If there is a law that states certain activities are illegal (defined as forbidden by law or statue) then it is completely correct and appropriate to refer to the action that gives rise to the illegality as "Illegal". There has been a huge drive to simply rebrand and abuse defined words in the English language and it all comes from the illiberal authoritarian left. Now if you disagree with the law then that is your right. But resorting to a deliberate rebrand of defined legal terms is disingenuous at best. Migration is a good thing but uncontrolled migration is a bad thing. If there are no legal recourses to acting against uncontrolled migration it will lead to a huge rise in other social and economic issues, which I suspect you know. If there are legal recourses to uncontrolled migration then it is perfectly correct to refer to it as "Illegal Migration" etc. We should stop abusing the English language it is not helpful to anyone.
According to the legislation of countries (country context) irregular migrant term change from country to country. For example; in Azerbaijan legislation there is no migrant smuggling term.
Language matters as it shapes perceptions and attitudes. By altering language, advocates aim to shift public perception and change attitudes to serve the ideological or political desires. 1984 wasn’t supposed to be a how to manual
They illegally enter a country where they don’t use boarder control at ports and airports and rock up at some beach uninvited that’s illegal People who enter through immigration and claim asylum that’s an administrative headache
I totally agree with the idea. Human migration is a (global) social (sociological) phenomenon that does not have a uniform interpretation even today but is regulated by law. Thus, human migration can be rule-following (regular) or impermissible (irregular).
Indeed, while there have been efforts to harmonize migration policies at an international level (such as the Global Compact for Migration), we have yet to see universal agreement about concepts like irregular migration.
Polygamy is a social concept. Some countries allow it. Other countries legislate against having more than one spouse. Age of sexual consent varies also. But you cannot have sex with a child and claim that it's legal in another country. Obey the laws of the land, just as you would respect the customs of another person when you visit their house. Trespass is a near universal concept. If a starving person steal bread out of desperation, it is still theft. Their situation may mitigate the crime, it does not change the fact that the crime occurred.
If you're interested in further definitions in the migration field, this video explains the differences between "trafficking" and "smuggling": th-cam.com/video/A_Oe24le2mY/w-d-xo.html
More interested in whether you have seen the comments and how you feel about the response to your video. Do you realise when normal people see this drivel, it drives them to vote for anti-immigration parties?
If there is a law that states certain activities are illegal (defined as forbidden by law or statue) then it is completely correct and appropriate to refer to the action that gives rise to the illegality as "Illegal".
There has been a huge drive to simply rebrand and abuse defined words in the English language and it all comes from the illiberal authoritarian left.
Now if you disagree with the law then that is your right. But resorting to a deliberate rebrand of defined legal terms is disingenuous at best.
Migration is a good thing but uncontrolled migration is a bad thing. If there are no legal recourses to acting against uncontrolled migration it will lead to a huge rise in other social and economic issues, which I suspect you know. If there are legal recourses to uncontrolled migration then it is perfectly correct to refer to it as "Illegal Migration" etc.
We should stop abusing the English language it is not helpful to anyone.
This is more propaganda, illegal is illegal,
According to the legislation of countries (country context) irregular migrant term change from country to country. For example; in Azerbaijan legislation there is no migrant smuggling term.
Exactly, this lack of universally accepted definitions means that countries have to decide for themselves how to approach irregular migration.
Some tribes on islands near India practice cannibalism. I guess diet isn't universal either. Maybe you could also adopt such an approach to nutrition.
Language matters as it shapes perceptions and attitudes. By altering language, advocates aim to shift public perception and change attitudes to serve the ideological or political desires.
1984 wasn’t supposed to be a how to manual
They illegally enter a country where they don’t use boarder control at ports and airports and rock up at some beach uninvited that’s illegal
People who enter through immigration and claim asylum that’s an administrative headache
I totally agree with the idea. Human migration is a (global) social (sociological) phenomenon that does not have a uniform interpretation even today but is regulated by law. Thus, human migration can be rule-following (regular) or impermissible (irregular).
Indeed, while there have been efforts to harmonize migration policies at an international level (such as the Global Compact for Migration), we have yet to see universal agreement about concepts like irregular migration.
Polygamy is a social concept. Some countries allow it. Other countries legislate against having more than one spouse. Age of sexual consent varies also. But you cannot have sex with a child and claim that it's legal in another country. Obey the laws of the land, just as you would respect the customs of another person when you visit their house. Trespass is a near universal concept.
If a starving person steal bread out of desperation, it is still theft. Their situation may mitigate the crime, it does not change the fact that the crime occurred.
If you're interested in further definitions in the migration field, this video explains the differences between "trafficking" and "smuggling": th-cam.com/video/A_Oe24le2mY/w-d-xo.html
More interested in whether you have seen the comments and how you feel about the response to your video.
Do you realise when normal people see this drivel, it drives them to vote for anti-immigration parties?