Words...
Words become touchy subject in war over illegal immigration
In the raging debate over illegal immigration, words carry loaded meanings.
People on opposite sides of the issue insist on their own terms to describe people in the country illegally.
With so much at stake in the fight over the nation's future, words can't be tossed around lightly.
"Propaganda is all about language," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington D.C.-group that favors strict limits on immigration. "You go back anywhere in history. Language has been used to influence the way people think. If you can influence the way people think, you believe you can control the outcome."
Mehlman's said his group uses the term alien because it's the legal definition of someone who is not considered a citizen under the law.
"Undocumented is not part of our vocabulary," he said. "An undocumented worker is a guy who left his wallet at home."
Those on the other side say alien is used to portray illegal immigrants in a negative light.
"To me, alien means not human," said Gil Navarro, a member of the San Bernardino County board of education. "Immigrants are human beings."
Federal immigration officials say the word alien has been part of U.S. law for centuries. The federal government's use of the term goes back to 1798, when it was used in the Alien and Sedition Acts.
"It's not a pejorative term. It's a term of law," said Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "It's the accurate term to describe a foreign national who is in the country who is a noncitizen."Elsa Valdez, a sociology professor at Cal State San Bernardino, said that immigration officials have an obligation to change with the times.
"These are certain assumptions that come with these labels, whether it's illegal aliens, or `Japs' or the `n' word," Valdez said. "When you have government agencies using that inflammatory and derogatory terminology, how can you can expect the public to recognize that they're humans just like everybody else?"
She said illegal alien conjures up images of people who are criminals. The term is applied to all Latinos in the United States whether they're here legally or not, she said.
"It doesn't just affect undocumented immigrants. It affects all of us," Valdez said.
State and local government agencies have a different term for describing illegal immigrants who request welfare benefits for their American-born children.
"Our Human Services departments tend to use the term `undocumented' because that's the word the state tends to use, so it's become habit," said David Wert, San Bernardino County spokesman.
The county doesn't have a policy establishing an accepted term or forbidding certain terms, Wert said.
Social service practitioners may prefer the term undocumented because their programs do not necessarily concern themselves with whether an immigrant is legal or illegal, but whether they have documentation to prove eligibility for certain programs, Wert said.
In the field of education, undocumented is the more appropriate word, according to the National School Boards Association.
"It doesn't have the stigma and doesn't sound as bizarre as alien," said Lisa Soronen, the Virginia-based association's senior staff attorney. "The problem with alien is it doesn't sound like a person."
In the school context, undocumented children aren't viewed as illegal because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they have a constitutional right to receive a free public education from kindergarten through 12th grade, Soronen said.
Others say the word undocumented is used to soften the impact of illegal immigration and confuse the American people to make them sympathetic to illegal immigrants.
"It sugarcoats the criminal elements in our society," said Raymond Herrera, founder and president of We The People California's Crusader, a Claremont-based group opposed to illegal immigration.
Herrera said it's very important to use the right word in the immigration battle.
"It allows you to assess the problem and arrive at the right solution, which is to deport the illegal aliens and leave the legal immigrants in America alone," he said.
-----------------------------------------------
Thank you for the article, "Words become touchy subject..." and bringing this conversation to the forefront. It is a conversation that many peace, human rights, and others have had time and time again about words and language and what is appropriate to say and what is unacceptable when we hear it. When I was quoted as saying "illegal" when talking of immigration, I could easily call the reporter on it and know that I was misquoted. I remain very conscious to only use that term when quoting others, but I do not embrace that language for many of the reasons that your article points out, but essentially because it is a dehumanizing term.
And it is must be clear that this distinction is beyond "politically correct." It is the epitome of the difference between violent and nonviolent communication. Marshall Rosenberg, PhD., founder and director of the Center for Nonviolent Communication highlights this in an excerpt from his book, Raising Children Compassionately, about the possibility of violence, judgment, with the seemingly innocuous term child - "there is danger... if we allow it to apply a different quality of respect than we would give to someone who is not labeled a child."
There can be violence in a language that is meant to label and give attributes to a person or a group of persons. The difference can be subtle, but the potential damage means we must be aware of what we are saying, and to ask for clarification when we hear language that creates feelings of pain, sadness, and anger. As the dialogue about immigration has demonstrated, the words we hear from activists, media, and elected officials can indeed hurt.
As an aside, or to add yet another idea of how to refer to new or recent arrivals to our country, we might consider history and what has historically created mass migration from one place to another. While there have always been the adventurers who gladly, willingly seek new lands and cultures, typically social, economic, environmental and political conditions create the impetus for the types of mass migration and displacement of huge populations our continent has seen since the early 15th century. This most recent wave of immigrants is no exception. The vast majority have been displaced by harsh, unbearable, or intolerable conditions from countries all over the world, and they, like others before them have done, seek a better possibility.
Sadly, history also demonstrates that we haven't done much better than we are doing now when it comes to understanding how to address the myriad of concerns that arise when large groups of people are displaced - the need for safety, community, and stability on one side, the need for inclusion, acceptance, and compassion, on the other. No wonder the language gets rough. But we can do better, and of course, if we are to move forward with solutions that address the needs, concerns, and values of all the people who are impacted, we must. An understanding of nonviolent communication is one step, working with conflict resolution experts is another, and there are many more methods and ideas. An intention to develop these types of resources, tools and training is critical, and is part of what legislation for a U.S. Department of Peace calls for.
Disagreement is inevitable, subtle and overt violence is not. Your article did much to start the conversation that we must remain conscious and conscientious to the language and words we use. I hope your reporters, the editorial board, and others will continue to define and redefine the language that is used when discussing all important issues, especially issues, that at the end of the day, like immigration, are about fellow human beings, our brothers and sisters of our shared earth.
Bobbi Jo Chavarria
Regional State Coordinator
Campaign for a U.S. Department of Peace
Inland Empire DoPeace & Nonviolence Alliance
-----------------------------------------
This is an excerpt from Raising Children Compassionately, by Marshall Rosenberg, Ph.D. which is available from our bookstore.
http://www.cnvc.org/node/404
For many parents, the way I’m talking about communicating is so different that they say, “Well, it just doesn’t seem natural to communicate that way.” At just the right time, I read something that Gandhi had written in which he said, “Don’t mix up that which is habitual with that which is natural.” Gandhi said that very often we’ve been trained to communicate and act in ways that are quite unnatural, but they are habitual in the sense that we have been trained for various reasons to do it that way in our culture. And that certainly rang true to me in the way that I was trained to communicate with children. The way I was trained to communicate by judging rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness, and the use of punishment was widely used and very easily became habitual for me as a parent. But I wouldn’t say that because something is habitual that it is natural.
I learned that it is much more natural for people to connect in a loving, respectful way, and to do things out of joy for each other, rather than using punishment and reward or blame and guilt as means of coercion. But such a transformation does require a good deal of consciousness and effort.
Comments