The progression from "Illegal Aliens" to "Migrants"

David

David

Opinions are my own...
PREMO Member
I was simply amazed how quickly the entire world moved from calling illegal immigrants just that to the currently used term of "migrants." For one thing the long-standing definition of immigrant is significantly different from migrant.

Migrant: a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions.

Immigrant: a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

When I think of a migrant, I think of migrant farm workers, like those who come to Maryland each year on H1-B Visas to pick crabs so the crab industry doesn't have to pay real wages to US workers. When the crab season is over, they go home or on to their next gig, wherever that may be. None of these folks crossing the southern border have any intention of going home or moving on to the next gig.

Since I'm lazy, I asked Google's AI to outline the change over the years from the legal term of "illegal aliens" to "migrants."

ME: outline or discuss the progression of the terms used for "illegal immigrants" from the legal term "illegal immigrant" to the current term "migrant." Include the terms "undocumented immigrant" and "immigrant."

Absolutely. Here's an outline of the progression of terms used to describe people residing in a country without legal authorization, along with explanations about why these shifts in language have occurred:

Terminology Progression and Rationale
  • Illegal Alien/Illegal Immigrant:
    • This was the standard legal and commonly used terminology for much of the 20th century. It highlights the unlawful status of the individual.
    • Why it changed: This language has become increasingly criticized as dehumanizing. The word "illegal" is primarily associated with criminal activity, and some believe it unfairly conflates an immigration violation with dangerous criminality.
  • Undocumented Immigrant:
    • Introduced in the early 2000s as a more neutral and descriptive term. It focuses on the person's lack of legal documentation rather than broadly labeling them as illegal.
    • Why it changed: While less stigmatizing, the term "undocumented" still puts the emphasis on what the individual lacks, rather than acknowledging their broader identity.
  • Immigrant:
    • The use of the simple term "immigrant" seeks to create linguistic equality. It acknowledges that all people in this situation, regardless of legal status, are immigrants that have come to a country from somewhere else.
    • Why it changed: This is an attempt to humanize the individuals and move away from terminology that primarily focuses on legal status. However, some argue that this term is overly broad and erases the important distinction between those who entered a country lawfully and those who did not.
  • Migrant:
    • This is an even broader term that applies to anyone who has moved from their native country, regardless of their reason for doing so or their legal status.
    • Why it changed: Using the term "migrant" reflects the complexity of human movement, which includes various motivations beyond pure immigration (such as seeking refuge or fleeing conflict). While accurate, critics feel it is too vague in the specific context of discussing those lacking legal status in a particular country.
Important Considerations:
  • No Universal Consensus: There is no single term that is universally accepted or without potential drawbacks. The terminology remains contested and fluid.
  • Media Guidance: Many news outlets, like the Associated Press, have specific guidelines for journalists. They often recommend avoiding terms like "illegal immigrant" in favor of more neutral descriptors.
  • Power of Language: The choice of words has significant implications for how we perceive and treat people who have migrated to a country without authorization. Terminology reflects evolving viewpoints on legality, the complexities of migration, and the recognition of individuals' basic humanity.
Let me know if you'd like a deeper explanation of any specific term or the broader context of this linguistic evolution!


ME: good, please redo and include any of the people or organizations who are known to have facilitated the implementation of any of the terms.

