The phrase "illegal immigrants" keeps occurring in news reports about American President Donald Trump's thoughts and policies regarding people who slip into, and stay in, the USA without going through the proper channels.
The phrase "illegal immigrant" is a self-contradiction which, by virtue of its self-contradiction, evokes conflicting reactions from various people. We attempt in this essay to clarify the situation.
The word "immigrant" refers to someone who gains domestic nationality and residence by going through the proper channels and procedures. This way of entering, staying and working in a country is legal and legitimate -- and any call to arbitrarily expel, deport or in any way remove such a person from the domestic country rightly should be opposed.
Notice that an immigrant is someone who enters and stays in a country via legal means. This is why the phrase "illegal immigrant" is a self-contradictory.
Someone who enters and stays in a country illegally is not an immigrant. Such a person is referred to by the word "trespasser" -- and any call to remove him or her rightly should be supported. To not support such a call amounts to nullifying the rule of (immigration) law.
One reason why there is such strong objection to the idea of removing these trespassers is the objectors focus on the word "immigrant" and do not notice the word "illegal". The word "immigrant" connotes "legal, legitimate, approved" -- and hence such persons rightly should not be removed.
On the other hand, people who notice the word "illegal" -- and rightly view those who slip over the border as trespassers (not immigrants) -- feel little or no objection to preventing their entry and their removal. This is entirely separate from these trespassers competing for jobs or committing crimes while in the US. It is simply a matter of their illegal status -- and respect for law.
The problem, and appropriate action, will become much clearer once the self-contradictory phrase "illegal immigrant" is replaced by the correct term: "trespasser".
END
Thursday, 26 January 2017
Facts, actual facts, and alternative facts
As almost everyone knows, the phrase “alternative fact”
was recently coined – and widely derided as being an attempt to legitimise a falsehood
or lie. This essay attempts to unpack the controversy.
We begin by asking: What is a fact? This is quite
easily answered. A fact is a state of affairs in the world. For example, the
cat sat on the mat.
Since a fact is a state of affairs in the world, the
word “actual” in the phrase “actual fact” is redundant. A state of affairs in
the world is by definition actual.
A fact is different from a statement expressing that
fact. If the state of affairs in the world is that the cat sat on the mat, then
the statement “the cat sat on the mat” is true. But if the state of affairs in
the world is not that the cat sat on the mat, then the statement “the cat sat
on the mat” is not true, hence false.
The words “true” and “false” can be attached only to
statements, not to facts. There is no such thing as a false fact, precisely
because facts are states of affairs in the world. All facts are by definition trivially
true, but the adjective “true” is meaningless – because it cannot be contrasted
with the adjective “false”.
It follows from this that it is not possible to say
that the phrase “alternative fact” means a falsehood or lie. This is because
facts are not capable of being called “true” or “false” (only statements can be
called those).
Nor is it possible to say that facts have alternatives
(except perhaps in other possible worlds). This is because a fact is the state
of affairs in the world. What is (or is not), is (or is not); there can be no other.
So what can the phrase “alternative fact” mean?
Let’s consider the word “alternative”. It is used to
indicate the sense “either A or B”. Which then brings us to the question: What
were A and B? Specifically, were A and B statements or facts?
In the context of the coining of the phrase “alternative
fact”, A was the statement “the crowd did not stretch from the building to the
memorial”, and B was the statement “the crowd was larger than what you claim”. The
alternatives are statements, not facts.
So how did facts and lies get into the story?
When the statement A was uttered, it was declared to
be a description of a fact (which by definition is trivially true). Hence,
anything contradicting A must be false and a lie.
But that was precisely the dispute: whether or not the
statement A described the fact. The opposing contention was that the statement
A did not describe the fact; that the fact was described by statement B.
So here is what the phrase “alternative fact” means:
Here is a statement (B) that is an alternative statement to the earlier
statement (A). Further, statement B describes the fact, whereas statement A
does not describe the fact.
And here is the moral of the story: Merely uttering a
statement does not make that statement true.
Wednesday, 4 January 2017
How to survive in the gig economy
There has recently been some mention of the "gig economy" as the next evolution of the economy. The question then becomes: How does a gig worker handle the situation, given that s/he does not have an employer who is legally obliged to pay him/er a monthly salary?
The biggest problem being a gig worker is how to avoid being cheated of payment after doing the work?
I am a gig worker, and have been since 1994. I have been cheated before. As a result, I have given much thought to this problem -- and I have some observations to share.
Do not wait for anyone to form an organisation to fight for gig worker's rights. That is highly unlikely to happen, even though there are ironically organisations that have been formed to fight for migrant workers' rights. Even if someone does form such an organisation, all that means is the gig worker now has a new "boss" to deal with. This is not a solution. Here are some more practical ideas.
