by Melanie Kleid
During the final presidential debate of 2016, Donald Trump’s response to the issue of immigration is charged by determination to secure America’s borders and disassociation with non-White Mexican people. Trump, with urgency, calls Clinton’s “amnesty” plan as a disaster.
As he stresses the importance of building the southern border’s wall, words and phrases like “illegally,” “pouring and destroying their youth,” “poisoning the blood of their youth,” ultimately bring him to his potent conclusion: “...one of my first acts will be to get all of the drug lords, all of the bad ones- we have some bad, bad people in this country that have to go out…” and, finally closing in on these unnamed culprits, “we have some bad hombres here and we’re gonna get ‘em out” (my emphasis) (Bush & Desjardins, 2016). Interestingly, neither Wallace nor the audience audibly acknowledges Trump’s racially-charged uttering of “bad hombres.”
Rather, Wallace thanks Trump and moves onto Clinton’s response. Clinton’s begins by referring to the people-at-hand as hard-working “undocumented people” a term widely recognized as less alienating to immigrants. Words like “citizen,” “children,” and “families” are scattered throughout her response; she, like her opponent, includes some violent language, repeating that she believes mass deportation would only work to rip families--and, later, our country--apart (Bush & Desjardins, 2016). Still, Clinton’s far less aggressive naming of undocumented people provides a crucial contrast not only in opinion, but also in linguistic behavior and affect.
As he stresses the importance of building the southern border’s wall, words and phrases like “illegally,” “pouring and destroying their youth,” “poisoning the blood of their youth,” ultimately bring him to his potent conclusion: “...one of my first acts will be to get all of the drug lords, all of the bad ones- we have some bad, bad people in this country that have to go out…” and, finally closing in on these unnamed culprits, “we have some bad hombres here and we’re gonna get ‘em out” (my emphasis) (Bush & Desjardins, 2016). Interestingly, neither Wallace nor the audience audibly acknowledges Trump’s racially-charged uttering of “bad hombres.”
Rather, Wallace thanks Trump and moves onto Clinton’s response. Clinton’s begins by referring to the people-at-hand as hard-working “undocumented people” a term widely recognized as less alienating to immigrants. Words like “citizen,” “children,” and “families” are scattered throughout her response; she, like her opponent, includes some violent language, repeating that she believes mass deportation would only work to rip families--and, later, our country--apart (Bush & Desjardins, 2016). Still, Clinton’s far less aggressive naming of undocumented people provides a crucial contrast not only in opinion, but also in linguistic behavior and affect.
RSS Feed