Progression of Terms for People Residing Without Legal Authorization:​

Terminology Progression and Rationale:
  • Illegal Alien/Illegal Immigrant:
    • This was the standard legal and commonly used term throughout the 20th century, primarily adopted by:
      • Government agencies: Used in official documents and policies to designate legal status.
      • Media outlets: Widely used without much critical reflection.
    • Why it changed: This language has faced criticism for being dehumanizing and conflating legal status with criminality.
  • Undocumented Immigrant:
    • Introduced in the early 2000s by:
      • Advocacy groups: Used to frame the issue around the lack of documentation rather than legality.
      • Academic circles: Considered a more neutral and descriptive term.
    • Why it changed: While less stigmatizing, it still focuses on the lack of paperwork and may still have unintended consequences.
  • Immigrant:
    • Gained traction in the late 2000s and early 2010s, championed by:
      • Immigrant rights organizations: Used to emphasize shared humanity and belonging.
      • Some academics and journalists: Advocated for equality of terminology.
    • Why it changed: Aimed to move the conversation away from legal status and recognize a broader identity. However, it can be argued to be too broad and fail to differentiate between legal and undocumented individuals.
  • Migrant:
    • Recently gaining wider use, often attributed to:
      • International organizations: Used due to its inclusivity and recognition of various reasons for movement.
      • Some academics and media outlets: Seen as reflecting the complexity of human mobility.
    • Why it changed: Acknowledges different motivations for movement beyond just immigration, but can lack specificity in the context of legal status.
Important Considerations:
  • No Universal Consensus: The preferred term remains a point of debate, with different stakeholders having varying perspectives.
  • Media Guidelines: Many news outlets have adopted guidelines for journalists, often recommending against "illegal immigrant" and favoring more neutral alternatives.
  • Power of Language: The chosen terminology significantly impacts how we perceive and treat individuals with undocumented status. It reflects evolving views on legality, the complexities of migration, and the importance of recognizing human dignity.
It's important to note that the specific organizations or individuals advocating for each term are not always easily identifiable due to the gradual nature of linguistic change and the involvement of diverse actors. However, the key point is that the shift in terminology reflects a broader societal conversation about how we view and discuss migration and immigration status.


Then, let's examine the motivation little more.

ME: Is the progression of terms to describe illegal aliens similar to what was termed newspeak in the George Orwell novel 1984?

While there are similarities between the progression of terms for "illegal immigrants" and the concept of newspeak in 1984, there are also significant differences:

Similarities:
  • Manipulation of Language: Both involve manipulating language to influence how people think and perceive reality. In 1984, the Party used newspeak to control thought by limiting the available vocabulary and changing the meanings of existing words. Similarly, the shift in terminology regarding undocumented immigrants can be seen as an attempt to shape public opinion and influence the way people think about this group.
  • Evolving Terminology: Both newspeak and the language used to describe undocumented immigrants are constantly evolving. In 1984, the Party actively created new words in newspeak, while the evolution of terms for undocumented immigrants is a more organic process influenced by various social and political forces.
Differences:
  • Control vs. Advocacy: In 1984, newspeak was a tool of an oppressive regime to control the population. The evolution of terms for undocumented immigrants often stems from advocacy groups and individuals seeking to challenge negative stereotypes and promote a more humane approach.
  • Intent and Motivation: The motivation behind newspeak was to restrict thought and limit individual agency. The use of terms like "undocumented immigrant" or "migrant" often aims to achieve the opposite - to promote understanding and challenge discriminatory language.
  • Transparency vs. Obfuscation: Newspeak was deliberately obfuscatory, aiming to make independent thought and dissent impossible. The evolution of terms regarding undocumented immigrants, while contested, is generally a more open and transparent process, reflecting broader societal changes and discussions.
Overall, while the progression of terms for "illegal immigrants" demonstrates how language can be used to shape perceptions and influence public discourse, it differs significantly from the manipulative and controlling nature of newspeak in 1984. The motivations behind the terminology changes are often rooted in efforts to promote fairness and respect, even if the specific terms themselves remain debated and contested.

 
David

David

Opinions are my own...
PREMO Member
Interesting response:

offer an opinion as to why the US government is allowing immigration to occur in such a chaotic manner. Elements to consider: There are no established quotas; immigrants are not being background checked to root out known criminals; no health testing is being done to prevent diseases from entering; border crossing are being permitted at any location, not just official checkpoints; the massive number of people entering in rapid succession in placing a financial burden on many local governments; immigrants are committing crimes; immigrants appear unappreciative for the opportunity to be in the USA, etc.​


I'm still learning how to answer this question. In the meantime, try Google Search.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP
B

Bare-ya-cuda

Well-Known Member
David said:
Interesting response:

offer an opinion as to why the US government is allowing immigration to occur in such a chaotic manner. Elements to consider: There are no established quotas; immigrants are not being background checked to root out known criminals; no health testing is being done to prevent diseases from entering; border crossing are being permitted at any location, not just official checkpoints; the massive number of people entering in rapid succession in placing a financial burden on many local governments; immigrants are committing crimes; immigrants appear unappreciative for the opportunity to be in the USA, etc.​


I'm still learning how to answer this question. In the meantime, try Google Search.
Click to expand...
I feel there is a bigger plan as to why they are letting all these illegal immigrants across the border. Meanwhile these blue cities are putting them up in expensive hotels while Americans are living in tents on the same streets.
 
