4 ms·
Only, it's highly consequential. Describing people in this way puts them into a category of 'other'. It defines people by their immigration status, diminishing
by learnstats2 7y ago
Only, it's highly consequential.
Describing people in this way puts them into a category of 'other'. It defines people by their immigration status, diminishing their value as people.
This allows people to justify a belief that people perceived to be in this category do not require or deserve basic human rights.
Recognising that people are in a vulnerable situation is important, I agree. Happy to hear what positive action would be useful :)
- manigandham 7y agoHuman rights are for humans, which means everyone. The people who have trouble judging others over terminology are the same as the people who have think changing the terminology is important in anyway. It's the same group on different sides worried over frivolous matters that nobody in the subject group (illegal immigrants seeking asylum) even cares about. All this effort usually just cancels out into a big wasteful political battle that gets nothing done. It would be much better to talk accurately and come up with a real solution, such as proper detainment procedures, making sure funds and aid are available, communicating with those that are seeking asylum about what can and will happen, and then investigating and solving the root causes (conflict and leadership) in the country they're coming from.