UC Berkeley

Immigrant Language in Public Discourse

Hannah Planalp

ISF 190

Prof. Wren

May 7, 2013

Planalp 1

I. Introduction.

Language offers a lens through which we interpret and conceptualize our world. As

Robin Lakoff writes, “Language is, and has always been, the means by which we construct and

analyze what we call ‘reality’” (20). It articulates our social identities and beliefs, positions us in

relation to others, and categorizes our knowledge. In other words, language does much more than

refer to objects in the world. Thinking about language through a poststructuralist/postmodernist

framework allows us to recognize its flexibility and the importance of contextualization. Here, I

will be discussing language as an embodied, emergent semiotic system (Kramsch, “Language

and Politics”). While some argue that language is a one-to-one correlation of abstract symbols to

an “external, mind-free reality,” a more thorough explanation recognizes that it is a product of

the interaction between our brains, bodies, and the world (Lakoff, “Explaining” 3). It is not a

code of universal inputs and outputs, but must be considered to be reliant on circumstances.

Because we interpret our social lives through language, it constructs our understanding of the

world we live in, rather than just labeling it. Meaning, rather than existing within speaker

intention, emerges through our interactions with others.

By examining the interaction of language, identity, and cognition, I would like to explore

the ways language shapes how we think about American national identity through the

categorization of others. “National identity” includes both the historical narratives that are

recirculated in various forms as well as issues of belonging facing immigrants today. The way

we talk about immigrants is key to understanding how we think about ourselves as Americans.

This, in turn, influences the laws and policies that affect real people. In this paper, I will examine

the use of immigration language in public discourse in the United States in order to better

understand how immigrants are represented in the national consciousness. Public language (such

Planalp 2

as that used in mission statements, political policy and debate, and media) provides us with the

vocabulary we use in daily life. Those who exercise their power to produce language in the

public establish how these issues will be discussed in daily life.

Deconstructing the language we use allows us to access the underlying

conceptualizations of immigrants. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a “systemic, rigorous

way of suggesting answers to research questions” by examining language in use (Johnstone, xiii).

It is a useful interpretive heuristic tool that is used to take language apart. As Johnstone points

out, CDA aims to be “descriptive,” but is also motivated by goals pertaining to “the social status

quo” (28). I would like to suggest that in this case, CDA can be used to describe immigrant

language, and in doing so, reveals a discriminatory representation of immigrants as subhuman.

It is important to know who constitutes the undocumented population. As of 2008, it is

estimated that out-of-status immigrants were 28.1% of the total foreign-born population (legal

permanent and temporary residents and naturalized citizens) (Kandel, 9). Of these, it is estimated

that 48% are men, 34% are women, and 17% are children (Volpp “Undocumented”). Sixty-one

percent are estimated to be from Mexico, with El Salvador (5%), and Guatemala (4.8%)

following. They primarily reside in California (30%), Texas (12%), and Florida (9%, US DHS,

Estimates, 4). At the last estimate, 41% are nonimmigrant visa overstays and the rest enter

without inspection (US DHS, “Population”). Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland

Security has not released estimates since 1996.

This paper is not centrally about political beliefs or judgments. However, while the

contemporary debate rages over comprehensive immigration reform, it is extremely difficult to

write about immigration without any disagreement. As Mae Ngai writes in Impossible Subjects,

illegal immigration is a new phenomenon, borne out of changing immigration policy. Even if one

Planalp 3

believes out-of-status immigrants should not have access to any of the rights and privileges of

full citizens, as former Attorney General William French Smith says, “We have neither the

resources, the capability, nor the motivation to uproot and deport millions of illegal aliens, many

of whom have become, in effect, members of the community” (Smith).

In this paper, I will try to only use illegal and alien when those particular words are

relevant. Some people might argue that alien is a legal term, but it carries a history of

discriminatory usage. I will sometimes use undocumented, which I feel is more neutral, but not

without complications (see 7, 23-4). Unauthorized and out of status are more accurate than

undocumented, and those will be the predominant terms. All of these terms are problematic in

some way, but they are necessary when referring to those without legal status. I prefer

unauthorized because it places emphasis on the top-down power of the “authority”—the US

government—to determine legal status, rather than on the behavior of the individual. I prefer out

of status because it captures the transience and ambiguity of status. There are many

circumstances where individuals or groups can be granted status and many situations where legal

status is unclear (see 24).

II. Mirror Neurons and Neural Theory of Thought and Language

The idea that language produces meaning rather than neutrally containing it, is central to

the Neural Theory of Thought and Language (NTTL). Our brains are made up of neurons. These

neurons fire in groups, called “nodes.” NTTL models language and learning as the product of

nodes firing in the brain. Vittorio Gallese has demonstrated the existence of mirror neurons and

canonical neurons in humans and primates, which activate whether you are performing,

observing, hearing, or imagining an action. For instance, the same nodes will activate when you

Planalp 4

grasp an object, if you watch someone else grasping, or if you dream or imagine the act of

grasping. NTTL suggests that the physical circuitry in our brains (the mirror neuron in particular)

is the basis for word meaning. Gallese and George Lakoff think of semantics for concrete words

as mental simulation (469). In their example, we can’t understand the word “grasp” without first

understanding its “schema,” or interaction concepts. A schema includes the agents and objects

involved, the order of actions, the manner, motor programs, and sensory-motor simulation. We

understand “grasping” by knowing what it looks like, what sorts of objects are grasped, and how

it feels to grasp an object (468). We understand “grasp” as different from “catch” or “hold”

through the different ways we mentally simulate them. According to this theory, language is

embodied—it is “structured by our constant encounter and interaction with the world via our

bodies and brains” (Gallese and Lakoff, 456, Lakoff, “Explaining” 1). So language develops

meaning through interaction with the world, and that meaning emerges in conversation with

others. The more frequently these schemas are activated, the stronger they become (Lakoff,

“Explaining,” 17).

Abstract and metaphorical concepts derive their meaning from these perception/action

circuits. As Feldman and Narayanan write, “the same structures are being exploited in

understanding language about both concrete and abstract events” (387). When two nodes are

bound together through learning, we get metaphorical maps, where the roles of one node are

"mapped" onto another. This metaphorical language is not trivial or literary, but structures our

conceptual system. For instance, English speakers have a metaphor that ARGUMENT IS WAR.

We can say, “claims are indefensible,” we can “take a position,” “attack a point,” and “shoot

down an idea.” We understand arguments in terms of war, but this metaphor actually changes the

Planalp 5

way we conceptualize arguing and behave during arguing. We argue against an opponent, and

the argument can be won or lost. Lakoff writes,

“Imagine a culture where an argument is viewed as a dance, the participants are seen as performers, and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way. In such a culture, people would view arguments differently, experience them differently, carry them out differently, and talk about them differently” (Metaphors We Live By 4-5).

In this way, how we speak influences our thoughts through its form and use.

In NTTL, every word is associated with various semantic frames. These frames consist of

our knowledge about associated actions, roles, objects, and scenarios. For instance, in the

“restaurant” frame, there are host-guest roles, purchasing roles (buyer-seller), food service,

menus, waiters, chairs, etc. We know that when you enter a restaurant, a host greets you, the

waiter takes your order, you receive food, eat, and pay the bill. Each time a part of the frame is

used the whole frame is “evoked” or activated. Even if a concept is expressed in the negative, the

frame is still evoked. Lakoff uses the example of Nixon saying, “I am not a crook,” but

“everybody thought about him as a crook” (Lakoff, “Don’t Think of An Elephant” 1). Frames,

like metaphors, charge our language with meaning that may not be evident at first glance.

NTTL is fundamentally different from other theories of language, such as computational

models, where language is understood as “abstract manipulation of disembodied symbols”

(Lakoff, “Explaining” 3). Language exists in the “abstract,” not in the brain, mind, and body. In a

structuralist view, language behaves as a delivery system, where meaning is “packaged” into

words and “sent” to a recipient. We can say things like, “It’s difficult to put my ideas into words,”

“I can’t get that idea across,” or “The meaning is right there in the words.” This metaphor, called

the CONDUIT METAPHOR, can be helpful but it also obscures certain features of language. In

this system, language and meaning exists independent of speakers, as packaging. All participants

understand language to be translucent, so that everyone “unpacks” the same intended meanings

Planalp 6

(Lakoff, “Metaphors” 11, Kramsch, “Language and Politics”). If we understand language in

terms of relationships, metaphors, frames, and context, we can adopt a more engaged perspective

that acknowledges the power inherent in language use and production.

III. Keith Cunningham-Parmeter: Immigration Language and the Law

The frames, categories, and metaphors we use influence the way we understand the

world. As Keith Cunningham-Parmeter writes in “Alien Language: Immigration Metaphors and

the Jurisprudence of Otherness,” immigrants are described in metaphors of aliens, natural

disasters, and invaders. The attached table includes the metaphors Cunningham-Parmeter

identified (Appendix A).

