In some of my previous entries, I have made a statement of how opposed I am of semantics and how destructive they are in the education process and curriculum. I’m going to highlight a current example of just how messed up semantics can make a topic by using a recent buzz topic of immigration.
Now to make my stance on the topic very clear, my wife and I are in the final stages of her immigration to the United States as my wife. Since we live in Wisconsin, that puts us in the zone of the Nebraska Service Center which is considered one of the slowest if not the slowest immigration processing centers. The process is long and at time frustrating which I will specify in a bit. We are for the legal immigration process and for a few tweaks to streamline it. Are we for a complete overhaul and giving a free pass to those millions who are here illegally? Absolutely not.
In school, we teach the children “pro” means in support of and “anti” means you are opposed to a topic. Pro brings positive connotations and anti brings negative connotations. But the debate about becomes are you pro-immigration or anti-immigration. The catch is pro-immigration does not mean you are pro but anti. Anti-immigration does not mean you are anti-immigration but actually for it or pro.
One would conclude that my wife and I are pro-immigration as we are going through it right? Wrong, we would be labeled as anti-immigration. This logic is on display at this website. Those who are deemed “pro-immigration” are opposed to the current policies in place which we are going through. Instead they are for what has been labeled the “Amnesty Plan.” That would make them by the standard definitions anti-immigration as they are opposed to the current system.
Those who are negatively labeled “anti-immigration” are actually for the current system of legal immigration. By the standard definitions that would make them pro-immigration. But individuals who are conservative such as American born Michelle Malkin, whose parents are legal immigrants from the Philippines, are called anti-immigration to attach a negative connotation as opposed to those deemed “immigration rights activists.”
If you needed to re-read that a few times, welcome to the club. That is the lesson on semantics and how confusing and messed up they make issues. Now if a college educated person has to pause to keep score, what chance do children have when they are exposed to such semantics in the curriculum?
Now back to what I said I would specify on the immigration process. When you follow the laws as they are written, you expect those processing the paperwork to know their jobs and the laws they are enforcing. This can be very frustrating as the local immigrations office is not following the same guidelines as the Service Center. Inside the Service Center, they are debating what rules to follow. Calling the national immigration line doesn’t help as the supervisors are less aware of the rules than their subordinates. We had to invoke the assistance of our US Representative to make all of them follow the same 2 pages.
Now on behalf of those who follow the law and subject ourselves to the arduous process and scrutiny, it is very insulting to be labeled “anti-immigration” when all we want is for everyone to follow the law with no short-cuts for anyone. What is needed is an overhaul of the training and oversight segment to make certain our public servants are all on the same page.
0 comments
Post a Comment