Thread: Immigration Debate Slogans With A Twist

http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_4256397

Immigration-debate slogans with a twist

Conor Friedersdorf
San Bernardino County Sun

Because future immigration protests seem assured, and marchers on both sides will be carrying placards and shouting slogans, I thought I'd offer some advice to all involved:

The tired slogans have got to go.

"What part of illegal don't you understand?" is the worst. It's a dead horse that's been beaten for so long the buzzards have picked its flesh clean, and yet it turns up almost daily at a rally or in a letter to the editor.
A note to those who oppose illegal immigration: Anyone convinced by that argument long ago migrated to your side, and winning new converts will require different arguments.

The same advice applies to the immigrant advocates who insist that "a person can't be illegal" or that "America is a nation of immigrants." As fun as clever rhetorical oversimplification is, few rational people are convinced by it. If you're going to shout something, it might as well be effective.

Yes, I understand that fully formed arguments are easier to fit into a column than onto a piece of cardboard held aloft at a rally. And I understand that chants have got to be short and catchy.
But protesters must understand that catchy slogans are only as useful as gibberish if they don't persuade anyone.

So what should the dueling sides in the immigration debate write on their picket signs?

Anti-illegal-immigration advocates should avoid displaying their ire at illegal immigrants and instead focus on the negative consequences of illegal immigration.
"Illegal immigrants: Forcing legal immigrants to wait in line" alludes to an injustice even the most pro-immigrant advocate should find thought-provoking.
"If hard workers can sneak across so can terrorists!" makes the national security case for a border fence without implying that Latino immigrants are enemies of America.

Meanwhile, advocates for illegal immigrants should drop any righteousness, implicitly acknowledge that illegal immigration is a bad thing and emphasize their pragmatism and loyalty to America.
"If your kids were hungry, you'd have snuck across, too!" seems effective.
"I yearn to be an American. Please help me!" might moderate a few hardliners.
"Now I support my kids. If I get deported, you will," points to a reality that would come with mass deportations.
And here's a crowd pleaser you'll never see: "Deport illegal immigrant criminals, let the rest stay."

Both sides could also benefit by playing against type.

The Minutemen could start a charity that helps legal immigrants to learn English. In so doing, they'd help their own public image, a lot of legal immigrants and the cause of assimilating newcomers.

The National Council of La Raza could take out advertisements denouncing the idea that the Southwest belongs to Mexico and should ultimately be returned. It could also build a community network to help police catch human smugglers and drug runners.

Sure, neither group is obligated to do those things, and my point isn't that they should be condemned if they don't.
Rather, I think that almost everyone involved in the immigration debate could stand to gain from mixing up their rhetoric and actions. Tactics should change even if the underlying principles remain the same, because right now those Americans who've yet to take a side have already heard all the arguments and seen all the tactics currently on offer, and they judge both sides to be unsavory for various reasons.

Conor Friedersdorf manages The Sun's blog on immigration issues.

girlgeek,
I really like this article.

"Now I support my kids. If I get deported, you will," points to a reality that would come with mass deportations.

That one was a tad weak. But it is a good article.