One reason why liberal politicians actually survive in the world of politics is not necessarily their ideas, but more the language that they use to explain them. Immigration is ground zero for this behavior, and Michael Casiano hit the jackpot with his Monday article, “Nationhood: Give me a border.”
“Undocumented” is a nice way of referring to an immigrant as “illegal.” Naturally, proponents of open-border policies on the left love to use the term “undocumented” so they can paint their law-breaking friends in the best light possible. However, Democrats hate when the term “alien” is used by anti-illegal immigration politicians, despite the fact that the original meaning of the word “alien” is “a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization,” according to Dictionary.com.
Next, Casiano writes that, “‘Nationhood’ is somehow contingent on geography. If your parents aren’t born here, then you’re not a citizen. But how many people think about their ties to a nation that way?” First, legal, non-citizen residents of this country have children here all the time. The only difference between legal residents and illegal aliens doing this is that legal residents don’t always come to this country for this reason. And, yes, if you are born in this country, you are more inclined to gain a sense of national pride than in any other way. Being born here (or anywhere) is what opens the door for people to live in and learn the ways of the culture. But Casiano tries to ask that question in a way that makes the reader feel stupid or ridiculous if they believe it.
The next example is classic liberalism: an appeal to the emotions of the reader. He implies the cruelty of deporting a child born in the United States to the country from which his or her parents illegally emigrated. It may sound sad to some, but this trend of hopping the border to give birth has got to stop. Casiano loves to talk about fairness and equality in this article, yet he fails to mention the millions who immigrate the legal way and have to wait years — sometimes decades — to come to this country. Is that fair? He doesn’t want borders, so anybody — even those immigrating legally — can come here whenever they want. But, for all non-citizens, coming to this country is a privilege, not a right. We have stood by that since our founding, and that will never and should never change. So when people try to take advantage of the system and gain access over those who play by the rules, it’s irritating — and that’s speaking for the overwhelming majority of America.
He also describes Congress as “simplifying the ‘problem,'” putting “problem” in quotations, despite the fact that illegal immigration has brought job loss, gang violence and drug cartels into this country — “problems” that will only continue to increase.
Finally, he writes about how immigration and naturalization laws “exclude people of color from the work sector and the country.” This is just ridiculous. He’s taking one race of people and then using a term to describe them that bases the entire issue on race. Anyone who thinks that opponents of illegal immigration believe so because of race is ignorant. And the phrase “people of color” is used to make readers just assume that it’s not limited to one “people of color.”
It’s never about race. It’s about doing what’s right. Liberal language often tricks the country into horrible policies, and it’s time for that to stop.
Kevin Hannigan is a senior communication major. He can be reached at khanniga at umd dot edu.