These metaphors of immigration, like all metaphors, focus on certain characteristics. This

is one example of how a comparative discourse analysis can deconstruct the ways we think about

immigration. Cunningham-Parmeter’s findings on language in federal cases predominately

describe immigrants as “illegal aliens.” When we call someone “illegal,” we are activating a

cognitive conceptualization that is dehumanizing and criminalizing. Although entering the

country without inspection is a misdemeanor, the term “illegal” makes the crime appear much

more severe. Nearly half of all “illegal” migrants overstayed valid visas, which is a civil

violation “that involves no criminal conduct whatsoever” (Cunningham-Parmeter 1575). In this

frame, immigrants also come to be associated with other crimes (particularly drug trafficking)

and are then perceived as threatening and dangerous. By taking away the humanity of

immigrants, the legal system can more easily justify the removal of rights. For instance, Justice

O’Connor wrote,

“Presumably no one would argue that the exclusionary rule should be invoked to prevent an agency from ordering corrective action at a leaking hazardous waste dump if the

Planalp 7

evidence underlying the order had been improperly obtained, or to compel police to return contraband explosives or drugs to their owner if the contraband had been unlawfully seized” (1567).

When we call people “alien,” we understand that person to embody all the entailments of

alienness—foreign, dangerous, invasive and Other. While some may argue that “alien” is a legal,

definitional term rather than a metaphoric one, it is not possible to disassociate legal jargon from

other cultural, social meanings. As Cunningham-Parmeter writes, alien “serves as the primary

vehicle for mapping culturally embedded references onto the legal identity of immigrants”

(1569). “Alien” ties in with metaphors of invasion, subhumanity, and danger.

When immigrants are described as aliens, disasters, criminals, and toxins, we behave towards

them as we would their target domains. In this passage, the national body must be ubiquitously

shielded from immigrants as if they were health hazards like “hazardous waste,” “explosives,”

and “drugs.” Justice O’Connor assumes that immigrants should naturally be categorized with

other poisons. Seeing unauthorized immigration as a destructive force that should be actively,

universally “fought” ignores the reasons people might choose to immigrate and downplays their

contributions to American communities. Even a term like “undocumented” or “noncitizen” is a

negative framing defined by a lack or deficiency. Their identities become oriented around what

they do not have, rather than the things they do. They become contraband objects that are

“smuggled.” Illegal may be facially neutral—it refers to something that is against the law. But

outside of immigration, we typically use it to refer to behaviors, as in illegal acts. You would not

say that a person guilty of assault is an illegal assaulter. It would be natural to say illegal drugs

or illegal weapons. This literal objectification of immigrants, Latino/as in particular, is more

than an instance of biased thinking. As Leo Chavez writes,

Planalp 8

“once that [dehumanization] is accomplished, it is easier to lack empathy for those objects and to pass policies and laws to govern their behavior, limit their social integration, and obstruct their economic mobility . . . [it] makes it easier to see immigrant marchers as a chaotic mass rather than as people struggling to be recognized as contributing members of US society” (6).

Language is not without consequences, as Cunningham-Parmeter and Chavez explain, the

language we use affects our reasoning and behavior.

IV. Immigrants in political debate

We can see how politicians help construct the national narrative of immigration. I chose

to look at a presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in order to deconstruct

their use of language (Appendix B). It took place October 15, 2012, at Hofstra University in

Hempstead, New York. I would like to focus on how each candidate discussed immigration, and

how he represented himself while doing so. While it is impossible to separate the politician from

his party and stance, I would like to try to look at this debate as a discrete language event. I am

interested in the narrative models each candidate creates through discourse, rather than their

actual political actions.

Political debates operate as a mixture of planned and unplanned discourse. This debate

contains some of the features of unplanned discourse. The language is less compact, probably

due to repetition and repair mechanisms. Since debates take place in real time, with candidates

and moderator speaking face-to-face, the specific phrasing they use is unplanned. However, each

politician has prepared their opinions well in advance and knows how to respond on particular

issues. For this “town hall” debate, audience members were allowed to ask Obama and Romney

questions, which can make for more spontaneous responses. Here, all of the questions were

regarding topics that are typical of debates (employment, energy, taxes, workplace equality,

Planalp 9

economic recession, international relations, and gun control) so Obama and Romney were likely

prepared with particular talking points.

The turn order is predetermined, but there are moments where both candidates make bids

for the conversational floor. Obama does so on line 114, when he says “Hold on a second.”

Romney asserts his subject position as an equal by saying “Mr. President, I’m still speaking. Mr.

President, let me finish” (115). The form of address (Mr. President) is non-reciprocal (Johnstone

140). Romney is expected to refer to Obama as “Mr. President,” while Obama refers to the lesser

title of “Governor Romney” (lines 6, 70, 79). In this excerpt, it is notable that this is the only

time Romney refers to Obama with a title—he often uses no term of address at all. The repeated

use of “Mr. President” here is a contextualization cue that signals a shift in power-solidarity.

Romney is being respectful of Obama’s position, but at the same time he asserts the right to

interrupt. In most situations, people are probably not permitted to interrupt the President of the

United States. It is likely that only those claiming equal power would feel comfortable

interrupting him without demonstrating more deference. For example, on lines 1-3, when the

debate moderator interrupts Romney, she gives multiple reasons for stopping him, rather than

just directing him to stop. There are no codified rules for addressing the President, so Romney is

creating meaning through strategy of respectful interruption. The use of “Mr. President” is

formal (distant) but the interruption signals equality, if not camaraderie (145). Romney is making

a play for situational power. “I’m still speaking” and “let me finish” are direct and may not be

considered very polite. This could be because Romney would like to appear to be taking an

assertive stance.

Neither candidate hedges throughout the debate, which may reflect the desire on both

their parts to be seen as confident leaders. They say things like, “What I will do,” “We should

Planalp 10

make sure,” and “we can fix” (27, 32, 78). By speaking from a place of epistemic certainty, they

assert their own capabilities as leaders, while also challenging the other’s authority. The debate is

highly intertextual, in that the candidates are directly and indirectly responding to each other’s

words and political positions. For instance, on line 79, Obama says, “Governor Romney says, the

challenge is, ‘Well Obama didn't try,’” and later, Romney responds with, “let me go back and

speak to the points that the president made and let's get them correct” (88-9). In this case, there

are several layers of reference, and Romney is directly challenging Obama’s points (“let’s get

them correct” rather than “I think that’s wrong”). Johnstone says that “public debate in

mainstream contexts in the US is thought to require displays of rationality and logic” (245). In

accordance with this statement, both Romney and Obama use “first/second” constructions (lines

19, 29, 54, 59). They both specifically say “number two” rather than “second.” This gives the

impression that they approach the issue of immigration rationally, and have logical lists of goals.

In this debate, both candidates reference the narrative of the American Dream. This story

of immigration, hard work, and monetary success, can be thought of as part of a larger network

of meaningful objects. It includes things like the American flag, the Statue of Liberty, “The Star

Spangled Banner,” the Fourth of July, the Declaration of Independence, Thanksgiving, apple pie,

etc. It could also incorporate more abstract notions such as freedom, democracy, and liberty. It is

helpful to consider the power of these ideas through Roland Barthes’ theory of “mythology.” He

describes myth as a type of communication (any form) “which has already been worked,”

(Barthes, 109). In other words, the language has been shaped in a way that influences

interlocutors. A symbol has a first-order semiological chain, and it becomes a myth when that

chain becomes only a signifier for a second-order chain (114). The American Dream is more

Planalp 11

than a certain model of a story (it’s first-order chain). It comes to represent a concept outside of

time and history—a certain essence or spirit of “Americanness.”

Here we see both politicians constructing the same model of national identity and

immigration. Obama does so when he compares immigrants today to immigrants from Ellis

Island, and when he talks about people who “take risks,” “feed their families” and “build on their

dreams” (Appendix B, line 49-50, 65). These references activate a discourse of American

patriotism that we are familiar with. Obama explicitly references this patriotic spirit on line 67,

when he talks about pledging allegiance to the flag. Romney does so when he references his own

immigrant history, and when he uses words like “choice” and “opportunities” (106, 108). It is

useful for both Obama and Romney to activate this frame because of its broader mythological

association with American values and beliefs. This frame is not controversial and is loaded with

emotional value.

Obama is particularly good at moving between different registers or adopting different

stances. I use “register” here to mean styles of speaking. “Stance” refers to the CDA term

describing the speaker’s changing orientation to the audience (Johnstone, 137-138). Obama’s

rhetorical style is powerful because he is able to smoothly integrate stories from different scales.

From lines 46-49, he addresses the woman in the audience as a fellow American. His register is

informal, as demonstrated by his use of her first name and the filler “I mean” (Appendix B, line

46). Then he adopts a presidential stance. This allows him to assert his authority as the

incumbent President (“So what I’ve said,” “sought cooperation from Congress,” 50-1) while

continuing to use the American frame (“we’re a nation of laws,” “American in every way except

having papers,” 50, 67).