David

David

Opinions are my own...
PREMO Member
ChatGPT tries to convince me that my line of thinking is all wrong:

ME: offer an opinion as to why the US government is allowing immigration to occur in such a chaotic manner. Elements to consider: There are no established quotas; immigrants are not being background checked to root out known criminals; no health testing is being done to prevent diseases from entering; border crossing are being permitted at any location, not just official checkpoints; the massive number of people entering in rapid succession in placing a financial burden on many local governments; immigrants are committing crimes; immigrants appear unappreciative for the opportunity to be in the USA, etc.

ChatGPT: It's important to note that opinions on immigration policies vary widely, and different perspectives may exist on the motivations behind specific government actions. However, some general considerations could be taken into account when discussing the perceived chaotic nature of immigration policies in the United States:

1. **Political Divisiveness:** Immigration has been a highly polarizing and politically charged issue in the United States. Differences in opinion among lawmakers and the public can lead to challenges in establishing comprehensive and cohesive immigration policies.

2. **Systemic Issues:** Overhauling immigration policies may require extensive legislative changes, and the political landscape may hinder the passage of such reforms. The bureaucratic process, coupled with legal challenges, can contribute to a perceived lack of clarity and consistency in immigration enforcement.

3. **Resource Constraints:** Limited resources, both in terms of personnel and funding, may affect the government's ability to conduct thorough background checks or health screenings for every immigrant. The sheer volume of people seeking entry may overwhelm existing systems, leading to a perceived lack of control.

4. **Humanitarian Concerns:** Governments may face challenges in balancing security concerns with humanitarian considerations. Allowing border crossings at various locations might be driven by a desire to address humanitarian needs or facilitate asylum seekers who may be fleeing violence or persecution.

5. **Economic Considerations:** While immigration can bring economic benefits, such as labor force expansion, there may be short-term financial burdens on local governments due to increased demand for services. Balancing economic considerations with the immediate strain on resources is a complex task.

6. **Public Perception:** The perception that immigrants are committing crimes or being unappreciative may stem from individual incidents that garner disproportionate attention. It's important to recognize that immigrants, like any other group, are diverse, and generalizations can lead to misunderstandings.

7. **Evolution of Policies:** Immigration policies can be influenced by various factors, including changes in leadership, public opinion, and global events. Ongoing adjustments and adaptations to address emerging challenges may contribute to a sense of inconsistency.

It's crucial to approach discussions on immigration with a nuanced understanding of the complexities involved, considering the perspectives of various stakeholders and recognizing the multifaceted nature of the issue.

ME: Given that the incumbent political party typically loses the presidential election during bad economic times, discuss the probability that the mass immigration is being allowed with the hopes that immigrants will become future voters for the political party in question.


The idea that immigration policies might be influenced by a political party's desire to secure future voters is a hypothesis that has been suggested and debated by various individuals and groups. However, it's essential to approach such claims with a critical perspective, recognizing that immigration policies are complex and influenced by a multitude of factors. Here are some considerations:

1. **Diverse Motivations:** Immigration policies are shaped by a range of considerations, including economic needs, humanitarian concerns, national security, and diplomatic relations. While political considerations may play a role, attributing immigration decisions solely to electoral motives oversimplifies the complex decision-making process.

2. **Historical Patterns:** Economic conditions, among other factors, have indeed played a role in shaping election outcomes. However, directly tying immigration policies to electoral gains might be challenging, as policy decisions are often multifaceted and influenced by a variety of factors.

