My particular "favorite" used by MAGA folks is "chain migration." They carefully avoid calling it what it really is: family-based immigration. The party of family values seems very intent these days on keep families separate.
They also falsely portray "chain migration" as an easy ticket to invite cousins and nephews into the country; it is anything but easy, it still takes years, and only direct relatives qualify.
The idea is the mislead the people on the fence into support policies that are, let's face it, rooted in something more than the nuances of border policy.
A 35 year old bringing in his 43 year old brother and sister in law along with their 3 kids because "family values" is ridiculous. The SIL then gets to bring in the her parents, and her siblings and her siblings' children. Then the SIL's BIL gets to bring in his parents, their children and children's children. Endless chain migration regardless of the impact on the US as a whole. It takes years for a good reason and it should end.
After my father immigrated to the US, he brought over his 7 siblings and mother in one go. He would have brought his father too but he had recently died. Only one sibling was a minor (as in under 18). He also brought in my mother. One immigrant (legal btw) brought in 9 people, 8 of which all came at the same time. All direct family members, none with spouses or children. It was insanity which is why it ended.
Nativists tend more toward dysphemisms than euphemisms, but linguistically I'm sure they behave the same way. My fave example of the euphemism/dysphemism treadmill is "your dog went to the bathroom on my living room rug." As soon as anyone could utter that sentence and be understood, the phrase "go to the bathroom" had lost all value as a euphemism. No longer evoking any image of anyone physically getting up and actually going anywhere, the phrase was now just a more verbose synonym for "excrete." We're starting to see the same with "undocumented," as the word gets used outside of the immigration context. Cops often refer to suspected drug dealers as "undocumented pharmacies" with only a tinge of irony. Say it enough times, and over time even that tinge vanishes; soon "undocumented" is just a synonym for "illegal," complete with all its baggage.
We're not quite there yet but soon will be, I think.
I would quibble with the notion that "illegal immigrant" was ever a euphemism for "illegal alien," though. Of course "illegal" can't be a euphemism for itself, but neither can "immigrant" be euphemism for "alien," the words just mean different things. By definition, anyone in the country who's not a citizen or national is an alien but only those intending to stay indefinitely are immigrants. That said, nativists do get testy when others use the word "immigrant" to describe anyone they haven't personally vetted as legal. In their patriotically (but not factually) correct lexicon, no illegal alien *can* be an immigrant. Merriam-Webster begs to differ, and the United States Code really does. The term implies nothing about legality, one way or the other, and per the US Code, most aliens who are *not* here legally, holding a particular non-immigrant visa, are presumed immigrants.
Another common dysphemism among the patriotically (but not factually) correct lexicon is "criminal," not in reference to those tried or convicted of any crimes, but to anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally. I hear that one from the nativists every day. The dumbest among them defend the term on the specious notion that anything illegal *must* be a crime, while the smarter ones point to the one actual crime half our illegals did actually commit at some point in the past: entering the country unlawfully as an alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Most were not caught at the border or tried with any crime, and the statute of limitations ran out years ago, but no matter. Charged or not, they committed a crime, so dammit, they're criminals! Yet 99.9% of these same self-styled patriots blow a gasket when anyone calls Donald Trump a "criminal" despite him only having been charged with 88 felonies, not (yet) convicted of any. Go figure.
Sorry if you don't take violation of civil immigration law seriously but the rest of us do.
And no, one cannot be in the US illegally and be an immigrant. Immigrant denotes legal status. An illegal alien is like a squatter. Sure, they're there but they have no right to be. I would never call a squatter a renter.
I'm sorry you are too lazy or too stupid to invest in a simple dictionary or even use one for free. An immigrant is, by definition, anyone who immigrates. It implies nothing at all about legality, or lack thereof. One who immigrates legally is a legal immigrant. One who immigrates illegally is an illegal immigrant. It's not rocket surgery.