One: Undertake work only if there will be progress payments as the work proceeds. The work does not proceed if the progress payment is not made. This way, the risk of non-payment is reduced to only the last installment.
Two: Undertake only one project from any given client at any one time. This reduces the risk of non-payment to only one project. Do not succumb to the temptation to pile up the accruals; you are merely piling up the risk of non-payment.
Three: Insist on a delivery-on-cash (DOC) payment system. Deliver the completed work, or partial work, only upon payment of full or progress payment. Note the sequence: delivery on cash, not cash on delivery. Once you have delivered the work, you lose any leverage over payment. Yes, you can try the Small Claims Court, but are you willing to go to that trouble, or are you more likely to sigh and write off the payment? You know you have the integrity to deliver the work (after all, what else can you do with it?); you do not know that the client has the integrity to pay you.
Four: Do not do work again for a client who delays or omits payment to you for work done. Never be cheated by the same client twice.
Five: Beware if a client gives you increasingly large projects to do. Never interpret this as increasing trust. The client could just be building you up with small payments in order to eventually run off with a large project done but no payment made.
Six: Prefer to work for clients with large reputations to lose. This gives you some assurance of payment. At the same time, it also means they are more likely to get away with non-payment. What can you do against a large corporation? Who would take your word against theirs?
Seven: Harass the cheating client with weekly, then daily, telephone calls until you get paid. Do not target the CEO, you will be filtered out. Target the accounts clerk.
None of these methods will guarantee you payment. The client can easily ignore you and move on to the next gig sucker. These methods will work only if all or most gig workers adopt them -- which is highly unlikely to happen.
It's the prisoner of war situation: Dig the mass grave today for the other prisoners, while knowing full well that some day later it will be your turn to lie in another mass grave. Imagine if no prisoner agrees to dig a mass grave.
The best that a gig worker can do is reduce the risk for him/herself. There is no real solution to the problem. The result of the above methods will mean you will be paid for your work. They will not guarantee you more work (or merely accruals).
Cheers.
The biggest problem being a gig worker is how to avoid being cheated of payment after doing the work?
I am a gig worker, and have been since 1994. I have been cheated before. As a result, I have given much thought to this problem -- and I have some observations to share.
Do not wait for anyone to form an organisation to fight for gig worker's rights. That is highly unlikely to happen, even though there are ironically organisations that have been formed to fight for migrant workers' rights. Even if someone does form such an organisation, all that means is the gig worker now has a new "boss" to deal with. This is not a solution. Here are some more practical ideas.
One: Undertake work only if there will be progress payments as the work proceeds. The work does not proceed if the progress payment is not made. This way, the risk of non-payment is reduced to only the last installment.
Two: Undertake only one project from any given client at any one time. This reduces the risk of non-payment to only one project. Do not succumb to the temptation to pile up the accruals; you are merely piling up the risk of non-payment.
Three: Insist on a delivery-on-cash (DOC) payment system. Deliver the completed work, or partial work, only upon payment of full or progress payment. Note the sequence: delivery on cash, not cash on delivery. Once you have delivered the work, you lose any leverage over payment. Yes, you can try the Small Claims Court, but are you willing to go to that trouble, or are you more likely to sigh and write off the payment? You know you have the integrity to deliver the work (after all, what else can you do with it?); you do not know that the client has the integrity to pay you.
Four: Do not do work again for a client who delays or omits payment to you for work done. Never be cheated by the same client twice.
Five: Beware if a client gives you increasingly large projects to do. Never interpret this as increasing trust. The client could just be building you up with small payments in order to eventually run off with a large project done but no payment made.
Six: Prefer to work for clients with large reputations to lose. This gives you some assurance of payment. At the same time, it also means they are more likely to get away with non-payment. What can you do against a large corporation? Who would take your word against theirs?
Seven: Harass the cheating client with weekly, then daily, telephone calls until you get paid. Do not target the CEO, you will be filtered out. Target the accounts clerk.
None of these methods will guarantee you payment. The client can easily ignore you and move on to the next gig sucker. These methods will work only if all or most gig workers adopt them -- which is highly unlikely to happen.
It's the prisoner of war situation: Dig the mass grave today for the other prisoners, while knowing full well that some day later it will be your turn to lie in another mass grave. Imagine if no prisoner agrees to dig a mass grave.
The best that a gig worker can do is reduce the risk for him/herself. There is no real solution to the problem. The result of the above methods will mean you will be paid for your work. They will not guarantee you more work (or merely accruals).
Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)