Great editorial from The Christian Science Monitor.
"Accurate terms, not bogus rhetoric, should impel this debate."
Yes! Who can deny that? An example from the editorial:
Undocumented immigrants: This phrase is designed to avoid implying guilt
for those who enter the US illegally but haven't been convicted of the crime.
It's similar to describing speeding drivers as "undocumented speeders" or
taxpayers who cheat the government as "undocumented tax cheats." Yes, in a
courtroom, there should be a presumption of innocence. But in writing laws and
setting policy, let's characterize this group for who they are: illegal
immigrants.
Another excellent semantic point the Monitor makes (and one I agree with whole-heartedly):
An anti-illegal-immigrant stance is not an anti-immigrant one
For my part, note that I am a second-generation Swedish-American, my dad and his family being immigrants. How could I possibly be against immigrants? I'm not, anyway. It's the "illegal" that bothers me. Why should people go breaking our laws - important laws which affect our national security and well-being - and it be considered okay?
No comments:
Post a Comment