You have free access to all Observer articles as a subscriber.
If there is an activity where I really appreciate the application of unprecedented rigor, it is the use of words. Whether spoken or written, terms acquire content from meanings shared in social relationships. In this sense, the quality of accuracy should be valued, since we convey the image of people with seriousness, honesty and a critical and reflective spirit towards the things of the world.
However, for several months now, the use of the expression to refer to a group of citizens has left me with several reservations about its connotation as a symbol of their marginalization. I’m talking about “illegal immigrants”. Perhaps because I’m so accustomed to forbidden activities rather than people, I find it hard to take the concept lightly. For example, when, by agreement, we as a society determine that smoking in school, using a mobile phone while driving, or making and/or writing discriminatory arguments against third parties based on their physical, sexual, racial, religious or class characteristics are behaviors deserving of a ban, under penalty of punishment, we always take into account that we define these restrictions for certain types of behavior, and not for the persons who carry out them.
Precisely because giving someone the name “illegal” is a socially (logically) dubious act that places the condition of illegality on the subject and confuses his position with his personality, the discussion about other possible adjectives for classifying people who leave their country and to enter another without having the necessary documents in order to settle in the second on any day in a manner regulated and controlled by the state. Therefore, the attributes “undocumented immigrants”, “illegal” or even “unauthorized” have been proposed. If the first cataloging seems to bring the greatest advantage in terms of justice in relation to persons who find themselves in the circumstances described at the beginning of the paragraph, then the other two, in turn, seem to me completely unhappy with how they define such citizens. Below I will talk about my attitude towards them.
Little can be said about this appointment. Essentially, this category includes immigrants who do not have legal evidence allowing them to enter the country and settle there for recreation or work, as they are undocumented and must cooperate with the authorities of the host country to obtain these documents. required to access various local services.
With regard to this expression, I already suffer from some misunderstanding. Claiming that someone is insane is an exercise in vagueness. Non-standard in what aspect? Do we mean unpredictability in movements and reactions to phenomena and so on? Or someone whose immigration status does not meet the requirements for the territory they are about to enter? Being irregular is, first of all, something that does not have regularity, only to see that the sense of censoring practices is added to this sense.
However, incorrectness is seen by many as something that should be condemned for being a violation of the norms, which eliminates the possibility of a real and fruitful existence of a person in various social spheres. However, as a rule, no one is abnormal by choice, rather, he can be so due to the vicissitudes of life.
Of all the designations, this is what causes me the most anxiety and excitement. Apparently, those who cross the borders of another state may lose their authorization for something. As if part of the civic and political self-expression was rapidly disappearing, individuals were not allowed to develop their habits and crafts from a given limit organizing the possible basis of the impossible. A meter of earth that can be walked on and transformed, another meter that, indistinguishable from the previous one, can no longer record the path of these subjects.
However, those who see this argument as a wish that these people should not be tested are disappointed. What is essentially meant to be argued is that this oversight, mobilized by the good intentions of collective well-being at the cultural, economic or security level, should not serve to eliminate opportunities for individual self-expression and be a practice of coercive force that rules by the letter of the law without being flexible. or humanity.
In a world without borders, for which we must all fight, in which globalization would/would have been implemented differently, there will be no undeserved piece of physical structure left. It is difficult to rationalize the reasons why, after a certain point, the soil can no longer accept the traces of those who, fleeing dangers, in most cases seek opportunities.
It should be illegal to label someone else illegal. Let the fallacious ad hominem fallacy be illegitimate in favor of the concept of an egalitarian dialogue with differences, assuming that they are the likeness of human beings whose actions must be judged. The Portuguese language is very good at distinguishing being from being. Let us also know how to make this distinction.