“Illegals” “Illegal Aliens” “Illegal Immigrants” “Undocumented Immigrants”
| March 19th, 2008I’m hereby banning the use of the word “illegals” to refer to human beings on “Alas,” with exceptions for sarcasm (i.e., someone using the term to mock anti-immigrant attitudes). A database search shows that many posters here have used the term — not all the time, but on occasion. I’m confident it’s a habit we can break.
I’m not banning “illegal immigrant” or even the vile “illegal alien,” although I hope most “Alas” comment-writers will choose not to use these terms, out of respect for my sensibilities (you are a guest here, blah blah blah) if nothing else.
I myself will try to use “undocumented immigrants.” This seems to me to be less logical than my preferred term, “unauthorized migrants” (which is the most accurate term, with the least derogatory implications), but “undocumented immigrants” has come to be the consensus term among most people defending the interests of undocumented immigrants.
* * *
In our last discussion on this, Robert, Ron, and Sailorman offered a variety of arguments in defense of “illegal alien” and/or “illegal immigrant,” and against “undocumented immigrant.” None of the arguments were persuasive.
1. The appeal to accuracy.
First was the argument that “illegal alien” is the most accurate term. But in fact the term carries two inaccurate connotations in regular English usage. (It is accurate in legalese, but since “Alas” is not a legal journal legalese isn’t the relevant criteria.)
The term “illegal” implies that a felony has been committed; but being an undocumented immigrant is not a felony, it’s a misdemeanor. The term “alien” implies “strange,” “adverse,” and “hostile” — not to mention “non-human” — according to Webster’s. None of that is accurate.
Furthermore, we don’t use the word “illegal” to refer to people who commit misdemeanors, except in the case of undocumented immigrants. We don’t call teenagers out after a legal curfew “illegal teenagers”; we don’t call a speeding driver an “illegal driver.” For that matter, even in the case of felonies, we don’t call the person “illegal.” The action is illegal; the person is not. Referring to the person as illegal is inaccurate.
So neither the term “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” can be defended on the basis of superior accuracy.
2. The argument from necessity.
It was implied that not using the term “illegal immigrant” will somehow prevent us from discussing what immigration laws should be, and how our laws and practices should address undocumented immigrants. As Robert put it, “the existing [alternative terms] are pathetic jokes that attempt to win the argument by defining it out of existence.”
This argument is so stupid that I don’t know how to respond to it. Consider this sample dialog:
SUE: I think the police should round up undocumented immigrants and feed them cupcakes.
NANCY: They can’t do that without a warrant.
See? Perfectly easy to argue policy one way or the other. This is because “illegal immigrant” is not, in fact, the only term that can be used — hence the debate over which term to use. If I decide to use the term “big” instead of “large,” that doesn’t mean I’ve defined the concept of “large” out of existence.
3. The argument from indifference. (”So what if the term I used is insulting to the people I’m talking about? Why should I care?”)
In response, I’d argue that undocumented immigrants are people, and needlessly insulting or dehumanizing them is wrong simply because needlessly hurting people is wrong. There is no policy approach towards immigration (including undocumented immigration) which cannot be argued for while avoiding the term “illegal immigrants,” or the vile “illegal aliens.” There is therefore no need to use these terms when discussing policy.
If that doesn’t sway you, then consider the practical implications. Many politically engaged Latin@s are insulted by the terms “illegal” or “alien.” Needlessly alienating large numbers of Latinos and Latinas is poor strategy if you actually want to have your policy preferences on this issue enacted.
4. “This argument is just semantics.”
Well, it’s certainly true that this is a semantic argument, and that people choose words based not only on literal meaning, but also based on subtext. For instance, while not all who use the term “illegal aliens” hate immigrants, among immigrant-haters the use of the term (or its shorter form “illegals”) is commonplace. That’s not a coincidence; immigrant-haters recognize that these terms are dehumanizing, and that’s why they prefer to use them.
So yes, it’s a semantic argument. But “semantic” doesn’t mean “illegitimate.” It’s perfectly legitimate not to want people referred to with terms that both they, and those who hate them most, recognize as dehumanizing and insulting.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:38 am
“Only semantics” always burns me. Semantics are important - the language we use affects how we think, which affects everything else we do.
And thank you for the cogent argument on the term illegal. It’s always bothered me, but I couldn’t define why enough to argue against its usage by various relatives. Now I think I may have to start referring to some family members as illegal drivers or illegal pedestrians and see if the point gets across.