Planalp 12

Lines 61-83 are particularly powerful because he retains the Presidential authority while

adopting the casual register he used before. He does not use hedging or other ways of expressing

doubt, but instead makes direct claims like “that’s not true” (79). He uses tag questions and

builds camaraderie with the audience by comparing himself to them (77). Saying, “If my

daughter or yours looks to somebody like they’re not a citizen,” puts his family on equal ground

as the audience’s family. At the same time, he distinguishes himself as the first President whose

family is multiracial. It is not likely that someone would identify Romney’s family as

undocumented immigrants. This casual style can also be seen in his use of the word “folks,”

which he uses five times in this excerpt, or words like “smartly.” These words carries

associations of regular, ordinary people.

He makes use of presentational strategies like those described in Johnstone such as:

• Parallel clauses: “we are a nation of immigrants” (47).

• Rhetorical deixis: “We all understand what this country has become because

talent from all around the world wants to come here” (48).

• Stories (historical and personal): “Ellis Island” (48), “my daughter” (77)

These strategies are similar to those used by speakers such as Martin Luther King, Jr. Obama’s

register is similar to that of the black preacher, described in Johnstone, that calls on the audience

to respond (“you know what?”). This style is characterized by persuasion through emotional

affect and interpersonal involvement. The claim is “maximally present in the audience’s

consciousness” through aesthetic devices like visual metaphor and narrative, and repetition

through parallel clauses and paraphrase (247).

Romney says, “this is a nation of immigrants” (19). His phrase refers to the strong

patriotic rhetoric described above. Obama responds with, “we are a nation of immigrants” (47).

Planalp 13

This intertextual reiteration by Obama is powerful because Obama uses Romney’s own words

against him. In other places in this debate, Obama has called attention to his bipartisanship,

portraying himself as a leader who brings together opposing sides (“sought cooperation from

Congress,” 52, “I have sat down with Democrats and Republicans,” 80). He does so more subtly

here by demonstrating his agreement with his opponent through repeated speech. The slight

modification acts almost as a correction. By saying “we are a nation of immigrants” rather than

“this is a nation of immigrants,” Obama includes himself in the category of “immigrants.” The

model of America he presents is one of diversity and acceptance.

Obama emphasizes other immigrants’ identification as American (62-8). Romney also

activates national rhetoric but he does so in a negative way. He talks about a lack of opportunity

compelling people to “self-deport.” This term “self-deportation” is strange because we associate

“deportation” with forceful emigration or movement, so “self-deportation” seems counter-

intuitive. This may explain why the moderator asks Romney to elaborate (87, 103). Unlike

“general reform,” “self-deportation” does not have clear colloquial meaning.

The phrase “rounding up people” places immigrants in a similarly negative,

dehumanizing frame. Cunningham-Parmeter describes other secondary metaphors in the

IMMIGRANTS ARE OTHER frame, such as “catching,” “release,” “succumb to the lure,” and

“roving patrols” (1571). The overall cognitive metaphor describes immigrants as animals, like

cattle to be “rounded up.” Even though Romney puts “rounding up” in negation—“we’re not

going to round up 12 million people”—he immediately follows this with “undocumented

illegals” (104-5). The frame activates whether you say, “Round up the cattle” or “Don’t round up

the cattle.” In either case, immigrants are discussed in a way that implies they could be “rounded

up” like animals. Romney does not stick to his partisan framing as consistently as Obama does.

Planalp 14

He uses “undocumented,” which tended to be used by liberals at the time, but adds the redundant

and contradictory “illegals” afterwards.

Romney differentiates between his family and other families by saying, “We welcome

legal immigrants” (21-2). The sentence is formulated as “We welcome you immigrants” rather

than something like “We were welcomed as immigrants.” Romney refers to legal vs. illegal

people and specifically says that the US should welcome immigrants with skills and degrees (26).

We can compare this divided construct to Obama’s more inclusive model, into which he

incorporates his own family. In Obama’s narrative, only “gangbangers” who are undocumented

will be deported. The use of the word “gangbangers” seems to identify only violent or immoral

criminals. It is unusual that Obama uses such a specific word, rather than saying something more

general, like “criminals.” It is possible that he is trying to exclude the criminal immigrant as an

outlier. Obama seems to be avoiding the cognitive metaphor that IMMIGRANTS ARE

STEALTHY CRIMINALS, opting instead to identify criminal immigrants as “gangbangers”

who are clearly differentiated from others.

Discourse analysis is a way of asking ourselves what is at stake during political speeches.

Politicians and the media influence the way we think of our national identity, so it is important to

deconstruct the way America emerges from this discourse. Obama’s presentation of

(undocumented) immigrants as ordinary Americans is very different from Romney’s view of

immigration. Their position on immigration seems to rely on the way they construct their own

inclusion through language.

This presidential election was often referred to in the media as aggressive and divisive,

and it seems that Obama’s position here works to present politics in America differently. Debates

are understood through the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor mentioned above. If we talk about

Planalp 15

debate as a constructive conversation, it may be possible to influence the way we think about it.

Ideally, people across political parties can work together on a pragmatic solution that recognizes

immigrants as Americans, regardless of their take on the morality of unauthorized immigration.

V. Arizona v. United States (2012)

Cunningham-Parmeter wrote his article on immigration metaphors in 2011. In order to

make use of the most up-to-date information, I would like to analyze the opinion published on

the Supreme Court case, Arizona v. United States (2012). Listed in Appendix D are all the terms

used to refer to immigrants (out of status and of unknown status). Only the words outside of

direct quotation were counted, as quotation of other language does not present a choice of

phrasing. Alien as an adjective was not counted either (as in alien registration or alien status).

Unlike the cases between 1965 and 2011 (which use illegal alien in 69% of opinions,

undocumented alien in 16%, and illegal immigrant in 10%, Cunningham-Parmeter, 1574) here,

Justice Kennedy primarily relies on the word alien. He uses alien in 59 out of 78 times.

Undocumented, the second most common term in previous cases, was not used at all by Kennedy.

Person appears nine times in this document, although it is generally only used to refer to people

of unknown status. Unauthorized workers was used three times and detainees was used four

times. The following were used once each: their nationals, noncitizens, employees.

Alien, the most common term, is primarily used in reference to legal status (detention,

unlawful presence, removal, inadmissibility, etc). The term alien does have grounds in

immigration law. In Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, alien is defined as “any

person not a citizen or national of the United States.” However, here it is used most often to refer

exclusively to people who are out of status (and not, for example, people who are legally in the

Planalp 16

US temporarily). In a few instances, alien is paired with an adjective or clarifying phrase, as in

unauthorized alien, certain/some aliens, or aliens within its borders who do not have a lawful

right. In almost all uses, alien is coupled with unauthorized employment, criminality, or removal.

Just as Mexicans are associated with unauthorized border-crossing, the prototypical alien is

associated with illegality.

The word unauthorized seems to be more neutral than alternatives. While illegal and

deportable are loaded with judgments of morality, authorization is oriented around authority,

which sounds more arbitrary. Unauthorized is always used in conjunction with work—i.e.

“employers of unauthorized aliens,” “unauthorized workers.” On page 4, Kennedy differentiates

between “unauthorized workers trying to support their families” and “alien smugglers or aliens

who commit a serious crime.” This sound very similar to Obama’s statement about

“gangbangers, people who are hurting the community” and “students, folks who are here just

because they’re trying to figure out how to feed their families” (Appendix B, line 62-64). In both

cases, there is a false division of immigrants into a worthy and unworthy binary. Working

immigrants are perceived as being less criminal, particularly if they are supporting/feeding

families. Unauthorized employment may be unlawful, but it is not necessarily immoral. Still,

immigrants are only called employees once. Employer-employee imparts value on the

relationship (the employment) between the two parties. It entails the positive aspects of that

relationship—two complicit parties coming together for their mutual benefit. On the other hand,

the worker (used three times) is more like the anonymous laborer defined by the work action

performed.

Unauthorized only references the nouns work or aliens. Even though the employers he is

talking about are hiring “unauthorized workers,” they themselves are not named as unauthorized

Planalp 17

employers (14). This may be because the alien’s presence or the worker’s employment is not

authorized, but the act of employment itself is. It does seem inconsistent that Kennedy frequently

mentions “aliens who seek or engage in unauthorized work” and only refers to those hiring as

“employers,” even though they also may be “seeking unauthorized workers.” The Immigration

Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) reflects the same assignment of guilt, prohibiting states

from penalizing employers while staying “silent” on employee penalties (Arizona, 14). This may

be because of the prototypical case where workers actively and knowingly seek unauthorized

work and employers unknowingly hire them. (I use “prototype” to refer to “the clearest case of

pry membership defined operationally by people’s judgments of goodness of membership in a

category,” Rosch, 11.) Ignoring the historical recruitment of unauthorized labor (Ngai, 148) and

the fact that status can change rapidly, even without the immigrant knowing, this classification is

oversimplified and misleading. In the frame of immigration, workers are prioritized over

criminals, and in the work frame, employers are prioritized over (immigrant) workers. (See Mae

Ngai’s book Impossible Subjects for more on the role of employment and immigration policy in

creating illegal immigration.)

