Nomenclature Handout: Fill & Download for Free

Let's get it straight. And since you are entering into semantics here, I shall try and refer to the legally correct nomenclatures as used formally by the Union Executive.1) The Indian Navy, The Indian Air force and The Indian Army are what constitutes the Indian Armed Forces (terminology used is as per allocation of business rules, 1961) and what many like to colloquially call as the military. These concern with external defense of the country. That should explain why they are under the administrative control of the Ministry of Defense.2) Coast guard is also under the Ministry of defense as per the allocation of business rules, 1961 (AOBR). As per the Coast guard Act 1978, it is also an "armed force"[1] . As per its mandate, it is currently manning two coastal jurisdictions: a) In cooperation with marine police, up to a distance of 12 nautical miles from the base line (roughly the shore line) b) Exclusively, the distance between 12 nautical miles and 200 nautical miles (an area we call the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)). Beyond 200 nautical miles, it is the Indian Navy that is concerned with managing the seas. Thus, the coast guard is concerned with Internal Security and Indian Navy is concerned with External Security.3) CRPF, CISF, ITBP, SSB, BSF, NSG, Assam Rifles are all under the ministry of Home Affairs as per the AOBR. Curiously, all these have been called Police in the AOBR. The nomenclature in vogue for the first five is Central Armed Police Force (CAPF). It can be inferred from the annual report of the MHA that Assam Rifles is a non-CAPF and a Central Paramillitary Force. The NSG is described as a Commando Force. It should be remembered that the AR, BSF, ITBP and SSB are the 'Border Guarding Forces'.In all this, I have consciously stayed away from calling any force paramilitary unless the laws/ministry concerned has referred to them as so.However, in one final curious twist, this[2] PIB handout by the MHA seems to loosely, and i insist loosely, suggest that all CAPF are in fact paramilitary.Thus, in a nut shell, there is no legal definition to Military or Paramilitary.Footnotes[1] Page on indiancoastguard.nic.in[2] Special Pay for Paramilitary Personnel at PAR with Army

In my view, these are the biggest mistakes made by students while preparing for their exams:1) They don't realise that test/exam prep starts from Day I of their semester calendar;2) They don't put the proven spaced and distributed practice in lesson revision/rehearsal to work to their advantage, but more importantly, to help them circumvent the deadly impact of the infamous Ebbinghaus Curve, or better known as the Forgetting Curve ;3) They don't apply proven efficient and effective techniques to do regular self-quizzing of learned core material [e.g. definitions, terminologies, nomenclatures, formulas & diagrams, important places, dates and people, etc.], say using the index card strategy, to maximise opportuntiies for "learning-on-the-go"; while commuting or waiting in queue;4) They like to "cram" (or "burn the midnight oil' as we call in Singapore), as they hold the mistaken notion that it's a productive endeavour;5) They don't spend time and effort to tackle past test/exam series under simulated conditions, let alone reviewing returned test/exam papers, especially those they have flunked;6) They just read passively their notes from readings and class lectures/lecture handouts, instead of organising and writing global consolidated and summarised study notes for test/exam prep;7) They don't know how to make use of some simple relaxation sequences to help them handle test/exam anxiety, but more importantly, to help them generate peak performing energy during exam times;

While I agree with Anthony Zarrella and Ty Doyle’s inarguable points that it’s a question of connotation, I disagree with their conclusions that the terms don’t really matter and therefore “illegal immigrant” is just as good or better for its precision.Words matter. What words we use matter.There are two relevant points to consider.First, conduct is illegal, not persons. Grammatically, it’s just not a proper modifier for persons. This might seem semantic, and to an extent it is. It’s the difference between saying that as opposed to which or who.[1] Most of us don’t give this a second thought, and it arguably doesn’t impact our daily conversation.However, journalists and people who do wordsmithing on a daily basis do take that seriously, because it can make a difference in the tone and implications.Contrary to points that have been made, this is why we don’t use the terms “illegal surgeon” or “illegal pharmacist” in the regular course of language. We could use the terms “illegal surgery, or “illegal pharmacy,” in terms of conduct or business or building.Under the logic of those who think use of “undocumented” rather than “illegal” as a modifier is just political correctness, if you’ve ever driven over the speed limit, you’re an “illegal driver.” If you’ve ever crossed the street not at a crosswalk, you’re an “illegal pedestrian.”If those terms feel clunky to you, it’s because it’s just not the proper modifier.There are different modifiers that