This comment was written by Tapetum.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Well said… the term “alien” always bugged me, because we don’t use it in any other context. We don’t authorized immigrants “legal aliens”. We call them immigrants. So why does their legality transmogrify them from “immigrants” into “aliens”?
@Tapetum
It’s often said in project planning that “just” is a four letter word. Whenever somebody says “we just do XXXX” take out the “just” and you realize that XXXX is not trivial. “Only” is a similar four-letter-word.
This comment was written by Silenced is Foo.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 6:50 am
We don’t [call] authorized immigrants “legal aliens”.
Actually, we do.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 7:17 am
The term “illegal” implies that a felony has been committed; but being an undocumented immigrant is not a felony, it’s a misdemeanor. The term “alien” implies “strange,” “adverse,” and “hostile” — not to mention “non-human” — according to Webster’s. None of that is accurate.
I would dispute this on two counts:
1) The concept that the term “illegal” implies a felony is novel, as far as I can tell. The term “illegal” means something that is forbidden by law or statute. I can find no reference or usage that expressly or by implication restricts that to felonies. Your assertion that it does is something I have never heard before. Heck, if you smoke marijuana you are an illegal drug user, and smoking marijuana in and of itself is a misdemeanor in most juristictions. It is illegal to park in front of a fire hydrant, but it’s certainly not a felony.
2) Lots of words have different senses in different contexts, and it’s inappropriate to cherry-pick an out-of-context sense. In the case of people who are non-citizens the sense of strange or stranger certainly is not inappropriate. It’s also important to note that you did not address the point that “alien” is and has always been the legal term to denote non-citizens present in the United States, regardless of their immigration status. Since non-citizens encompasses everyone we are talking about and excludes everyone we are not talking about, and since “immigrants” fails in that regard (there are plenty of immigrants who are citizens or legally reside in the U.S. and numerous people here illegally who do not wish to stay here), the word “alien” is appropriate.
Furthermore, we don’t use the word “illegal” to refer to people who commit misdemeanors, except in the case of undocumented immigrants. We don’t call teenagers out after a legal curfew “illegal teenagers”; we don’t call a speeding driver an “illegal driver.”
Actually, as Robert points out, “legal alien” is in fact accepted usage.
For that matter, even in the case of felonies, we don’t call the person “illegal.” The action is illegal; the person is not.
Let’s talk about drivers again. Someone who is driving is a driver. There are licensed drivers. There are unlicensed drivers. It is perfectly legal to be a licensed driver. It is illegal to be an unlicensed driver. The words “licensed” or “unlicensed” refer to the person’s status as a driver. Similarly, “legal alien” or “illegal alien” refers to the status of the person as an alien, not to their status as a person.
I do agree that the term “illegals” is inappropriate, and I’ve never used it. Again, in the term “illegal alien”, the word “illegal” modifies “alien” to show that their status as an alien is illegal, since they are non-citizens who are present in the U.S. illegally. There are other terms that combine the word “alien” with a modifying term, such as “legal alien” and “resident alien”, which denote a non-citizen who is legally living in the U.S. In all cases the term “alien” is used with modifying terms, but only in one phrase does it refer to someone who’s presence here is illegal.
As far as being worried about not offending people, the immigrants I work with (both of whom were naturalized this year after a 5 year wait and complying with all laws) are insulted and angered by the use of the word “immigrant” in this debate. What about them? Why should they be lumped in with lawbreakers? Why should I be less worried about offending them than about offending people here illegally? I’ll bet that there are at least as many legal immigrants in the U.S. as there are illegal aliens; in fact, I’ll bet there’s more.
among immigrant-haters the use of the term (or its shorter form “illegals”) is commonplace
That may or may not be true. But given that there are so very, very few people who are actually immigrant haters involved in these discussions (certainly no one I’ve listened to or read), the terminology they use is not of much importance as they have no impact in the debate.
See? Perfectly easy to argue policy one way or the other. This is because “illegal immigrant” is not, in fact, the only term that can be used — hence the debate over which term to use. If I decide to use the term “big” instead of “large,” that doesn’t mean I’ve defined the concept of “large” out of existence.
No, but when you use the word “blue” when you mean “shoe”, you have. Your example uses two words that are synonyms, “large” and “big” are synonyms. But the terms that are being proposed to be substituted for “alien” (e.g., “immigrant”, “worker”) are not synonyms for it. Neither are the terms “undocumented” and “illegal” synonyms.