Even though Kennedy is saying that criminalizing unauthorized work would be contrary

to federal policy, the association between alien and criminal is still strong. He says,

“In the end, IRCA’s framework reflects a considered judgment that making criminals out of aliens engaged in unauthorized work—aliens who already face the possibility of employer exploitation because of their removable status—would be inconsistent with federal policy and objectives” (14).

Kennedy is saying, “we shouldn’t make aliens into criminals” but the negation of “criminal

aliens” does not come until the end of the sentence, after an embedded clause. Splitting up the

denial (“making criminals out of aliens - - - - - - - would be inconsistent”) in this way weakens

and confuses the frame. Aliens is proximally nearer to criminal than the reference to

Planalp 18

inconsistency. As Lakoff writes, Nixon said, “’I am not a crook.’ And everybody thought about

him as a crook” (“Don’t Think of An Elephant,” 1). Inconsistent is weak in force—it does not

mean that the criminalization would be morally suspect or unjustifiable, only that it does not fit

with the policies already in place. By saying “making criminals out of aliens” rather than “aliens

into criminals,” criminals become the central concept. [This seems significant, but why? It seems

like 1 suggests something inherently criminal in aliens, easier or more natural instead of a

straight transformation.] Kennedy points out that unauthorized workers are easily exploitable,

but again he constructs an unusual argument. In this sentence, workers are exploitable because of

their “removable status.” Although the workers are vulnerable to exploitation, their “status” is

held responsible, instead of the employers or the lack of rights.

In another section of the opinion, Kennedy writes,

“Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in Arizona each year . . . Statistics alone do not capture the full extent of Arizona’s concerns. Accounts in the record suggest there is an ‘epidemic of crime, safety risks, serious property damage, and environmental problems’ associated with the influx of illegal migration across private land” (6).

This passage differs greatly from the one discussed above, even though neither is framed

positively. The phrase “influx of illegal migration” is an expression of the metaphor

IMMIGRATION IS A NATURAL DISASTER. While people are usually described as count

nouns (one person, two people, ten people) in this conceptualization, people is discarded in favor

of “migration,” a mass noun (specifically compared to water). Phrases like a wave, tide, or flood

of immigrants are common. In this passage, aliens are an “influx” that are too numerous to be

understood through “statistics alone.” When numerical counts are used, they are vague, as in

“hundreds of thousands,” much like the “uncountable millions” in Plyler v. Doe (Cunningham-

Parmeter, 1563). Hundreds of thousands could be anywhere from 200,000-900,000. According

Planalp 19

to the table cited by Kennedy, “hundreds of thousands” is 219,318 (“United States” 93). It should

also be taken into account that they are not all from Mexico and not every person was deported.

Knowing that not everyone was removed again undercuts the perceived impact of this “epidemic.”

Using this unspecific amount blows the quantity out of proportion. It is as if Arizona is not able

to keep track of how many people are being apprehended because they are overwhelmed.

This allusion to incomprehensible size is related to the size metaphors listed in Appendix

A—massive, massed, colossal. Together, influx and massive size result in a flood metaphor. Like

a devastating flood, Arizona stands to be washed away by the uncontrollable force sweeping

“across private land.” The negative aspects of floods are mapped—destructive, turbulent, wild,

violent—while the positive aspects are ignored. For example, one could say, “The massive influx

of immigrants revitalized the economically stagnant neighborhood.” Floods can represent relief,

fertility, and abundance. These metaphors are dangerous because they pick out certain features to

focus on, hiding the complexity of the real world. They automatically activate particular frames

and become more natural the more we hear them. If immigrants are understood as a destructive

flood, we should protect ourselves against them at all costs, building physical barriers like walls

and levees and exerting control over the present waterways. This metaphor is dehumanizing and

provides a blanket solution that does not address the real issues.

A passage on page three does represent aliens as subjects. It reads:

“Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country who seek the full protection of its laws. . . Perceived mistreatment of aliens in the United States may lead to harmful reciprocal treatment of American citizens abroad.” Here, immigrants are seen as people who “seek the full protection of [US] laws” and

should not be mistreated. But in both constructions, the aliens are only relevant in terms of how

they affect the United States and US citizens. Rather than valuing immigrants for believing in

Planalp 20

quintessentially American concepts like equal protection or preventing perceived mistreatment

for its own sake, their well-being is considered solely because of a presumed relationship with

another country. Legal status becomes a proxy for loyalty and national belonging. The same

conception is expressed when calling noncitizens “their nationals” or in the phrase “returning an

alien to his own country” (Appendix D 3c, 5a). Regardless of community contributions, length of

residence in the United States, family ties, or other factors, an alien is a perpetual foreigner who

belongs elsewhere. This can be compared to “Americans-in-waiting” model, where prospective

immigrants are Americans who happen to be “waiting” for status (Volpp “Origins,” Motomura).

Immigration is framed this way once in the opinion. On page 24-5,

“a dozen immigrants stood before the tattered flag that inspired Francis Scott Key to write the National Anthem. There they took the oath to become American citizens . . . These naturalization ceremonies bring together men and women of different origins who now share a common destiny. They swear a common oath to renounce fidelity to foreign princes . . . The history of the United States is in part made of the stories, talents, and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here.”

This passage is particularly jarring because it comes between two paragraphs of formal, technical

legal jargon. It is written in the patriotic register, as in the Hofstra Presidential Debate. Kennedy

emphasizes the “common destiny,” “common oath,” and the shared experience of the American

immigrant. In addition to the flag and the national anthem, here the naturalization ceremony is

part of this story. Only legal immigrants—those able to naturalize—are incorporated into this

narrative. The historical specificity of “undocumented” or “illegal” immigration is completely

glossed over. Kennedy is using archaic-sounding language (“fidelity to foreign princes”) even

though he is referring to a ceremony taking place in May 2012. There appears to be a break

between positive historical models of immigration (like Americans-in-waiting, Ellis Island, etc.)

and negative contemporary models of immigration (as in the description of Arizona’s

Planalp 21

“problems”). In this passage, Kennedy shows of glimpse of how noncitizens today might be

conceptualized positively as part of the national narrative.

While this opinion elevates immigrants and dehumanizes aliens, persons are those who

remain ambiguous. From Kennedy’s opinion, five instances of “person” are used in conjunction

with uncertain legal status. As listed on page 4 of Appendix D, “person” is connected to probable

cause, arrest without a warrant, verification of status, and determining removability. The other

five uses discuss hypothetical situations that do not involve real people. It is interesting that

“persons” are either of unknown status or fictional entities in a scenario. Even though real people

are not easily sorted into categories (even legal status can be difficult to determine) in this text,

those who are not clearly identifiable are associated with those who are not real. In this way, the

grouping into good immigrants and bad aliens is solidified: ambiguous persons do not exist.

It is expected that this case frequently refers to unlawful rather than lawful immigration

because of the policy it is calling into question. Regardless, the use of alien in solely negative

terms is not insignificant. Arizona v. United States presents a clear hierarchy of value and

morality. The American citizen is at the top, “men and women of different origins who now

share a common destiny” (Appendix D, 24a). They are to be protected from mistreatment (3b).

Immigration comes with the presumption of eventual naturalization and citizenship (24a). Next

is the hypothetical “person” whose status is unverified. Aliens are near the bottom, generally

associated with foreignness and more minor violations like engaging in unauthorized work.

Some are entitled to more lenient treatment, but only in exceptional cases (21a). At the bottom of

the hierarchy are the dangerous alien criminals, who exhibit all of the traits contrary to the

American citizens (4g).

Some might say that this hierarchy reflects a real desirability. Maybe they believe we

Planalp 22

owe an obligation to citizens, who should be protected and privileged above others (Macedo, 64)

or that illegal immigrants pose an “epidemic” of problems. Even so, the real issues become

clouded when terms like alien are grouped together with judgments that are not based on facts.

The near-exclusive use of alien in terms of negativity hides the great variation of people and

circumstances. Alien becomes synonymous with illegal, which is synonymous with Mexican.

Prominent people like Supreme Court Justices are widely heard, and they should take care not to

collapse these legal and social categories. While the court generally weighed in favor of

protecting immigrants’ civil rights, they are also complicit in disseminating stereotypical

representations.

VI. Immigrants and the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act

Below is a discourse analysis of mission statements (and similar material) from

organizations that advocate for immigrants or immigration policy. I have assembled six short

pieces of text regarding the DREAM Act (Appendix C). All of the texts came from organizations

that advocate for or describe the DREAM Act. Five excerpts are from websites for nonprofit

organizations like Dream Activist, who organize action and disseminate information, and one

excerpt is from the UC Berkeley Financial Aid Office’s website.

