Posted on 03/26/2006 11:09:56 AM PST by Crackingham
Murky self-described patriot groups call them "terrorists." On combative talk radio shows the term is "illegal aliens." Advocates for immigrants prefer the Emma Lazarus-evoking "economic refugees." The most common label attached to the estimated 12 million foreign-born people living in the United States without visas may be "illegal immigrants," even though some grammarians argue that the adjective can modify actions and things (like left turns and hallucinogenic drugs) but not people. President Bush, a proponent of offering citizenship to at least some of them, has used the more optimistic and implicitly promising term "undocumented immigrants."
.......
Tumbling in the air of the debate like so many juggled balls are enough words and catch phrases — some old, some new — to form a peculiar dialect of the national ambivalence: Guest workers. Willing workers. America's security. Permanent temporary residents. Immigrant smuggling syndicate. Earned legalization. Virtual fence. Birthright citizenship abuse (coined by lawmakers who would cancel the citizenship rights of children born here to illegal immigrants). Anchor babies (the term coined for such children). Police state (what Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York says would result if illegal immigration were criminalized). Two-time losers (Justice Antonin Scalia's phrase for illegal immigrants who are deported twice — one such immigrant brought a case heard by the court last week).
George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate," says the different language used in any public policy debate is ultimately a contest for the public mind. "Metaphors repeated often enough eventually become part of your physical brain," he said. "Use the word 'illegal' often enough, which suggests criminal, which suggests immoral, and you have framed the issue of immigration to a remarkable degree."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
FRONT DOOR OR BE BOOTED!
Great title! and the NYT allowed it!
Not surprisingly for the Times, two lies in the first sentence.
BARF!!!!!
Ummm...in reality it's "ilegal aliens," too.
Precisely!
Good article.
So...they violate the law to come here, but that doesn't make it "illegal." The best sign the Dem party is on its way to the dustbin of history is the fact that they think this Lakoff guy is going to help them win elections. All he's going to do is help cement the public perception of the Dems as the party of weasel words.
Passive agressive invasion....always works against the angst ridden....with pseudo Christian morals....
One born every minute and two to take em...
Americans better get hard fast...or get gone
More bullshit and outright lies from the NYT.
Even if only ten percent of them will fight, that is 40,000 enemy, armed with rifles, pistols and firebombs, when CW2 begins.
Our major cities will look like Fallujah....unless we simply surrender.
What is the message they get in Peoria? That we are FLOODED with illegals.
I sure hope these activists really open the floodgates of their activist passion!
Just wait until Orbidor takes over Mexico. These illegals could become a real thorn in our side if Orbidor calls for gurellia warfare.
And they will be armed by Venezuela, which in turn gets weapons from the future USSR2 and the PRC.
*shurg* It started out as 'Kiss My Ass, I'm Illegal'...
Preview is my friend.
Preview is my friend.
Preview is my friend.
Preview is my friend.
Preview is my friend.
Well come on in..the waters warm!
While it might have been better for the laws to explicitly state that people should not be prosecuted if their actions only came to the attention of police as a result of factors beyond their control, I don't think that the tacit acceptance of lawbreaking in cases such as those undermined the social order.
On the other hand, when illegal aliens openly flaunt the fact that they're illegal, failure to immediately round them up and deport them does undermine the social order and rule of law. Failure to act against such brazen and overt lawbreaking represents a clear unwillingness to enforce the law. How can a country hope to enforce its laws if it isn't even willing to act against those who make such a public spectacle of their disobedience?
In one article about yesterdays showing in L.A., "Elger Aloy, 26, of Riverside, a premed student, pushed a stroller with his 8-month-old son at Saturday’s Los Angeles march.
“I think it’s just inhumane. ... Everybody deserves the right to a better life,” Aloy said of the legislation."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11442705/
Any bets this 26 year old opposes our efforts in giving the Iraqis a chance at a better life without being under the thumb of a brutal dictator?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.