An online search of the U.S. Code returns 1350 different portions of U.S. law where the term “alien” appears, with multiple occurrences in many portions. The term “illegal alien” is included among them (e.g., in Title 2, Chapter 17A, subchapter II, Part B, section 658). It is entirely appropriate in a debate on the law to use the legal terms that define who and what we are talking about.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Nice post, Mr. Language Police. I will now vehemently scream “Freedom! Freedom!” in your face, attempting to channel Mel “Braveheart” Gibson.
I kid. Good post. :-)
I think “undocumented” is at least more accurate than “illegal” because it gives a better idea about the law being broken, their residence status, and even the national security threat folks like Lou Dobbs bray about.
I prefer “border-crossing migrant workers” because these folks are no different than the Okies escaping the 1930’s dust bowl into California, looking for work and finding cops and vigilantes greeting them with guns and night sticks. Our friends south of the border can’t find jobs in their home countries, but get lured to the U.S. by agricultural, construction and hospitality companies fishing for cheaper labor. Anyone interested in keeping those folks where they are should pressure our government to help rebuild the economies of Central America. Imagine what $3 trillion could have done.
This comment was written by Kevin Moore.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 7:47 am
I prefer “border-crossing migrant workers” because these folks are no different than the Okies escaping the 1930’s dust bowl into California, looking for work and finding cops and vigilantes greeting them with guns and night sticks.
The distinction that in the one case the migrants were crossing borders legally and their opponents were breaking the law, whereas in the present case the migrants are breaking the law and their opponents are not is meaningless to you?
BTW; when you refer to vigilantes, what laws were these people taking it into their hands to enforce? Because if they weren’t trying to enforce a law then they were brutes and bullies and criminals, but they weren’t vigilantes.
but get lured to the U.S. by agricultural, construction and hospitality companies fishing for cheaper labor.
I don’t deny the complicity of U.S. corporations who have turned an blind eye to the law in order to make profits. They too should face punishment under the law. In fact, it is essential to securing our borders that enforcement of the appropriate laws against CEOs and other people in authority in corporations is stepped up.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 7:48 am
I’m not banning “illegal immigrant” or even the vile “illegal alien,” although I hope most “Alas” comment-writers will choose not to use these terms, out of respect for my sensibilities
Can we call them “illegal aliens” if they immigrated without paperwork from Alpha Centari? Though I suppose undocumented aliens would be more accurate. (Sorry. But someone had to make that joke and better me than waiting for Robert to do it.)
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 8:04 am
RonF is correct. Also the use of “undocumented immigrants” is a little misleading since many of them do indeed have documents, albeit “illegal” documents. That identity theft and document fraud hurts a lot of Americans.
This comment was written by FormerlyLarryFromExile.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 8:14 am
I’d also like to remind readers that “illegal immigrant” != latin@ / hispanic /chican@ etc. Illegal immigrants come from many countries, not just Mexico or Latin America. Conversely, not all Latin@s are illegal immigrants (or even immigrants at all).
This comment was written by Meep.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 8:53 am
illiegal immigration is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. it is not a crime at all. that is not to say that it isn’t, you know, illegal, but it’s not a violation of any criminal laws.
undocumented is, IMHO, actually less accurate than illegal because plenty of them do have immigration documents, just ones that have expired (also, as someone else already mentioned, the issue of forged documents)
This comment was written by jd.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Pardon me for straying from the point a bit, but…If it seems I’m not taking the immigration issue very seriously the reason is this: I don’t think that there’s a real problem. At least, not from the American side. The exploitation of people who come to the US without going through the proper forms is a problem. The “brown hoards at our doorstep” issue is not.
If I may engage in a little freudian* analysis of a country, I think that the immigrant “problem” is mostly one of projection. The US doesn’t have a particularly large immigrant population compared to its size. Nor is the immigrant population particularly resistant to integration–on the contrary. What it does have is a history problem. In the 19th century, a bunch of Anglos from the US moved to northern Mexico (aka Texas) and got permission to stay by promising to obey Mexican laws, integrate into the culture, and generally become Mexican citizens. For a while all was well and lots of Anglos moved in, becoming the majority in some areas. Then Mexico banned slavery. Suddenly the now dominant Anglo population decided that they were being oppressed and rebelled, aided and abetted by the government of the country they supposedly rejected earlier. The result was, eventually, the loss of not just Texas but also a large part of what is now the southwest US. So, having gained a large bit of real estate by lies, deceit and violence, naturally US-Americans are scared that immigrants moving in might do the same thing. After all, they did.