Four excerpts (1, 3, 4, and 5) use the words “undocumented youth.” Even though they

are referring to this group, none of the excerpts describe exactly what an “undocumented youth”

is. Is an “undocumented” person someone who does not have a valid visa, or someone who

entered the US without inspection? As Cunningham-Parmeter points out, “the law provides no

clear definition of the term” (1574). It is unusual that the authors of these texts do not use the

opportunity to explain the meaning of “undocumented,” either in terms of the law as it stands or

Planalp 23

their proposed changes. By using the same assumption of the law (that “undocumented” does not

need to be defined) they are normalizing the belief that there is a clear circumstance where

people have papers or not, with no grey area in-between.The acronym for DREAM is

“Development Relief and Education of Alien Minors,” as spelled out in Excerpt 5. The metaphor

used here is IMMIGRANTS ARE ALIENS. It is important to point out that “alien” does not

exist only as a legal term. It is intertextual—when we hear “alien,” we activate a web of

knowledge that includes nonhumans, strangeness, danger, and otherness. This interdiscursivity

(between legal discourse and pop culture) means that when we call someone an “alien minor,”

we are “shaping” our worldview to include those negative meanings (Johnstone 10, 33). Excerpt

3 proposes a “humane approach to the undocumented population.” The words “humane” and

“population” again seem to access the metaphor of otherness, where immigrants should be

treated “humanely” as animals are treated. Rather than valuing their individual stories, the use of

the term population suggests that undocumented immigrants are a well-defined, stable category.

The legal presence of groups and individuals can change through legalization programs, granting

of asylum, processing paperwork, marriage, prosecutorial discretion, etc. In reality, programs

like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) create legally ambiguous standing. While

these “childhood arrivals” have permission to work and will not be deported for at least two

years, they are not granted a legal status like visa-holders or legal permanent residents, only

lawful presence (“Deferred Action”). It is not always clear what rights are available. Likewise,

there are cases where people are transitioning between statuses or are unaware that they are

determined removable. The fact that many families are of mixed immigration statuses also

undercuts the emphasis on undocumented or documented (Volpp, “Origins”). The identification

of an “undocumented population” distorts the real complications particular people face.

Planalp 24

Excerpt 4 says, “they are smeared with an inherited title, an illegal immigrant.” While the

authors try to resignify the phrase, “illegal immigrant,” as an unjust title, they are still activating

a frame of illegality. The two become more strongly associated through Hebbian learning

because of their concurrent use. (In other words, “neurons that fire together wire together,”

Lakoff, “Explaining,” 17). One consequence of using the term “illegal” is that it assumes the

person has already committed a crime. As Cunningham-Parmeter says, this is a violation of due

process (1575). Even though the DREAM Act Portal authors are not naming people as “illegals,”

their denial of the title evokes frames of criminality. They also use the word “smeared,” which

frames the subjects as unclean or tarnished, which also has metaphorical associations with

immorality (i.e. CLEAN IS GOOD).

One way the text influences meaning can be seen in the structure of sentences. Both

Excerpts 2 and 3 list goals, like a checklist. Excerpt 2 reads, “do the following: allocate . . .

establish . . . keep,” and Excerpt 3 says, “advocacy, grassroots organizing, direct action and civil

disobedience.” This list-like structure makes it seem like following these directions will be

sufficient to “achieve equality” (3). This is different from 4, which focuses on the “recognition”

of their American identity. The structure of Excerpts 2 and 3 prioritize indefinite steps (such as

“enhance our nation’s security and safety”) while 4 values a more holistic change. This structure

constructs immigration as a problem that can be simply solved, rather than a complex real-world

issue.

Excerpts 1-3 use the pronoun “we,” 4 uses “they,” and 5 and 6 only refer to the DREAM

Act itself. By using the first person plural “we,” these organizations express solidarity or

symmetricality of power relations (129). Excerpts 1 and 3 use “we” in an inclusive way—“we”

refers to the organizers as undocumented youth. They are both the actors (activists) and the

Planalp 25

subjects (the youth). In number 2, “our” refers to a group that does not include them (“the

undocumented population”). Even though the authors use “we” and not “they,” they still

differentiate between the author’s subject position and the Other. This text accesses patriotic

discourse, as does 4. They use phrases such as “American values” and “American story.” The

epistemic stance the authors use is one of certainty—“These youth . . . are Americans.” By

saying “these youth . . . want,” 4 constructs a relationship of equality and distance, rather than

equality and closeness as 1 and 3 do. Because the authors are speaking for others, telling the

readers what “the youth want,” they adopt a stance that is slightly condescending. It could also

be interpreted as part of the discourse of “Americanness,” where individual difference is valued

(as in the terms “melting pot” or “mosaic”). Even though they are writing about “undocumented

youth,” the websites are also meant to educate others. Potential “overhearers” might be those

who oppose the DREAM Act (Johnstone 128). This reference to American identity seeks to

influence the existing conceptions of what it means to be American. It can be compared to

Excerpt 2, which says “US and immigrant workers,” rather than “US immigrant workers”

(emphasis added). The authors of 4 seem to claim that undocumented youth are already

American, regardless of citizenship, while the authors of 2 suggest that they are not. The

DREAM Act Portal excerpt emphasizes the individual’s “story” and his or her contributions

through work and school. It may be that because the DREAM Act is directed at graduating high

school students who have lived in the US for at least five years, the authors only write about this

particular population of students. Another function could be that the authors are trying to combat

the cognitive frame of criminality.

Excerpts 5 and 6 reference specific legislation, and adopt a legal register. They pose a

different viewpoint, which emphasizes the importance of the law. Rather than discussing the

Planalp 26

“justice” or “equality” as the other texts do, they present summaries of the law. They may want

to appear nonbiased or simply informative. The author of the UC Berkeley excerpt, in particular,

has institutional motivations to not endorse any side. As public university, Berkeley itself tries to

be seen as nonpartisan or impartial. This text also states that the scholarship is from “private non-

state funds.” Those who are concerned with the monetary component of unauthorized

immigration might argue that state funds should be allocated to state residents, and that people

who are out-of-status do not qualify. The repetition of the synonyms “private” and “non-state”

understates the political implications of this legislation.

Even though excerpts 1-4 are from organizations that support the DREAM Act (and 5 is

from an implemented scholarship modeled after the DREAM Act) they still use words that use

frames of negativity, such as “undocumented,” and dehumanizing metaphorical language. The

authors of these texts express conflicting ideas. Even though they are working towards the

passage of the DREAM Act and social justice, we can see a conflict in the way they conceive of

“Americanness.” They do not question the validity of the “American story,” but offer a checklist

for equality, or the integration of the foreign immigrant into a familiar narrative. This may be

explained, in part, by their goals to pass the legislation. Emphasizing “American values” may

appeal to their opponents, reshaping the view of immigrants as criminals, aliens, or lazy people.

VII. Some Conclusions

While CDA offers a useful heuristic for taking language apart, I do not claim that it is all

encompassing or absolute. The use of particular language is not at issue. Underlying prejudices

and inequalities are the source of unauthorized immigration streams. Changing the language used

Planalp 27

in public discourse can help to change public opinion, whether this is through modifying

superficial impressions of language or informing the public about the issues at hand.

Immigration in the US has always been controversial. Terms like undocumented, illegal,

and alien become identifiable through their political affiliation. Dozens of articles and blogs have

been published, tracking who uses what term and why. National Public Radio, Huffington Post,

Slate, CNN, Time, Fox, MSNBC, and others have chimed in on immigration language (Demby,

Frumin, Peek, Planas, Rodriguez, Vargas, Vuolo). While it is important to deconstruct the

language we are using, substituting undocumented for illegal, or vice versa, is only a temporary

fix. Linguistic reclamation (such as the reclamation of queer) can be powerful, but it is not

without issues (see Brontsema).

Cunningham-Parmeter says similes “motivate analogic reasoning,” and therefore

represent a way to combat negative framing (1590). In my opinion, the difference between a

simile and a metaphor is not sufficient to override a cognitive frame. We cannot “erase”

frames—we can only replace them with other frames. One way to fight this discrimination is to

change our understanding of the whole frame of immigration. In order to advance social equality,

we must work together to understand immigrants as real people. Rather than replacing a faulty

construction (like IMMIGRANTS ARE ALIENS) with another metaphor or frame, we should

represent immigrants as they are—real people with individual stories, ordinary members of our

local communities. We need to “rehumanize” the public conception of immigrants, and focus on

policy changes that address the 10-12 million people already living in the United States. Legal

status, rather than being the determining characteristic, could be just one of many characteristics

of a person’s identity.

Planalp 28

While we all should be conscious of the frames we evoke with our language, those

working in solidarity with immigrant communities must be doubly aware, or else risk

unintentionally doing harm. Proponents of the DREAM Act, immigration reform, and other

social movements need to use positive cognitive frames that value individuals as contributing

community members, just as we refer to the immigrants who have come to the United States

historically. This legislative work can demonize certain groups at the expense of other.

Advocates for the DREAM Act, in particular should avoid scapegoating parents in order to

emphasize the children’s innocence. If they wish to achieve equality on a larger scale, these

nonprofit organizations also need to talk about the experience of whole families—parents and

youth.

Jose Antonio Vargas is a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist. He founded the nonprofit

“Define American” and is an advocate on multiple fronts. Vargas is also an “illegal alien.” He

says,

“There are believed to be 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. We’re not always who you think we are. Some pick your strawberries or care for your children. Some are in high school or college. And some, it turns out, write news articles you might read. I grew up here. This is my home. Yet even though I think of myself as an American and consider America my country, my country doesn’t think of me as one of its own.”