I'm not sure which is more pathetic, comparing illegal immigrants to squatters, or comparing squatters to renters. Probably the latter, by a whisker, since squatters don't pay rent. Why the hell would anyone call one a "renter," then? Anyone who pays rent is a renter, though not all renters have the right to be there. They could be behind on rent, or in violation of their lease in some other way, or like Donald Trump they could be living in a place that's not zoned for residential purposes.
Your squatter/renter analogy makes no sense. Squatters don't pay rent, so of course no one calls them renters.
The standard response from someone you disagree with - you are STUPID. Definitely a genius level response. To be expected unfortunately. It's the typical progressive response to any disagreement. You are certainly not changing anyone's mind with this response but that's not the point. It's to assert your moral and intellectual superiority. :)
People here illegally are illegal aliens or illegal migrants. The same way HB-1 visa holders aren't immigrants, despite "immigrating" to the US. They are nonimmigrant visa holders. The nuance matters despite your attempts to conflate different groups of people in the US without citizenship or permanent residency.
Squatters, who force their way into a home and refuse to leave, are similar (not exactly the same as) illegal aliens. Both forced their way into a space without right of entry (or the right to remain), refuse to leave and demand rights.
Substack should have an IQ requirement or maybe verify college credentials (from the right schools) to avoid dumb plebs who have the wrong views from commenting. I'd put that in the suggestion box.
If you don't like being called stupid, don't say stupid things. And thinking you're smarter than every dictionary in print, along with the US Code, doesn't make you look any smarter. I'm all for minimum IQ or education requirements for commenting, though. Would be keen to know what on earth criteria you think I wouldn't meet but you would.
Oh Jeff you missed it. I was referring to myself as the ignorant plebe. If only our intellectual superiors could direct all policy and laws, the US would be a much better place. Unfortunately the ordinary person has the right to vote. We should probably have an IQ requirement for that too.
My particular "favorite" used by MAGA folks is "chain migration." They carefully avoid calling it what it really is: family-based immigration. The party of family values seems very intent these days on keep families separate.
They also falsely portray "chain migration" as an easy ticket to invite cousins and nephews into the country; it is anything but easy, it still takes years, and only direct relatives qualify.
The idea is the mislead the people on the fence into support policies that are, let's face it, rooted in something more than the nuances of border policy.
A 35 year old bringing in his 43 year old brother and sister in law along with their 3 kids because "family values" is ridiculous. The SIL then gets to bring in the her parents, and her siblings and her siblings' children. Then the SIL's BIL gets to bring in his parents, their children and children's children. Endless chain migration regardless of the impact on the US as a whole. It takes years for a good reason and it should end.
After my father immigrated to the US, he brought over his 7 siblings and mother in one go. He would have brought his father too but he had recently died. Only one sibling was a minor (as in under 18). He also brought in my mother. One immigrant (legal btw) brought in 9 people, 8 of which all came at the same time. All direct family members, none with spouses or children. It was insanity which is why it ended.
Nativists tend more toward dysphemisms than euphemisms, but linguistically I'm sure they behave the same way. My fave example of the euphemism/dysphemism treadmill is "your dog went to the bathroom on my living room rug." As soon as anyone could utter that sentence and be understood, the phrase "go to the bathroom" had lost all value as a euphemism. No longer evoking any image of anyone physically getting up and actually going anywhere, the phrase was now just a more verbose synonym for "excrete." We're starting to see the same with "undocumented," as the word gets used outside of the immigration context. Cops often refer to suspected drug dealers as "undocumented pharmacies" with only a tinge of irony. Say it enough times, and over time even that tinge vanishes; soon "undocumented" is just a synonym for "illegal," complete with all its baggage.
We're not quite there yet but soon will be, I think.
