refugee, IDP, evacuee

[Mark A. Mandel]

I forwarded my previous comment in this thread ("call the question") to my
wife, Rene Mandel. Her reply to me is below, forwarded here with her
permission. I think she has pointed out the critical aspect of this issue.

-- Mark A. Mandel

-----------------------------------------------

I think there is a failure to recognize how the organized - and more likely,
disorganized - opposition to immigration to the US has framed this word.

The language of the discussion includes the terms "legal immigrants",
"illegal immigrants", "political refugees", "economic refugees", etc. Almost
invariably, those described as "illegal immigrants" and "economic refugees"
are poor people of color from places like Mexico, Latin America, and Africa.

What has come to the popular mind in these discussions is the jumbling
together of the terms "immigrant" and "refugee", the implication that such
people should be allowed into the US only if they conform to rules set by
the US government, and the subtext that, for the most part, people of color
who are described by either of these terms probably do not make the cut.

In this really rank rhetorical atmosphere, the desire of leaders of the
African American community to discourage the use of the term "refugee" is
understandable. The people who are suffering, of all colors, are almost all
American citizens and taxpayers, as entitled to government services as any
other citizen, and no one's sufferance or indulgence is required to make aid
for them both morally and legally necessary. In this context, Jesse
Jackson's suggestion that the term "evacuees" be used instead makes sense.
It is not a question of adhering to dictionary definitions, but in framing
the discussion in the context of today's common understanding of the
language.

What is clear to me from this guy's [i.e., sagehen's -- MAM] discussion and
your reaction [mine -- MAM] is that both of you may know the words in the
dictionary, but you are totally clueless about the debate on immigration
playing out at selectmen's meetings, talk radio stations, and ballot boxes
throughout the country. In these debates, anything you do for a "refugee" is
not required, but done only out of the goodness of your heart. By calling
the people of New Orleans refugees, you risk, in this political environment,
creating the popular understanding that it is acceptable to do less for them
than, say, for Trent Lott rebuilding his summer home on the Gulf Coast. You
see the problem.