word choice - Non-pejorative term for behaviour that discriminates against people based on their birth place



A big theme of the UK May 2014 MEP elections is immigration - there is a great deal of political rhetoric about it that I would describe as racist or xenophobic, but I don't think either term is entirely suitable given how they are used now in UK media.


In addition these terms (racist especially) are generally considered to be pejorative, so as soon as you use them people get defensive and miss the point. The debate becomes about the ethnic mix of their social circle or supporters, both of which are irrelevant.


This rhetoric is characterised by the location of people's country of origin rather than their race.


An example statement would be:



"I'm not racist, but only British people should be able to apply for British jobs."



or



"26 million people in Europe are looking for work. And whose jobs are they after?"



I don't think these statements are racist exactly, as a person could be any race and be British, or not be British and still be of an Anglo-Saxon white origin.


However they do represent a kind of discrimination: they state that if the most skilled person for a job is not from the UK they should be rejected in favour of a less skilled local. They state that someone who isn't British should not get the same rights and privileges as someone who is.


The rhetoric that goes with these statements tends to also make value statements about the immigrants in question, often describing their intentions as parasitic or that these immigrants would be seeking to change British culture or legislation.


Is there a term for that kind of discrimination or prejudice?


Please note that I'm not trying to encourage any kind of political debate on here - I'm just looking for a way to describe this kind of political argument as discriminatory without referring to race.


Update


This question has been flagged incorrectly as a duplicate. I know that the legal definition of racism includes discrimination based on nationality. However, in the UK political sphere at least, the common interpretation of of racism is limited to racial groups. The political parties that use this rhetoric do not consider it to be racist, and the pejorative nature of the term means that using it just ends any chance of building an argument that they might actually listen to.


I understand that racist is technically correct, I'm asking for constructive alternatives.


The answers to that question do not help with this issue.


Update 2


Xenophobic is a good answer, but not really what I'm looking for as it implies the motivation for the behaviour, rather than describing the behaviour itself.


For instance a typical response might be:



"I've got nothing against foreigners, I just think Britain is full - there's no more room."



This moves the argument to a different point (whether they hate or fear foreigners) and I don't want to do that. I want to describe the discrimination against foreigners without making my own judgements about their motivation for doing so.


Update 3


This question has been flagged as a duplicate of another question, but these are different questions with different answers. The supposed duplicate asks: If a person holds prejudice against people because of their nationality, would that be considered racist? - I'm specifically not asking about prejudice; I'm asking about discrimination.


I can state that a political party's policies or proposals are inherently discriminatory if the action treats one group differently from another. I'm not making a judgement about them if I do so, I'm just stating a deduction.


I can't state for certain that this discrimination is due to their prejudice - they may or may not have prejudiced opinions, but accusing them of prejudice causes offence and any constructive discussion ends there.


So, is there a way to describe behaviour that discriminates without making guesses as to the motivation or any prejudice behind it?



Answer



Nativist seems to fit: "Nativism is the political position of demanding a favored status for certain established inhabitants of a nation as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants. Nativism typically means opposition to immigration and support of efforts to lower the political or legal status of specific ethnic or cultural groups because the groups are considered hostile or alien to the natural culture, and assumptions that they cannot be assimilated" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

Years and years ago, I remember reading in a book on AmE usage that the phrasal turn a baby creeps before it walks was to some extent more common to AmE than to BrE, which preferred exclusively the "crawl" version. And so, I just recently checked on the accuracy of that information on NGram Viewer , and it actually was fact... more than a century ago! What I would like you to tell is if it would sound sort of weird to hear someone say today in the US that a child "creeps" before walking and running (see Synonyms ) rather than it crawls. Also, what's the story to those terms? How did "to crawl" come to prevail and supersede "to creep" to describe the way a baby moves around? As with a plant, so with a child. His mind grows by natural stages. A child creeps before he walks , sits before he stands, cries before he laughs, babbles before he talks, draws a circle before he draws a square, lies before he tells the truth, and is selfish before he
Read more