In 2011 Vargas wrote and published an article titled “My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant.”

His story, from the eighth-grade spelling bee in Mountain View, California, to offices of The

Huffington Post in New York, is quintessentially American. While he embodies the rags-to-

riches underdog we are all familiar with, his success is complicated by the debilitating

vulnerability of out-of-status immigrants in America. As Vargas writes,

“I’m done running. I’m exhausted. I don’t want that life anymore. So I’ve decided to come forward, own up to what I’ve done, and tell my story to the best of my recollection.

Planalp 29

I’ve reached out to former bosses and employers and apologized for misleading them — a mix of humiliation and liberation coming with each disclosure” (“My Life”).

Vargas’ article describes the real emotional impact that others are not able to access. Issues of

immigration are about more than statistics and metaphors—they relate to the lives of members of

our own communities. Although out-of-status activists have increasingly announced their

“coming out,” many people still fear retaliation from immigration officials or other people in the

community. If people who are out-of-status are indeed a “shadow population” (Smith) then those

of us who are able to voice our opinions must work to reframe this damaging narrative.

Appendix A

Planalp 30

Examples taken from Supreme Court cases, cited by Keith Cunningham-Parmeter. "Alien Language: Immigration Metaphors and the Jurisprudence of Otherness." Fordham Law Review 79.4 (2011): 1545-598.

Conceptual Metaphor Linguistic Expressions IMMIGRATION IS A NATURAL DISASTER

“stem the tide of illegal immigration” “millions of illegal aliens flooding across our southern border” “an ever-increasing flood of illegal aliens—aliens over whose entry or continued presence [the government] has no control” “northbound tide of illegal entrants “control the influx of illegal entrants” “sealing our vast borders” “vast tide of illegal immigration” “saturated . . . the Government could no longer protect our borders”

IMMIGRATION IS AN INVASION

“protecting our borders” “the deployment of border patrol agents along the border . . . maximizes . . . personnel, with the first line of defense” “surrender themselves for deportation” “combat” immigrants “forcefully” “silent invasion of illegal aliens from Mexico” “we leave no unprotected spot in our Nation’s armor” “the deployment of border patrol agents . . . the first line of defense”

IMMIGRANTS ARE SUBHUMAN

ANIMALS: “catch him and commence a deportation hearing” “who succumb to the lure . . . vulnerable to detection by roving patrols OBJECTS: “Many Mexicans being imported into this country” “an area notorious for alien and narcotics smuggling” “she had attempted to smuggle aliens for gain” “the employee was an illegal”

IMMIGRANTS ARE TOXIC WASTE OR DISEASE

“Illegal aliens pose a potential health hazard to the community” “the influx of foreign infectious diseases, mass immigration coupled with poor housing and sanitation, hunger and malnutrition” “car . . . identified as a possible carrier of illegal aliens”

GOOD IMMIGRANTS ARE HELPLESS CHILDREN

“The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this underclass” “undocumented children disabled by this classification”

IMMIGRANT ADULTS ARE STEALTHY CRIMINALS

“Those who elect to enter our territory by stealth” “conceal facts,” “evading apprehension” “subverts the cornerstone” (of law) “shadow population of illegal migrants” “she managed to become the actual parent of a US citizen by conceiving and bearing an illegitimate child here” like “contraband explosives”

SIZE METAPHORS “massive problem of illegal immigration” “the massive number of . . . illegal aliens” “massed numbers of ascertainably illegal aliens” “virtually uncontrollable” “colossal problem” “titanic proportions”

Appendix A

Planalp 31

Court cases:

Plyler v. Doe McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center US v. Brignoni-Ponce Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. V. NLRB City of Indianapolis v. Edmound United States v. Ortiz INS v. Lopez-Mendoza Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc. Zadvydas v. Davis Mathews v. Diaz INS v. Rios-Pineda Landon v. Plasencia Rice v. Cayetano US v. Martinez-Fuerte US v. Arvizu Rosales-Lopez v. United States INS v. Delgado Sale v. Haitian Ctr. Council, Inc. Jean v. Nelson US v. Ortiz Sugarman v. Dougall De Canas v. Bica

Appendix B Planalp 32

CROWLEY: Governor, I want to move you along. Don't -- don't go away, and we'll have plenty 1 of time to respond. We are quite aware of the clock for both of you. But I want to bring in a 2 different subject here. Mr. President, I'll be right back with you. Lorraine Osorio has a question 3 for you about a topic we have not... 4

OBAMA: This is for Governor Romney? 5

CROWLEY: It's for Governor Romney, and we'll be right with you, Mr. President. Thanks. 6

ROMNEY: Is it Lorraina? 7

LORAINNE: Lorraine. 8

ROMNEY: Lorraine? 9

LORAINNE: Yes, Lorraine. 10

ROMNEY: Lorraine. 11

QUESTION: How you doing? 12

ROMNEY: Good, thanks. 13

LORAINNE: President. Um, Romney, what do you plan on doing with immigrants without 14 their green cards that are currently living here as productive members of society? 15

ROMNEY: Thank you. Lorraine? Did I get that right? Good. Thank you for your question. 16 And let me step back and tell you what I would like to do with our immigration policy broadly 17 and include an answer to your question. But first of all, this is a nation of immigrants. We 18 welcome people coming to this country as immigrants. My dad was born in Mexico of American 19 parents; Ann's dad was born in Wales and is a first-generation American. We welcome legal 20 immigrants into this country. 21

Excerpt: Presidential Debate: Mitt Romney and Barack Obama

Moderator: Candy Crowley

Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York

16 October 2012

Appendix B Planalp 33

I want our legal system to work better. I want it to be streamlined. I want it to be clearer. I don't 22 think you have to -- shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to figure out how to get into this country 23 legally. I also think that we should give visas to people -- green cards, rather, to people who 24 graduate with skills that we need. People around the world with accredited degrees in science 25 and math get a green card stapled to their diploma, come to the U.S. of A. We should make sure 26 our legal system works. 27

Number two, we're going to have to stop illegal immigration. There are 4 million people who are 28 waiting in line to get here legally. Those who've come here illegally take their place. So I will 29 not grant amnesty to those who have come here illegally. 30

What I will do is I'll put in place an employment verification system and make sure that 31 employers that hire people who have come here illegally are sanctioned for doing so. I won't put 32 in place magnets for people coming here illegally. So for instance, I would not give driver's 33 licenses to those that have come here illegally as the president would. 34

The kids of those that came here illegally, those kids, I think, should have a pathway to become a 35 permanent resident of the United States and military service, for instance, is one way they would 36 have that kind of pathway to become a permanent resident. Now when the president ran for 37 office, he said that he'd put in place, in his first year, a piece of legislation -- he'd file a bill in his 38 first year that would reform our -- our immigration system, protect legal immigration, stop illegal 39 immigration. He didn't do it. 40

He had a Democrat House, a Democrat Senate, super majority in both Houses. Why did he fail to 41 even promote legislation that would have provided an answer for those that want to come legally 42 and for those that are here illegally today? That’s a question I think the -- the president will have 43 a chance to answer right now. 44

OBAMA: Good, I look forward to it. 45

Was -- Lorraina -- Lorraine -- we are a nation of immigrants. I mean we're just a few miles away 46 from Ellis Island. We all understand what this country has become because talent from all around 47 the world wants to come here. People are willing to take risks. People who want to build on their 48 dreams and make sure their kids have an even bigger dreams than they have. 49

But we're also a nation of laws. So what I've said is we need to fix a broken immigration system 50 and I've done everything that I can on my own and sought cooperation from Congress to make 51 sure that we fix the system. 52

The first thing we did was to streamline the legal immigration system, to reduce the backlog, 53 make it easier, simpler and cheaper for people who are waiting in line, obeying the law to make 54 sure that they can come here and contribute to our country and that's good for our economic 55 growth. 56

Appendix B Planalp 34

They'll start new businesses. They'll make things happen to create jobs here in the United States. 57

Number two, we do have to deal with our border so we put more border patrol on the -- any time 58 in history and the flow of undocumented workers across the border is actually lower than it's 59 been in 40 years. 60

What I've also said is if we're going to go after folks who are here illegally, we should do it 61 smartly and go after folks who are criminals, gang bangers, people who are hurting the 62 community, not after students, not after folks who are here just because they're trying to figure 63 out how to feed their families. And that's what we've done. And what I've also said is for young 64 people who come here, brought here often times by their parents. Had gone to school here, 65 pledged allegiance to the flag. Think of this as their country. Understand themselves as 66 Americans in every way except having papers. And we should make sure that we give them a 67 pathway to citizenship. 68

And that's what I've done administratively. Now, Governor Romney just said, you know he 69 wants to help those young people too, but during the Republican primary, he said, "I will veto 70 the DREAM Act, that would allow these young people to have access." His main strategy during 71 the Republican primary was to say, "We're going to encourage self-deportation." Making life so 72 miserable on folks that they'll leave. He called the Arizona law a model for the nation. Part of the 73 Arizona law said that law enforcement officers could stop folks because they suspected maybe 74 they looked like they might be undocumented workers and check their papers. 75

