[Ads-l] newly "offensive" term

[Baker, John]

If “chain migration” is not a pejorative term, are there examples of people who use the term and support it as a policy?


John Baker


On Feb 14, 2018, at 6:12 PM, Peter Reitan <pjreitan at HOTMAIL.COM<mailto:pjreitan at HOTMAIL.COM>> wrote:

External Email - Think Before You Click



I agree that there is legitimate room for debate about whether "chain migration" accurately describes how current immigration policy works. But being misleading (if, as some claim, it is misleading) is not the same as being perjorative, especially when it literally, if metaphorically, describes the pattern of immigration being criticized.


I disagree that it is "certainly true" that "chain migration" is perjorative and not neutrally descriptive, as all of the examples (as I read them) I included in an earlier post were descriptive of certain migration patterns. And the AILA policy excerpt cited by John Baker does not even suggest that it is perjorative. It merely (as I read it) holds that the term is misleading and not descriptive of how immigration policy actually works. It does call it a "myth" designed to scare people, but that's not the same as being perjorative. And since the term long predates the current immigration debate, and was used to describe actual patterns of immigration over several decades, I find it unlikely that the term was designed to scare people.






________________________________
From: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU<mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>> on behalf of Baker, John <JBAKER at STRADLEY.COM<mailto:JBAKER at STRADLEY.COM>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 12:55 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU<mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Subject: Re: newly "offensive" term

---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU<mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>>
Poster: "Baker, John" <JBAKER at STRADLEY.COM<mailto:JBAKER at STRADLEY.COM>>
Subject: Re: newly "offensive" term
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most discussion of "chain migration" (in the contemporary sense) is relativ=
ely recent, so you wouldn't expect criticisms of the term to be too old. I=
do see a letter to the Baltimore Sun from 12/28/2017: "I am disappointed =
and a little bit nauseated to read your uncritical use of the dehumanizing,=
racist, and ad hoc term "chain migration"." =20

Then there is this more reasoned characterization from the American Immigra=
tion Lawyers Association, in a policy brief posted on 1/8/2018, http://www.=
aila.org/infonet/aila-policy-brief-the-value-of-family-based-immig:<http://aila.org/infonet/aila-policy-brief-the-value-of-family-based-immig:> "The t=
erm "chain migration" is a myth designed to scare the public. The reality i=
s that family-based visas are only available to a limited group of close fa=
mily members, and most of them are subjected to wait times of many years, o=
ften decades, before a visa even becomes available. The chain migration myt=
h perpetuates falsehoods about the realities faced by families who wish to =
be reunited in the United States, and it feeds upon nativist claims that im=
migrants are taking over the country." =20

The arguments for and against the current family-based immigration policies=
are complex and probably best not addressed here, but I think the AILA is =
certainly correct that "chain migration" is a pejorative term intended to a=
ppeal to nativists as a criticism of persons who have immigrated to the Uni=
ted States. It's always been used negatively and has never been intended a=
s a neutral term. =20

I'm not sure what to make of the suggestion that the term is especially off=
ensive to African-Americans. Clearly no reference to physical chains, or f=
or that matter to African-Americans, is intended. More generally, what sho=
uld we do with terms that are intended inoffensively, or at least (as in th=
is case) without offense to the specific audience, but as to which offense =
is taken? In years past we have discussed "niggardly." Another example is=
"Eskimo," which many Canadian Inuit find offensive, largely due to the fal=
se belief that it is historically pejorative. Actually, "Eskimo" is the on=
ly established term that refers to both Inuit (who live in Canada, Greenlan=
d, and Alaska) and Yupik (who live in Alaska and eastern Siberia), and Alas=
kan Eskimos do not find it offensive. But I suppose if you are in Canada i=
t is probably best to avoid the term. =20


John Baker



------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org<http://www.americandialect.org>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org<http://www.americandialect.org>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org<http://www.americandialect.org>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org