illegal, he is insinuating that illegal and LEGAL are being intentionally muddled.

In your example both groups are indeed engaging in illegal activity. In Mise's fictional accout only one is. It is not at all the same situation.

 

[Mise]

The phrase "greedy millionaires" muddles the greedy kind with the philanthropic kind (see page 1), labelling them both as greedy and therefore undeserving of sympathy. It's applying the negative connotations associated with "greed" to the neutral term "millionaire". That's what's "wrong" with using a negative term like illegal, rather than an equally accurate but neutral term such as "undocumented".

 

[illram]

@Pat, Point taken, but I think it is similar insofar as you are saying someone's existence is a crime or is unlawful (i.e., an illegal person) when in fact their violations are different and carry different potential remedies and they could be two wildly different people. E.g. a Canadian who overstays his or her Visa and a Panamanian who arrives hidden in a railway car. If we want to be lazy we can call them both "illegal immigrants" but I will hazard a guess that when someone says "illegal immigrants" in a political context they are talking about the latter and not the former. In other words a similar motive exists to conflate two "violators" as the same, i.e. two non white undocumented immigrants who arrived legally and illegally, as opposed to conflating one violator and one non-violator.

 

[Old Hippy]

That's what's "wrong" with using a negative term like illegal, rather than an equally accurate but neutral term such as "undocumented".

its also used selectively, visa over stayers are never referred to as illegal tourists, because tourists doesn't carry a political wait, so visa over stayers has been used and is automatically linked with illegal immigrants

 

[Bugfatty300]

I always found the term "illegal guns" puzzling when being mentioned in America by the media or gun control organizations. Typically, I guess, they mean to say they are being used in an illegal manner rather than the guns themselves being illegal.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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

You might have a stronger point if there was another phrase that could be used instead.

Invaders
Trespassers
Boat people
Phony refugees

Of course, none of the above terms adequately describes what an illegal immigrant actually is, so they're not as precise as "illegal immigrant."

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.

Undocumented in what sense? Having no documents at all, or having the wrong kind of documents, or having forged documents?

Besides, "undocumented" has 5 syllables; "illegal" has 3 syllables. People will usually opt for the easier, quicker way of speaking.

Well that's kind of what I am getting at here. A speeder and a drunk driver may both technically be "illegal drivers," but obviously referring to both of them as such is missing a critical distinction and, ultimately, is misleading.

An illegal driver is normally somebody who drives without a license - because they're too young, or because the license was suspended or permanently taken away. Or maybe the person never had a license. If I tried to drive a motor vehicle, I would be an illegal driver since I've never had a license.

I always found the term "illegal guns" puzzling when being mentioned in America by the media or gun control organizations. Typically, I guess, they mean to say they are being used in an illegal manner rather than the guns themselves being illegal.

Not all kinds of guns are legal for all kinds of people to own. And some kinds of guns are legal only if they're registered and the owner has a license to own/carry/use them. If those conditions are not met, the guns are illegal.

At least that's how it is in Canada...

 

[Mise]

This isn't about the technical difference between what's legal and what's illegal. As I said, other phrases such as "greedy millionaires" have the same effect.

 

[Hygro]

Again, the OP is not talking about conflating different types of illegal, he is insinuating that illegal and LEGAL are being intentionally muddled.

No he's not. He's saying an adjective that is meant to draw a distinction is actually being used to paint the entire identity rhetorically and psychologically.

 

[Yeekim]

This is, like, one of the most basic rhetorical devices. I don't understand how you folks manage to have an argument about that.

Of course, it doesn´t mean that everyone who pairs a noun with an adjective is always doing so to push an agenda.

 

[Rashiminos]

The phrase "greedy millionaires" muddles the greedy kind with the philanthropic kind (see page 1), labelling them both as greedy and therefore undeserving of sympathy. It's applying the negative connotations associated with "greed" to the neutral term "millionaire". That's what's "wrong" with using a negative term like illegal, rather than an equally accurate but neutral term such as "undocumented".

My guess is someone has some acute reservations against acknowledging the possibility that certain people would intentionally seek the creation of such connotations.

In other words, denial. Consider why that might be so...

A) People are smart enough to know that when you use "illegal" there is a "legal" and therefore don't associate all immigration with illegality.
B) Political parties are too stupid to use word play to subconciously effect public opinion in this respect. Although it's plain that MPs are told to selectively choose there words I think your example goes beyond that.
C) As "illegal immigration" is used by all parties in QT it shows that it isn't a sinister plot drawn up by a new politically correct right-wing to subvert the public's subconcious and affect people's opinions.

Mismatch?

Spoiler :

C) http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuspiciouslySpecificDenial

The count for people getting the point in this thread seems to be about 4 or 5 at the moment.

 

[Camikaze]

The immigration example holds well for Australia, I think, but more so in how the entire phrase 'illegal immigrant' is used alongside 'asylum seeker' and 'refugee' to sully the latter two terms. 'Asylum seeker' is a dirty term here now, and you often hear people talk of 'illegal refugees' as if they are a real thing. This has been done by associating refugees with the word 'illegal'.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

... and you often hear people talk of 'illegal refugees' as if they are a real thing. This has been done by associating refugees with the word 'illegal'.

So what do you call refugees who are not really refugees? Doesn't your government get a lot of false/fraudulent refugee claimants? Canada does.

 

[aelf]

If they are false refugees, that would naturally mean they're not refugees to begin with.