Framing the Debate

Everyone knows that more than a few arguments have been won because one side frames the debate in such a way as to preclude the other side's arguments. Most notably, this happens with abortion (pro-life vs. pro-choice) and gay rights (civil rights or special rights).

But over the last 20 years or so, immigration has also become one of those issues. Framed one way, illegal aliens are lawbreakers who artificially keep prices low and flood the country with criminals at worst and more people seeking taxpayer-subsidized benefits at best. Framed a different way, the undocumented immigrant is a hard worker willing to do work Americans won't do for an acceptable wage who might be fleeing poverty and/or governmental oppression.

It's funny the way a debate can be so altered by such framing that it is impossible to go back to a previous way of thought without being subjected to a variety of ad hominem attacks. For example, question the basis for declaring gay marriage a civil right and you will be called a homophobe and a bigot. Or, as illustrated in the passing of William F. Buckley, Jr.--where his early views on racism in the South were quoted nearly as often as his various extraordinary accomplishments for conservatism--academically discuss a hot button issue and you will answer for that forever.

I've noticed over the last few years that framing the debate in a liberal way has worked particularly well for them with regards to gay rights and to illegal immigration. How else to explain the silly song Illegal Alien being branded one of the worst songs ever?



I remember when "illegal alien" was the polite term. But that was before the illegal alien activists reframed the debate.