So I was thinking about \u201cimmigration reform.\u201d \u00a0I\u2019m sure I\u2019ve griped about this before (and someday, when I finally manage to put labels on my posts, I\u2019ll be able to pull up these prior posts), but consider the fact that immigration-expansionists have managed to control the vocabulary around the topic:<\/p>\n
First, newspapers decided that \u201cillegal immigrant\u201d was verboten, and took to using terms such as \u201cundocumented\u201d or \u201cwithout proper papers\u201d (which implies that it\u2019s just a bureaucratic lapse or, a more sinister connotation, that they\u2019re treated as unjustly as Nazi victims being asked, \u201cyour papers, please\u201d). \u00a0Now no reference to status is permitted except for a convoluted \u201cimmigrants without work authorization\u201d or the like, and the general practice for sites like CNN is to simply report that these are \u201cimmigrants.\u201d<\/p>\n
We also had the label \u201cpath to citizenship\u201d which the media adopted to refer to legalization programs. <\/p>\n
But it\u2019s more than that: \u00a0immigration-expansionists have now claimed the term \u201cimmigration reform\u201d and defined it exclusively to mean support of the Senate \u201cGang of 8\u201d bill, or of legislation which provides for immediate legalization of illegal immigrants, whatever the particulars may be. \u00a0Is this the only possible type of immigration reform? \u00a0No, of course not. \u00a0If we built a fence and fully implemented e-verify, and only then (or even not at all) provided a legalization process for some, many, or all illegal immigrants it would still be a reform of the system. \u00a0But expansionists have taken the term \u201creform\u201d and used it to create a false choice: \u00a0either we do nothing, or we implement full and immediate legalization.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s not just \u201cimmigration reform,\u201d of course.<\/p>\n
\u201cHealth care reform\u201d was defined very early on in the process of legislating and implementing ObamaCare\/the ACA to refer specifically to this legislation. <\/p>\n
Does \u201cSocial Security reform\u201d have a inappropriately-narrowed meaning? \u00a0I\u2019m not sure, actually. \u00a0Does it connote benefit cuts, retirement age increases, tax hikes, all of the above, or merely indicate the desire to make some unknown set of changes, via consensus, to make the system sustainable? <\/p>\n
Tax reform? \u00a0I imagine it implies to most people a combination of tax rate reductions and elimination of deductions, but I\u2019m not sure \u2014 perhaps there are those who see this as elimination of deductions combined with \u201cBuffet-rule\u201d-type tax hikes?<\/p>\n
So what do you think? \u00a0Where has \u201creform\u201d been co-opted, and where not?<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
So I was thinking about \u201cimmigration reform.\u201d \u00a0I\u2019m sure I\u2019ve griped about this before (and someday, when I finally manage to put labels on my posts, I\u2019ll be able to pull up these prior posts), but consider the fact that immigration-expansionists have managed to control the vocabulary around the topic: First, newspapers decided that \u201cillegal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2209,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-378","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n