3. **Changing Demographics:** It is true that demographic shifts can have long-term implications for political dynamics. If immigrants become citizens, they may contribute to changes in the electorate over time. However, predicting political preferences solely based on demographic factors is challenging, as individuals within any group hold diverse views.

4. **Public Opinion and Backlash:** Immigration policies can be a sensitive and contentious issue. Implementing policies solely for electoral gains risks backlash from the public, especially if perceived as manipulative. Political parties are aware of the potential risks associated with such strategies.

5. **Legal and Procedural Constraints:** The immigration process involves legal frameworks, and any attempts to manipulate it solely for political gains could face legal challenges. It is important to consider the legal and procedural aspects that govern immigration policies.

6. **Policy Continuity:** Immigration policies often exhibit a degree of continuity across different administrations. While changes may occur based on the political landscape, fundamental aspects of immigration policy are influenced by a combination of legal, economic, and humanitarian considerations.

While some may speculate on political motivations behind immigration policies, it's crucial to rely on evidence and comprehensive analysis to draw conclusions. Political, economic, and social factors are interwoven, and attributing immigration policies solely to electoral motivations oversimplifies the intricate dynamics at play. Additionally, perspectives on this issue may vary among individuals and experts.


The big problem with this type of analysis is that AI uses what the creators deem authoritative sources of information, i.e. US Government data or the New York Times. If this mass immigration truly is motivated by the desire to have future Democrat voters, or 'different' people to destroy the current culture and further divide the population so that it is easier to control, or even just to flood the market with cheap labor, what authoritative source is going to document this? The planners only discuss these things in very tightly controlled environments with the top people who have a need to know. Any dissent to the propaganda being put forth is deemed "misinformation" and you are cancelled.

One thing I know for sure is that the people who are making this immigrant flood happen don't give a crap about those people. So, it certainly is not for humanitarian reasons.
 
David

David

Opinions are my own...
PREMO Member
Salmon said:
Refugees and migrants have a legal right to claim asylum
Click to expand...
Asylum is the technicality/excuse they are using. Few is any of these people are fleeing religious or political tyranny where their lives are in danger. They're coming here for economic reasons alone. If you want to debate immigration that's one thing. Then when we agree on the qualifications and how many and when, we can implement an orderly process to make it happen. Like Elon said, we should be prioritizing the best and the brightest.

The other issue is that the people responsible for allowing this chaos don't give a crap about these people. Its been done for devious purposes. The other thing the USA could be doing is to help stabilize these troubled nations. Much of the chaos in Venezuela is a direct result of sanctions imposed by the US government because the previous government booted out the US Oil corporations and nationalized everything for the benefit of their people. And this really pissed off the oil people; powerful people.
 
Salmon

Salmon

Well-Known Member
David said:
Asylum is the technicality/excuse they are using. Few is any of these people are fleeing religious or political tyranny where their lives are in danger. They're coming here for economic reasons alone. If you want to debate immigration that's one thing. Then when we agree on the qualifications and how many and when, we can implement an orderly process to make it happen. Like Elon said, we should be prioritizing the best and the brightest.

The other issue is that the people responsible for allowing this chaos don't give a crap about these people. Its been done for devious purposes. The other thing the USA could be doing is to help stabilize these troubled nations. Much of the chaos in Venezuela is a direct result of sanctions imposed by the US government because the previous government booted out the US Oil corporations and nationalized everything for the benefit of their people. And this really pissed off the oil people; powerful people.
Click to expand...
Yes, and no. Some of the asylum seekers for economic reasons are fleeing the effects of climate change.
 
H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
Illegal immigrants, migrants, asylum seekers, whatever term anyone cares to use. What is happening is nothing more than economic osmosis.

Delete chit policies that hinder, rather than foment, truly free-trade (NAFTA for one example) and end US government-subsidized immigration (in the form of welfare) and the problem goes away overnight. The former action gives people a chance to prosper and have lives where they are and the latter takes away the monetary incentive to move here.

Freedom of association demands a government can’t interfere with who I might want to hire to work for my business. If government wants to dictate that to me, they’d better buy my business first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top