How similar do you think the language of 1930s Germany is to the current Tory rhetoric on people crossing the Channel

[cakeorwine]

Using words like invasion,

Stigmatising people coming across the Channel

All the headlines in the news.

I think that we are moving towards language that does demonise people. No matter what you think, the language we use is important. And it's not just people who cross the Channel who face this behaviour

This thread is about the language being used. Not about the policy towards people arriving by boat.

What language would you use to describe the situation where you have a lot of illegal immigrants from other countries?

Ahh yes, that unfortunate, little episode. The Windrush scandal, which seemed to just happen to occur under a Conservative Government!

@hamstersarse Well a start would be to stop calling them "illegal immigrants" for a start. Because they are not. They are asylum seekers. They are not "illegal" until their claim for asylum has been processed. Language matters.

I have been describing them as people crossing the Channel.

The language being used is being used to dehumanise people.

Which is a tactic that has been used before, and no doubt will be used again.

Or more accurately mostly able fighting age single men crossing the channel from a safe not war torn country called France.

With very differing views and values from most in this country especially wrt women.

It doesn't make sense - was there a large illegal immigration problem for Germany in the 1930s? It's news to me.

It's about the use of language.

As you have just demonstrated in your post

Absolutely it’s about the language, we got your point as you keep repeating. Similarly, using language like bigots and racists to force associate people who disagree as evil Nazist is also a form of Othering, as you may want to put it.

So aside from pontificating about the language, I hope you’ve now read up on the situation in Sweden , or the statistics and demographics of the people actually crossing the channels, or acknowledged the security concerns raised by pp.

Much of the language today is the same as 30s/40s - invasion, swarms, menace, etc. That's just an objective fact, and tying yourself up in semantic knots denying this is pathetic. By deploying these (and similar) tropes you're basically saying it's okay to treat these people as sub-human, like they should just stay where they are and be killed.

As @cakeorwine said - it's all about dehumanising.

The language is being used to justify policies which are only a bawhair away from the early 20thc Alien Act directed at Jews fleeing Eastern Europe - "undesirable immigrants" etc etc.

Absolutely it’s about the language, we got your point as you keep repeating. Similarly, using language like bigots and racists to force associate people who disagree as evil Nazist is also a form of Othering, as you may want to put it

I agree. Labelling people with such words is the same - it creates "other" and divides us. It also does nothing to change people's views or opinions on a subject.

Those advocating for their particular client special interest groups on here are all as bad as each other ... Northerners, Jews, Working Class. None have a monopoly on being the most deserving of sympathy. All use rhetoric designed to shut down discussion, empathy and understanding. The only group not actually represented on here by a special interest advocate are the refugees and asylum seekers themselves.

That alone speaks volumes.

Well done OP for taking the fight to the fascists. We can all see who they are.

Did I? Gosh, sorry for any offence caused.

You used the words "illegal immigrants".

Some people would use asylum seekers, refugees

Others disagree that that is who they are.

I use the words "people who cross the Channel in boats". Something hopefully all people can agree on.

@Mark19735 Totally agree with your broader point - but reducing a centuries-persecuted group of people who have been dealing with appalling racism over the last few years to a "client special interest group" is not helpful (although I may have interpreted this wrongly?). So not quite sure who this is directed to?
FWIW I see you posting a lot in other threads and always find your posts really thoughtful and interesting.

Well - you used the words "illegal immigration problem".

Some people would use different words.

That's why I try to describe people who arrive here as people crossing the Channel in boats.

There is also their use of "the will of the British people" - as if everyone in the UK is of the same mind. See also "Enemies of the people" from the Daily Mail a while ago.

www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/suella-bravermans-rhetoric-on-immigration-is-dangerous-populism-scotsman-comment-4058217

@cakeorwine Yes, word-for-word, "enemies of the people" was a standard trope used by national socialists.

You’re clearly concerned about men making the first step in a dangerous journey to a foreign country to establish a new home.

just as a thought exercise, if you were in that situation as a mother only able to afford a single person trafficking fare, what would you do? Send your child alone, go yourself and leave your child and husband behind? Or send your husband in the hope he could establish a safe base and earn money so that your family could follow?

WWYD?

Thank you @cakeorwine
i like this terminology and hadn’t come across it before.

its helpful

Do you have any evidence for that please? The biggest demographic groups of people in boats entering the UK are Asian
(31% of applicants) and European (24% of applicants).

my expectation is that they represent a variety of countries and cultures with varying views on a range of issues. But I’d be interested in any evidence that suggests they have homogeneous views and values on women?

I agree. It’s not a valid comparison.

No one on this thread has made that comparison though, so it’s a moot point

The term 'illegal immigrant' is deeply inaccurate for a start. An immigrant is not illegal until they have been through the process that determines whether or not they have a valid case for asylum. There is also no legal obligation for someone seeking asylum to stay in the first safe country they come to - that is a myth.

The term is used to whip up ill feeling, plain and simple. This thread is sadly evidence that the tactic works.