The (mostly) Spanish-language weekly Al Dia is at it again. From all the attention it showers on me, I think it has a crush.
It was not content with suggesting on Aug. 4 that I hate and fear foreigners (xenophobic) and specifically I am anti-Latino.
Both charges are hogwash (not insult to pigs or people who love them) and I stand with my reply on Aug. 11. (My critics do not seem to comprehend when I say my audience is citizens and those here legally, I am including Latinos.)
The overarching thought is that words matter, words shape debate, words create impressions. That is true and that is why I don’t let the illegal-enablers get away with saying they are protecting the “immigrant community,” when they mean the illegal immigrant community. Al Dia and its allies love to conflate the two and blur the distinction between “legal” and “illegal.” That is dishonest.
I specifically reject the mayor’s executive order that shields foreign convicted felons from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Read that again: Convicted felons who usually prey on their own community. Shouldn’t these convicted felons be deported? I say yes. I’ll let Al Dia answer for itself. I do not believe and have never written all undocumented people should be deported, but neither should they be given benefits reserved for citizens of this country.
In the latest broadside, it actually equates the use of "illegal" with the slur “spic.”
Logic goes up the chimney here. “Spic” goes to ethnicity, “illegal” goes to status. Al Dia claims both words are equally offensive. I doubt it, but I’ll let that pass.
It accuses me of slurring Hispanics by creating a faux Spanish word,illegalista. Al Dia doesn’t know or doesn’t care that over the years I have coined English words, too — such as (ahem) Stu-niversity. This is not bigotry.
Here’s a deal I’ll offer Al Dia. I’ll never use illegalista if you promise to always use the adjective “undocumented” before the noun “immigrant” when that is the fact. No more “immigrant” meaning both “legal” and “illegal.” Deal?
A further example of emotion over reason is when the editorial actually chastises the liberal/progressive New York Times as being insensitive. OMG!
Of course, it’s not true. You can read the examples for yourself.
Any criticism, any attempt to put things into context, is swiftly met with wild accusations and bawling. They search for splinters of offense while they have a plank in their eyes.
I don’t question their feelings or their sincerity. I do question their ability to climb out of their self-constructed silo of grievance and view facts objectively.
The reason they find some words I have used harmful is because it is harmful to their cause, which is to pretend that words don’t have meaning, such as “legal” and “illegal.”
As Al Dia might say (ungrammatically), “Our words become responsible.”