You know what? If my daughter or yours looks to somebody like they're not a citizen, I don't 76 want -- I don't want to empower somebody like that. So, we can fix this system in a 77 comprehensive way. And when Governor Romney says, the challenge is, "Well Obama didn't 78 try." That's not true. I have sat down with Democrats and Republicans at the beginning of my 79 term. And I said, let's fix this system. Including Senators previously who had supported it on the 80 Republican side. But it's very hard for Republican's in Congress to support comprehensive 81 immigration reform, if their standard bearer has said that, this is not something I'm interested in 82 supporting. 83

CROWLEY: Let me get the governor in here, Mr. President. Let's speak to, if you could... 84

ROMNEY: Yes. 85

CROWLEY: ...the idea of self-deportation? 86

ROMNEY: No, let -- let -- let me go back and speak to the points that the president made and -- 87 and -- and let's get them correct. 88

I did not say that the Arizona law was a model for the nation in that aspect. I said that the E-89 Verify portion of the Arizona law, which is -- which is the portion of the law which says that 90

Appendix B Planalp 35

employers could be able to determine whether someone is here illegally or not illegally, that that 91 was a model for the nation. That's number one. 92

Number two, I asked the president a question I think Hispanics and immigrants all over the 93 nation have asked. He was asked this on Univision the other day. Why, when you said you'd 94 filed legislation in your first year didn't you do it? And he didn't answer. He -- he doesn't answer 95 that question. He said the standard bearer wasn't for it. 96

I'm glad you thought I was a standard bearer four years ago, but I wasn't. 97

Four years ago you said in your first year you would file legislation. 98

In his first year, I was just getting -- licking my wounds from having been beaten by John 99 McCain, all right. I was not the standard bearer. 100

My -- my view is that this president should have honored his promise to do as he said. 101

Now, let me mention one other thing, and that is self-deportation says let people make their own 102 choice. What I was saying is, we're not going to round up 12 million people, undocumented 103 illegals, and take them out of the nation. Instead let people make their own choice. And if they -- 104 if they find that -- that they can't get the benefits here that they want and they can't -- and they 105 can't find the job they want, then they'll make a decision to go a place where -- where they have 106 better opportunities. 107

But I'm not in favor of rounding up people and -- and -- and taking them out of this country. I am 108 in favor, as the president has said, and I agree with him, which is that if people have committed 109 crimes we got to get them out of this country. 110

ROMNEY: Let me mention something else the president said. It was a moment ago and I didn't 111 get a chance to, when he was describing Chinese investments and so forth. 112

OBAMA: Candy? Hold on a second. The-- 113

ROMNEY: Mr. President, I'm still speaking. Mr. President, let me finish. I've gotta continue. 114

CROWLEY: Governor Romney, you can make it short. See all these people? They've been 115 waiting for you. (inaudible) make it short (inaudible). 116

ROMNEY: Just going to make a point. Any investments I have over the last eight years have 117 been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United 118 States, including in -- in Chinese companies. 119

Appendix C Planalp 36

(1) We are a migrant youth led, multi-cultural coalition of undocumented youth who have come

together from various states to build support for legislation such as the DREAM Act and

empower our communities to come out as undocumented and unafraid. All our work is

volunteer-based.

"Dream Activist: Take Action." Dream Activist: Take Action. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.

http://action.dreamactivist.org/.

(2) Our goals: A reform package that works for all communities and families in America should

do the following: A rational and humane approach to the undocumented population. Protect U.S.

and immigrant workers. Allocate sufficient visas to close unlawful migration channels

Enhance our nation’s security and safety. Establish a strategic border enforcement policy that

reflects American values. Keep American families together.

"Reform Immigration For America." Reform Immigration For America. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.

<http://reformimmigrationforamerica.org/>.

(3) The National Immigrant Youth Alliance is an undocumented youth-led network committed to

achieving equality for all undocumented youth. We have member organizations in Alabama,

California, Colorado, D.C., Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan,

New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington and have

relationships with activists throughout the entire country. We are the only independent national

organization of undocumented youth. Through advocacy, grassroots organizing, direct action and

civil disobedience, we will develop a sustainable movement or justice and equality led by those

most affected and supported by committed, conscientious allies.

"National Immigrant Youth Alliance." National Immigrant Youth Alliance. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.

<http://theniya.org/>.

(4) Over three million students graduate from U.S. high schools every year. Most get the

opportunity to test their dreams and live their American story. However, a group of

approximately 65,000 youth do not get this opportunity; they are smeared with an inherited title,

an illegal immigrant. These youth have lived in the United States for most of their lives and want

nothing more than to be recognized for what they are, Americans.

Appendix C Planalp 37

The DREAM Act is a bipartisan legislation ‒ pioneered by Sen. Orin Hatch [R-UT] and Sen.

Richard Durbin [D-IL] ‒ that can solve this hemorrhaging injustice in our society. Under the

rigorous provisions of the DREAM Act, qualifying undocumented youth would be eligible for a

6 year long conditional path to citizenship that requires completion of a college degree or two

years of military service.

"DREAM Act Portal." DREAM Act Portal. Web. 28 Oct. 2012. <http://dreamact.info/>.

(5) The DREAM Act is a piece of federal legislation which would legalize the status of several

million undocumented youth. The DREAM Act stands for the Development Relief and

Education of Alien Minors Act. The bill was first introduced in 2001, it has been re-introduced

each session since then.

"What is the DREAM Act?” Dream Activist: Take Action. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.

http://action.dreamactivist.org/.

(6) The California Dream Act of 2011 consists of two bills, Assembly Bill 130 (AB 130) and

Assembly Bill 131 (AB 131). AB 130 was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on June 25,

2011, and AB 131 was signed into law by Governor Brown on October 8, 2011. AB 130 is

effective January 1, 2012, and allows students attending the University of California, Berkeley

who are exempt from paying nonresident tuition under another law, Assembly Bill 540 (AB

540), and who are ineligible for federal financial aid, to be eligible to receive the Berkeley

Undergraduate Dream Act Scholarship, which is a scholarship from private, non-state funds.

"California Dream Act of 2011." UC Berkeley Financial Aid and Scholarships Office. Web. 28 Oct.

2012. http://students.berkeley.edu/finaid/undergraduates/dreamfaq.htm#about.

Appendix D: Terms used in Arizona v. United States (2012)

Planalp 38

pg “ALIEN”

1 a) To address pressing issues related to the large number of aliens within its borders who do not have a lawful right to be in this country

2 a) Section 5, in relevant part, makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work

b) Two other provisions give specific arrest authority and investigative duties with respect to certain aliens to state and local law enforcement . . .

c) The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.

3 a) Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country

who seek the full protection of its laws.

b) Perceived mistreatment of aliens in the United States may lead to harmful reciprocal treatment of American citizens abroad.

4 a) Congress has specified categories of aliens who may not be admitted to the United States.

b) Once here, aliens are required to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status.

c) Congress has specified which aliens may be removed

d) If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain

5 a) Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate

b) a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return.

c) CBP is responsible for determining the admissibility of aliens and securing the country’s borders.

d) Hundreds of thousands of aliens are removed by the Federal Government every year.

6 a) Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in Arizona each year.

9 a) It punished an alien’s willful failure to register but did not require aliens to carry identification cards.

b) Federal law now includes a requirement that aliens carry proof of registration.

c) Aliens who remain in the country for more than 30 days must apply for registration and be fingerprinted.

10 a) maintaining a comprehensive and unified system to keep track of aliens within the Nation’s borders.

12 a) When there was no comprehensive federal program regulating the employment of unauthorized aliens

b) imposing civil penalties on the employment of aliens who were “not entitled to lawful residence in the United States if such employment would have an adverse effect on

lawful resident workers.”

13 a) This comprehensive framework does not impose federal criminal sanctions on the employee side (i.e., penalties on aliens who seek or engage in unauthorized work).

b) With certain exceptions, aliens who accept unlawful employment are not eligible to have their status adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident.

c) Congress made a deliberate choice not to impose criminal penalties on aliens who seek, or engage in, unauthorized employment

Note: The entire sentence is not always listed. Only the relevant parts of long sentences are shown. There is no notation for abridgment at the beginning or end of sentences, but ellipses

are used mid-sentence. The term in question is underlined, the relevant action(s) are bolded, and other significant information is italicized. The phrases appear in the order they are

written in the original document.

Appendix D: Terms used in Arizona v. United States (2012)

Planalp 39

Arizona v. United States. 567 US. United States Supreme Court. 25 June 2012. Supreme Court. Web.

14 a) making criminals out of aliens engaged in unauthorized work—aliens who already face the possibility of employer exploitation because of their removable status

b) bars States from imposing penalties on employers of unauthorized aliens

15 a) the careful balance struck by Congress with respect to unauthorized employment of aliens.

b) Congress decided it would be inappropriate to impose criminal penalties on aliens who seek or engage in unauthorized employment.

c) As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.