are applicable to other situations.Many conservatives, such as some who have answered this question, like to bring up doctors and pharmacists. A surgeon or a pharmacist or an attorney rely on prior permission from the government for the legality of their conduct. Conduct that is illegal because prior governmental permission was not obtained or was denied or revoked, but would be legal with that permission has a specific modifier: the conduct is unlicensed.That’s the appropriate modifier for that context: unlicensed.Where conduct may be legal or not legal depending on the circumstances, such as licensure (prior permission from the government to engage in the conduct,) the modifier illegal is not an appropriate modifier. Where conduct is always against the law, then it would be an appropriate modifier.For example, in most states, running a brothel would be illegal, because there are no circumstances where that conduct would not be in violation of the law. In Nevada, however, running a brothel is legal, unless it is unlicensed.In contrast, driving is generally perfectly legal, so long as one has a valid license. We don’t say that a person driving without a valid license is illegal, we say they are unlicensed. Their conduct would have been legal, if the circumstances were different.Additionally, “illegal” as a modifier often lacks specificity.I’m an attorney. I’ve never once seen a person charged with “illegal driving.” I see them charged with Driving after Revocation, Driving after Suspension, or Driving Without a Valid License. I see them charged with “Driving in Excess of the Posted Speed Limit.”“Illegal driving” would simply be too vague to put a person on notice of what law they broke, the same as “illegal immigration” is too vague to really explain why a person is in violation of the law.“Undocumented immigrant” is more precise, and explains why the conduct is illegal: the immigrant lacks the requisite documentation for legal status. I would agree that it’s still not the best term for the job.Both the vagueness and purpose of the modifier are relevant to the next point, because:Second, whether or not a non-citizen resident of, the United States has broken any law may be independent of their documented status under immigration law.A person might be an asylum seeker, for example. Certain individuals have a legal right to seek asylum - making them a legal non-citizen temporary resident under the law while their application is pending - even if they otherwise present without documentation or other legal status. A person who is here to seek asylum has a legal right to do so, and can legally cross the border without prior permission to seek that asylum.[2] But until that asylum seeker is processed and given any form of documentation of their pending asylum claim, they would be undocumented.People who are present pending that asylum application are generally not given identification, permission or documents to seek employment such as a Social Security number, or other documentation of their present status, but again, may be legal non-citizen temporary residents under our immigration law.Again: in the United States, there are a number of ways that a non-citizen resident may be here legally, but without the correct documentation. Likewise, there are ways that a non-citizen resident may be here in a manner that was at one time legal, but because their permission has lapsed (like a driver or doctor whose license has lapsed) their conduct is no longer legal.The circumstances that are dispositive to whether their entry was legal or not legal are whether they have the proper and valid documentation of authorization to be present in the United States.The question with whether a doctor, or pharmacist, or attorney’s conduct (practicing their profession) is legal or illegal is whether they have an appropriate license. The question of whether an non-citizen resident’s conduct (presence in the United States) is legal is whether they have the appropriate documentation of their residency.Thus, the appropriate modifier is undocumented.Edit: from a suggestion in the comments, perhaps an even better modifier is unauthorized. I would agree. A person might be undocumented, but authorized to be present (such as an asylum seeker,) or might be documented, but unauthorized (such as a person who has overstayed their visa). It’s the legal authorization to be present in the United States that is really the dispositive factor.Lastly, those conservatives who argue that it’s a simple matter of “political correctness” are giving a circular argument: we shouldn’t use the term because it’s “politically correct,” so let’s use a different term that’s conservatively “politically correct.”The idea that conservatives don’t want there to be some form of political correctness is flat out nonsense. They want their form of political correctness to be the discursive norm. Many of the reactionary conservatives that I’ve encountered are pretty hostile to the use of language such as:profanity in public situations;non-English terms;anything deemed insufficiently patriotic;“Happy Holidays” instead of Christian-specific terms; orsecular or inclusive language that does not sufficiently promote the Christian