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

Does this sentence have too many subjunctives? If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries. I am stumped by this sentence construction. First, there is "Let it be," which is a common English idiomatic phrase, but then it follows another subjunctive. Is that to say you can actually have a subjunctive followed by another subjunctive? Also, why does the sentence use "please"? If that's the subjunctive tense there, then why is it followed by another subjunctive instead of a conditional, or maybe "Let it be" is the conditional? Lastly, I wish to know how the that is used in the sentence. Perhaps, the simplified sentence can be restated like so: Let it be decreed that they be destroyed and that they may put it into the king's treasuries. If not, maybe the simplified sent
Read more

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

I've been reading William Manchester's book "American Caesar", which is about Douglas MacArthur, and I found that he uses a strange convention for pluralizing the family name. When talking about the MacArthurs as a whole, he writes MacArthur' with an apostrophe, as in "After the war, the MacArthur' lived in Tokyo while the general was proconsul" (yes, he uses that term to describe him). I have never seen or heard of a rule that would prescribe this. Manchester is a bit old-timey in his style: for example, he also writes "in behalf of" instead of "on behalf of", which is the only one I have ever seen. So perhaps this is similar. Where does he get this apostrophe from? Edit: There seems to be some difficulty finding examples, which is odd. Here is a direct link to a page from Google Books that shows the apostrophe.
Read more

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

This is a phrase I’m particularly confused about, because it’s used often when something is manipulated or changed. For example, sometimes images surface online that are clearly Photoshopped, but people refer to them as “doctored” images. Why use the word “doctored” here? Answer The earliest Google Books match for an instance of doctored in a transitional (or perhaps post-transitional) sense between "amended" and "adulterated" appears in William Marshall, The Rural Economy of Glocestershire; Including Its Dairy: Together with the Dairy Management of North Wiltshire, and the Management of Orchards and Fruit Liquor, in Herefordshire , volume 2 (1789): Men in general, however, whose palates are set to rough cider, consider the common sweet sort as an effeminate beverage; and rough cider, properly manufactured, is probably the most generous liquor; being deemed more wholesome, to habits in general, than sweet cider:—even when genuine. That which is drank, in the kingd
Read more

phrases - Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey

I heard this phrase when I was watching Battleship. An old man said, "Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey." I do not know what it means, I only heard it in a movie. What is this phrase mean? In Addition: I think it was Rihanna who said "Saddle Ridge will be in weapons range in five minutes," then the old man stated the phrase. Answer It is a confused attempt at a play on (for example) "kiss my ass," or, some similar phrase. It is quite common in English today that idioms get mangled.
Read more

typography - When a dagger is used to indicate a note, must it come after an asterisk?

The typographical symbol dagger (†) has several meanings. Possibly its most common use is as a footnote marker. According to You Have a Point There: A Guide to Punctuation and Its Allies ( Partridge , 1953), when it is used for this purpose, it must be used for second footnotes only; the first footnote should be indicated by an asterisk (*), the third a double dagger (‡) and further footnotes other symbols or numbers. Where does Patridge's rule fall on a scale of one to ten, where one is "this is just one guy's random opinion" and ten is "this is a widely accepted rule of English and any deviation from it is unarguably incorrect"? This question was inspired by this Meta Stack Overflow question about the use of daggers on Stack Exchange site FAQ pages . Answer The dagger (also known as an obelisk ) is properly used for the second footnote. The asterisk is for the first, and the double dagger is for the third. This is supported by several websites: And so
Read more

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

What is the origin of the phrase shit eating grin ? How did it come to mean showing smugness or self-satisfaction of an individual's actions? Answer From the Urban Dictionary: ...these uses are documented in the Oxford English Dictionary no earlier than 1957 There have been similar expressions used quite far back: In Book XXI of his History of Rome, Livy describes a Carthaginian sect of coprophages, the risus faecivorus, or shit-eating grin, being commonly displayed by its adherents. Although, its origin is undetermined, they may have been incidents which caused the invention of this phrase. Below is an excerpt: "1944 Jrnl. Nerv. & Mental Dis. XCIX. 959 Among demented patients in advanced stages of their illness,..it is not rare to see some of them grasp their own feces, chew them and eat them often with great pleasure and satisfaction (coprophagia).
Read more