CNN: “This is an undocumented immigrant...”
Miller: “They were here ILLEGALLY?”
CNN: “I want this to be a good-faith discussion...”
Miller: “When you use language designed to obscure the truth, that’s NOT good faith. An ILLEGAL ALIEN is an ILLEGAL ALIEN. They’re not ‘undocumented immigrants’.”
CNN: “Stephen, we’re trying to humanize the debate...”
Miller: “Humanize? Then let’s humanize the Penal Code too. The bank robber becomes a ‘specialist in unscheduled withdrawals’. The con artist turns into an ‘entrepreneur of alternative financial narratives’. The guy who breaks into your house uninvited is just a ‘visitor with pending documentation’. How about that?”
CNN: “That’s a crude analogy.”
Miller: “Crude is pretending federal law vanishes because CNN’s copy desk cooked up a cuddlier euphemism. ‘Undocumented’ sounds like someone who forgot their wallet in an Uber. No. It’s someone who crossed the border without authorization, stayed, and now the press treats the legal statute like it’s a matter of writing style.”
CNN: “But many contribute to the economy...”
Miller: “Ah, the classic argument: crime stops being crime if the person washes dishes or builds roofs. By the same token, the cigarette smuggler ‘contributes’ too, creates jobs in transport. Want us to call him an ‘informal logistics entrepreneur’? Would CNN go for that?”
CNN: “You’re polarizing.”
Miller: “No. I’m rejecting the marketing dictionary. You change the word, then accuse anyone who uses the legal term of being ‘inhumane’. It’s the oldest trick in the book: first soften the vocabulary, then declare moral victory. The United States is tired of this theater. Call it what it is. Or admit the goal was never clarity—it was narrative control.”
No comments:
Post a Comment