God.It was reactionary conservatives that added In God We Trust to our currency in 1956, supplanting E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) and added the phrase “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, both ostensibly to root out Communists.And it’s not just hostility towards terms or language they deem “politically incorrect,” either. They have their own “politically correct” terminology:Liberals or “coastal elites” is a conservative politically correct term to lump all opposition ideology members together into an out-group;celebrating heritage is good when it’s waving the defunct battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia; celebrating heritage when it’s waving another country’s is not;See also the “War of Northern Aggression” as a conservative politically correct term.war on [insert political pet bugaboo here];freedom of speech, in the context of “I should have the right to force others to listen to what I have to say and force private companies to fork over their resources to give me a platform to do it”;statism, for any sort of government service that they don’t like;entitlements/free stuff/handouts as labels for social safety nets;socialized medicine instead of universal health care because socialism sounds scarier;“skeptic” sounds nicer than science denier.“Illegal immigrant” is just another conservative politically correct term. Their argument is that what they think should be politically correct is what should be the discourse.That’s not necessarily an invalid argument, so long as they’re intellectually honest about it, but they’re not. Instead, you have conservatives trying to argue that it’s a more precise term.As explained above, it absolutely isn’t. It’s a more imprecise term that imparts a specific, derogatory implication that they want.At least one conservative commentator noted that it’s merely a preferred shorthand - we all “know” what it means and it’s not intended to make those people sound like they’re just criminals (but really, they are criminals because…)But do we “know what it really means” and that it’s not intended to denigrate certain individuals as inherently criminal? Really?It’s a hell of an assumption that there’s some sort of consensus that a term doesn’t actually mean what its literal words mean. That’s what idioms are.This is precisely why we try to avoid the use of idioms where specificity is important and connotation of a misunderstood idiom can dramatically change the meaning, such as the contexts of journalism or the law. Assumptions that everyone understands the “actual” meaning of an idiom as opposed to the literal meaning can lead to really bad results.And thus, when some individuals take to heart the literal words “illegal immigrant,” whether consciously or unconsciously, they do end up dehumanizing those people. They don’t reword in their head to “a person whose conduct does not conform to immigration law.” They reword to “criminal.”And frankly, an assumption that the average individual knows enough about the convoluted and complex intricacies of United States immigration law to actually think through every immigrant’s situation and whether that person might be eligible for legal status but currently lack it when they hear that person is “illegal” is asinine if not flatly self-contradictory.Even if the term “undocumented immigrant” is as imprecise as “illegal immigrant,” it at least slows the average person down enough to have to question why that documentation makes the difference.Now, there may well be better terms than “undocumented.” As edited above, unauthorized may be a much better term, which has specificity without the same criminal connotation to it. I could get behind use of such a term.But to dismiss “undocumented” as pure “political correctness,” as though one side engages in a practice and the other does not, and suggest that “illegal” is an objectively more specific or non-derogatory nomenclature is nonsense at best and gaslighting at worst.Here’s your adorable animal, ‘Murica.Mostly Standard Addendum and Disclaimer: read this before you comment.I welcome rational, reasoned debate on the merits with reliable, credible sources.But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, et cetera and BNBR violation and so forth, will result in a swift one-way frogmarch out the airlock. Doing the same to others will result in the same treatment.Essentially, act like an adult and don’t be a dick about it.Getting cute with me about my commenting rules and how my answer doesn’t follow my rules and blah, blah, whine, blah is getting old. Stay on topic or you’ll get to watch the debate from the outside.Same with whining about these rules and something something free speech and censorship.If you want to argue and you’re not sure how to not be a dick about it, just post a picture of a cute baby animal instead, all right? Your displeasure and disagreement will be duly noted. Pinkie swear.If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes. I’ll just delete your comment and probably block you, and frankly, I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.Debate responsiblyFootnotes[1] Who, That, Which[2] Is it legal to cross the U.S. border to seek asylum?