Expanding on the recent alarm sounded here about the Democratic Party and progressives increasingly resorting to the tools and values of totalitarianism in order to by-pass democracy in their quest for power, I must flag today’s editorial by the New York Times, calling for the “retirement” of the word “alien.” As in all disguised efforts to indoctrinate by making opposing views impossible to express or even think, the Times uses a set of false arguments to achieve its goal, which is apparently open borders. Why does the most preeminent newspaper in the country have such a sickening and irresponsible view? I don’t know. These are the people who determine the content of the news, however. I’m not sure which would make this screed more frightening, the fact that the editors don’t recognize the methods of totalitarianism, or the fact that they do, and are embracing them.
Here, in part, is the editorial’s argument for “retiring,” as in “banning,” the word “alien,” with my comments in bold:
Over the years, the label has struck newcomers as a quirky aspect of moving to America. Many, understandably, have also come to regard it as a loaded, disparaging word, used by those who regard immigrants as less-than-human burdens rather than as assets.
[ Straw man. Who that was not immediately condemned far and wide has ever described immigrants as less than human in the last 50 years? The Times is engaging in deceit: this editorial isn’t about “alien,” but illegal aliens—you know, the people that Donald Trump was obviously talking about and the Left and illegal alien advocates intentionally misrepresented his comments to push their agenda. As for the term “illegal immigrants,” damn rights it’s disparaging, because they are illegal, and citizens and newspaper editors ought to regard law-breakers as “burdens rather than as assets.”]
Recognizing how dehumanizing the term is to many immigrants,
[ Illegal immigrants and their unethical advocates…]
..officials in California recently took commendable steps to phase it out.
[…because California’s politicians 1) have no integrity 2) are largely Democrats, and Democrats are willing to open the borders if it means they can keep their power and eliminate the nation’s historic commitment to the rule of law, equal protection, capitalism and persept on ethat onal responsibility by converting it to a weak—but compassionate!—European style nanny state, except one that not only allows unlimited border-crossing but encourages it.]
In August, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that deletes the term from the state’s labor code. Last month, the California Republican Party adopted a new platform that does not include the term illegal alien,” saying it wanted to steer clear of the vitriolic rhetoric that the presidential candidate Donald Trump has injected into the 2016 race.
[A California Republic is like Carolina panther…it has to adapt or perish. If this is an example of their principles, they need to perish.]
Several news organizations have adopted policies discouraging its use in reporting about immigrants. According to a review by the Pew Research Center an rin 2013, the use of the term in newspaper articles dropped sharply between 2007 and 2013. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency that administers immigration benefits, has removed the word from some documents, including green cards.
[“Everybody does it.” The fact that many are corrupt, cynical and totalitarian in methodology doesn’t make it any less reckless and wrong.]
But the term remains firmly embedded in conservative discourse, used by Republicans to appeal to the xenophobic crowd.
[ This goes beyond a lying to near libel. The offensive claim that objecting to illegal immigration is veiled opposition to immigration is pure propaganda and demonizing. Nobody denies that this is a nation of immigrants, but it is also a nation of laws. There are xenophobes on the scuzzy far end of the GOP spectrum, but attributing the hateful and illogical reasoning of Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter to citizens who oppose illegal immigration because it’s illegal, foolish, irresponsible, dangerous and wrong is to intentionally cloud the issue.]
Mr. Trump, the leading Republican presidential candidate, uses the term 12 times in his ruinous immigration plan, which calls for the mass deportation of millions of unauthorized immigrants and proposes that Washington bill Mexico to build a wall along the border.
[ A blatant use of “The Bad Lawyer” fallacy.]
It was often uttered by former Gov. Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, whose idiotic immigration plan called for “self-deportation” by unauthorized immigrants.
[So if a useful word is used in a way the Times doesn’t like, the word should be banned. Why would anyone trust people who would make suvh an argument? And Romney’s plan wasn’t “idiotic.” It was certainly less idiotic than allowing anyone to come into the US illegally and be rewarded rather than punished.]
Semantics may seem like a trivial part of immigration reform, but words, and their evolution, matter greatly in fraught policy debates.
[The Times almost confesses here. Words are essential in forming ideas, concepts and communicating them. What is left to describe illegal immigrants, if alien, illegal, and illegals are banned from the debate? Oh, yes, the dishonest “undocumented immigrants,” which deceitfully suggests that these are just as admirable immigrants as any other, they are just missing papers, as if this is a bureaucratic misfortune that could befall anyone. So the remaining politically correct term for illegal immigrant is just...immigrant, you xenophobe!]
States that use the word alien in their laws should consider following California’s lead.
[ After all, California is doing so well, and it has exhibited such consistent wisdom…]
The federal government should scrub it from official documents where possible. In the end, though, it will be up to Congress to recognize that there is no compelling reason to keep a hostile term in the law that sets out how immigrants are welcomed into the country.
[ No compelling reason, that is, if we want open borders.]