I would quibble with the notion that "illegal immigrant" was ever a euphemism for "illegal alien," though. Of course "illegal" can't be a euphemism for itself, but neither can "immigrant" be euphemism for "alien," the words just mean different things. By definition, anyone in the country who's not a citizen or national is an alien but only those intending to stay indefinitely are immigrants. That said, nativists do get testy when others use the word "immigrant" to describe anyone they haven't personally vetted as legal. In their patriotically (but not factually) correct lexicon, no illegal alien *can* be an immigrant. Merriam-Webster begs to differ, and the United States Code really does. The term implies nothing about legality, one way or the other, and per the US Code, most aliens who are *not* here legally, holding a particular non-immigrant visa, are presumed immigrants.
Another common dysphemism among the patriotically (but not factually) correct lexicon is "criminal," not in reference to those tried or convicted of any crimes, but to anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally. I hear that one from the nativists every day. The dumbest among them defend the term on the specious notion that anything illegal *must* be a crime, while the smarter ones point to the one actual crime half our illegals did actually commit at some point in the past: entering the country unlawfully as an alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Most were not caught at the border or tried with any crime, and the statute of limitations ran out years ago, but no matter. Charged or not, they committed a crime, so dammit, they're criminals! Yet 99.9% of these same self-styled patriots blow a gasket when anyone calls Donald Trump a "criminal" despite him only having been charged with 88 felonies, not (yet) convicted of any. Go figure.
Sorry if you don't take violation of civil immigration law seriously but the rest of us do.
And no, one cannot be in the US illegally and be an immigrant. Immigrant denotes legal status. An illegal alien is like a squatter. Sure, they're there but they have no right to be. I would never call a squatter a renter.
I'm sorry you are too lazy or too stupid to invest in a simple dictionary or even use one for free. An immigrant is, by definition, anyone who immigrates. It implies nothing at all about legality, or lack thereof. One who immigrates legally is a legal immigrant. One who immigrates illegally is an illegal immigrant. It's not rocket surgery.
I'm not sure which is more pathetic, comparing illegal immigrants to squatters, or comparing squatters to renters. Probably the latter, by a whisker, since squatters don't pay rent. Why the hell would anyone call one a "renter," then? Anyone who pays rent is a renter, though not all renters have the right to be there. They could be behind on rent, or in violation of their lease in some other way, or like Donald Trump they could be living in a place that's not zoned for residential purposes.
Your squatter/renter analogy makes no sense. Squatters don't pay rent, so of course no one calls them renters.
The standard response from someone you disagree with - you are STUPID. Definitely a genius level response. To be expected unfortunately. It's the typical progressive response to any disagreement. You are certainly not changing anyone's mind with this response but that's not the point. It's to assert your moral and intellectual superiority. :)
People here illegally are illegal aliens or illegal migrants. The same way HB-1 visa holders aren't immigrants, despite "immigrating" to the US. They are nonimmigrant visa holders. The nuance matters despite your attempts to conflate different groups of people in the US without citizenship or permanent residency.
Squatters, who force their way into a home and refuse to leave, are similar (not exactly the same as) illegal aliens. Both forced their way into a space without right of entry (or the right to remain), refuse to leave and demand rights.
Substack should have an IQ requirement or maybe verify college credentials (from the right schools) to avoid dumb plebs who have the wrong views from commenting. I'd put that in the suggestion box.
If you don't like being called stupid, don't say stupid things. And thinking you're smarter than every dictionary in print, along with the US Code, doesn't make you look any smarter. I'm all for minimum IQ or education requirements for commenting, though. Would be keen to know what on earth criteria you think I wouldn't meet but you would.
Oh Jeff you missed it. I was referring to myself as the ignorant plebe. If only our intellectual superiors could direct all policy and laws, the US would be a much better place. Unfortunately the ordinary person has the right to vote. We should probably have an IQ requirement for that too.
You are correct on that. Half the population is stupider than average, but their votes count the same. It's a wonder democracy last as long as it did.
What's the debate all about again? I forgot, but I did learn a whole bunch of new terms.