16 a) When an alien is suspected of being removable

b) it gives the alien information about the proceedings

c) If an alien fails to appear, an in absentia order may direct removal.

d) The federal statutory structure instructs when it is appropriate to arrest an alien during the removal process.

e) the Attorney General can exercise discretion to issue a warrant for an alien’s arrest and detention

f) And if an alien is ordered removed after a hearing, the Attorney General will issue a warrant.

g) They may arrest an alien for being “in the United States in violation of any [immigration] law or regulation,” for example, but only where the alien “is likely to escape before

a warrant can be obtained.”

17 a) Section 6 attempts to provide state officers even greater authority to arrest aliens on the basis of possible removability

b) Under state law, officers who believe an alien is removable . . . would have the power to conduct an arrest on that basis regardless of whether a federal warrant has issued or

the alien is likely to escape.

c) The result could be unnecessary harassment of some aliens (for instance, a veteran, college student, or someone assisting with a criminal investigation) whom federal officials

determine should not be removed.

d) authority to arrest for bringing in and harboring certain aliens

18 a) By authorizing state officers to decide whether an alien should be detained for being removable

b) decision of state officers to arrest an alien for being removable

c) when an alien will be released from their custody.

d) state officers may not make warrantless arrests of aliens based on possible removability except in specific, limited circumstances

20 a) requiring a system for determining whether individuals arrested for aggravated felonies are aliens

b) unlikely that the Attorney General would have the alien removed.

21 a) This might be the case, for example, when an alien is an elderly veteran with significant and longstanding ties to the community.

b) A federal statute regulating the public benefits provided to qualified aliens

22 a) state officers in the position of holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence

Appendix D: Terms used in Arizona v. United States (2012)

Planalp 40

pg “PERSON”

2 d) Section 6 authorizes officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense”

e) Section 2(B) provides that officers who conduct a stop, detention, or arrest must in some circumstances make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status

17 e) There are significant complexities involved in enforcing federal immigration law, including the determination whether a person is removable.

19 a) Section 2(B) of S. B. 1070 requires state officers to make a “reasonable attempt . . . to determine the immigration status” of any person they stop, detain, or arrest on some

other legitimate basis

20 c) Any request made by state officials for verification of a person’s citizenship or immigration status.

22 b) To take one example, a person might be stopped for jaywalking in Tucson and be unable to produce identification.*

c) The state courts may conclude that, unless the person continues to be suspected of some crime for which he may be detained by state officers, it would not be reasonable

to prolong the stop for the immigration inquiry.

23 a) To take another example, a person might be held pending release on a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol.*

b) State courts may read this as an instruction to initiate a status check every time someone is arrested, or in some subset of those cases, rather than as a command to hold the

person until the check is complete no matter the circumstances. Even if the law is read as an instruction to complete a check while the person is in custody, moreover, it is

not clear at this stage and on this record that the verification process would result in prolonged detention.*

Appendix D: Terms used in Arizona v. United States (2012)

Planalp 41

pg Other

3 c) It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States

4 e) Federal law also authorizes States to deny noncitizens a range of public benefits

f) it imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a.

g) Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime.

6 b) Arizona bears many of the consequences of unlawful immigration.

c) Accounts in the record suggest there is an “epidemic of crime, safety risks, serious property damage, and environmental problems” associated with the influx of illegal

migration across private land near the Mexican border.

d) The problems posed to the State by illegal immigration must not be underestimated.

13 d) The law makes it illegal for employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ unauthorized workers.

e) Aliens also may be removed from the country for having engaged in unauthorized work.

14 c) is silent about whether additional penalties may be imposed against the employees themselves.

19 b) allow federal immigration officials to gain access to detainees held in state facilities.

20 d) First, a detainee is presumed not to be an alien unlawfully present in the US if he or she provides a valid Arizona driver’s license

22 d) state officers will be required to delay the release of some detainees for no reason other than to verify their immigration status.

23 c) requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released

24 a) On May 24, 2012, at one of this Nation’s most distinguished museums of history, a dozen immigrants stood before the tattered flag that inspired Francis Scott Key to write the National Anthem. There they took the oath to become American citizens. These naturalization ceremonies bring together men and women of different origins who now share a common destiny. They swear a common oath to renounce fidelity to foreign princes, to defend the Constitution, and to bear arms on behalf of the country when required by law. The history of the United States is in part made of the stories, talents, and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here.

25 a) Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues

Planalp 42

Works Cited

Arizona v. United States. 567 US. United States Supreme Court. 25 June 2012. Supreme Court. Web.

Barthes, Roland. Annette Lavers, trans. “Myth Today.” Mythologies. New York: Farrar, Straus &

Giroux, 1972. 109-137. Print.

Brontsema, Robin. "A Queer Revolution: Reconceptualizing the Debate Over Linguistic

Reclamation." Colorado Research in Linguistics June 2004 17.1 (2004): n. pag. Print.

Chavez, Leo R. The Latino Threat. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 2008.

Cunningham-Parmeter, Keith. "Alien Language: Immigration Metaphors and the Jurisprudence of

Otherness." Fordham Law Review 79.4 (2011): 1545-598.

"Deferred Action." Official Website of the US Department of Homeland Security. US Department of

Homeland Security. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

Demby, Gene. "In Immigration Debate, 'Undocumented' Vs. 'Illegal' Is More Than Just Semantics."

Web post. NPR: It's All Politics. National Public Radio, 13 Jan. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

Feldman, Jerome, and Srinivas Narayanan. "Embodied Meaning in a Neural Theory of

Language." Brain and Language 89.2 (2004): 385-92.

Frumin, Aliyah. "John McCain: I Refuse to Stop Saying ‘illegal’ Immigrant." Web log post. MSNBC.

MSNBC, 26 Apr. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

Gallese, Vittorio, and George Lakoff. "The Brain's Concepts: The Role of the Sensory-Motor System in

Conceptual Knowledge." Cognitive Neuropsychology 22.3 (2005): 455-79.

Johnstone, Barbara. Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.

Kandel, William A. The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics. Rep. no.

R41592. Congressional Research Service, 18 Jan. 2011. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

Kramsch, Claire J. Language and Culture. Oxford, OX: Oxford UP, 1998. 3-15, 65-77.

Planalp 43

Kramsch, Claire. "Language and Politics." Introduction to Applied Language Studies. University of

California, Berkeley. 27 Nov. 2012. Lecture.

Lakoff, George. Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River

Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Pub. 2004.

Lakoff, George. "Explaining Embodied Cognition Results." Topics in Cognitive Science 4.4 (2012):

773-85.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2003.

Lakoff, Robin. "Language: The Power We Love to Hate." The Language War. Berkeley: University of

California, 2000. 1-28.

Macedo, Stephen. "The Moral Dilemma of U.S. Immigration Policy: Open Borders vs. Social

Justice." Debating Immigration. Ed. Carol Swain. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007. 63-81.

Print.

Motomura, Hiroshi. Americans in Waiting. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. Print.

Peek, Liz. "Hey, Republicans, Words Matter and AP's 'Illegal Immigrant' Decision Proves It." Web log

post. Opinion. Fox News, 3 Apr. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

Planas, Roque. "'Illegal vs. Undocumented' Debate: Obama And Romney Weigh In At Town Hall

Meeting." Web post. Latino Politics. Huffington Post, 17 Oct. 2012. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

Rodriguez, Cindy Y. "Language like 'illegal Immigrant' Seen as a Challenge during Immigration

Debate." Web log post. CNN: US. CNN, 4 Apr. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

Rosch, Eleanor. "Principles of Categorization." Ed. Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd.Cognition and

Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1978. 27-48. Print.

Smith, William French. Testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on

Immigration and Refugee Policy, and the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on

Planalp 44

Immigration, Refugees, and International Law, Joint Hearings on the Final Report of the Select

Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, 97th Cong., 1st Session, May 6, 1981.

United States. Department of Homeland Security. Illegal Alien Resident Population. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. 1996.

United States. Department of Homeland Security. Population Estimates. Estimates of Unauthorized

Immigrant Population Residing in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, 2011.

United States. Department of Homeland Security. Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2010.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics,

2011.

Vargas, Jose Antonio. "Immigration Debate: The Problem with the Word Illegal." Web log post. Time:

Ideas. Time, 21 Sept. 2012. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

Vargas, Jose Antonio. "My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant." New York Times. 22 June 2011. Print.

Volpp, Leti. "Origins and Theory." Legal Studies: Immigration and Citizenship. UC Berkeley, Berkeley.

24 Jan. 2013. Lecture.

Volpp, Leti. "Undocumented Immigration." Legal Studies: Immigration and Citizenship. UC Berkeley,

Berkeley. 23 April 2013. Lecture.

Vuolo, Mike. "From “Wetbacks” to “Illegals” to “Undocumented” to … ?" Web post.Lexicon Valley.

Slate, 13 Nov. 2012. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (New York: Macmillan, 1949), 68-9.

Whorf, Benjamin Lee. "Science and Linguistics." Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge:

Technology of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1956. 207-19. Print.