*I believe it was Anna, not Sigmund who described mental defense mechanisms, including projection, but it’s still Freudian either way.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 9:03 am
I would also like to say that I think “undocumented immigrants” is an incorrect term to use, because one of the first things that happens to you if you are here illegally and get caught is that a whole lot of documenting goes on - and if the immigrant manages to avoid deportation (like by not showing up to a hearing) then they are here illegally while at the same time as being “documented” in the sense that there are documents confirming their status.
I prefer the terms “legal immigrant” and “illegal immigrant” - both are descriptive and there is no stigma to the word immigrant - and illegal is appropriate because it is, in fact, illegal to be here without proper permission from the government.
I do dislike the term “illegals” because that just sort of says a person is illegal, rather than their status (as an immigrant) and it has derogatory undertones.
I should also say that my wife is a legal immigrant - which was a pain in the ass for both of us for seven years until she finally got her citizenship. We had to jump through a lot of hoops and live with a lot of uncertainty at various times because of it. I must admit it has lessened my sympathy for those who skip all of that and just come in without it - we had to jump through all those hoops - why should someone else just be able to ignore them and get to the same place we are? But that is personal to me.
This comment was written by Disgusted Beyond Belief.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 9:07 am
“The term “illegal” implies that a felony has been committed; but being an undocumented immigrant is not a felony, it’s a misdemeanor”
Actually, _being_ an undocumented immigrant isn’t even a misdemeanor. It’s entering the U.S. without proper documentation that’s a misdemeanor. If someone enters with a visa and then overstays, they are subject to deportation, but they haven’t committed a crime.
This comment was written by Paul R..Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 9:09 am
The shorthand term “illegals” is odious. However:
“I myself will try to use “undocumented immigrants.” This seems to me to be less logical than my preferred term, “unauthorized migrants” (which is the most accurate term, with the least derogatory implications), but “undocumented immigrants” has come to be the consensus term among most people defending the interests of undocumented immigrants.”
Stick with your preferred term. In time it may become the consensus term if enough people switch to using it, and you can have a hand in that. People incorrectly assume everyone coming to the US is intending to settle here, and is thus an immigrant, just because that was the pattern in the past. Well so what. It is not necessarily the pattern now, so we need to drop the outdated assumption and the outdated term.
“Undocumented” would be alright if it didn’t amount to the same thing as “illegal” and thus be nothing more than a dodge. Still, I prefer it too because even though it can be ambiguous, as in suggesting that these people are undocumented in the sense that the government hasn’t documented their presence, it still also points to an important fact – people, especially Mexicans especially, often do not have and cannot get documents from their own government. What do you want with a passport anyway, you stinking “indio”? You can’t put a visa into a passport that doesn’t exist. Thank Vicente Fox for changing attitudes and policies in Mexico about emigrants; now his successor just needs to improve some procedures and open some damned passport offices in municipios where they are needed. Well, there’s more to it than that of course; we could stand to develop a real an immigration policy instead of a tangle of emotional reactions and venal manipulations.
“The term “illegal” implies that a felony has been committed; but being an undocumented immigrant is not a felony, it’s a misdemeanor.”
Strange logic – a misdemeanor is by definition an illegal act. In the case of people illegally in a country, how that illegal act is characterized may vary. In Mexico for instance, it is a felony to be in the country without the permission of the government. Here it’s only a misdemeanor. People do go to jail for misdemeanors, such as certain kinds of assaults, or public drunkenness.
“Furthermore, we don’t use the word “illegal” to refer to people who commit misdemeanors, except in the case of undocumented immigrants.”
That’s a good point, except that it’s not true. We would in fact say that someone was “illegally parked.” Why would we not say the same of someone not a citizen but present in the country (the legal definition of “alien”).
“First was the argument that “illegal alien” is the most accurate term. But in fact the term carries two inaccurate connotations in regular English usage. (It is accurate in legalese, but since “Alas” is not a legal journal legalese isn’t the relevant criteria.)”
Strange logic – does the technical meaning of a word suddenly become null and void outside its technical community? Does a foreign word loose its original meaning when it’s used in an English language blog? I can see how it might gain some new, wider or more English meaning, and how this might interfere with the bas meaning, but why would the word loose its base meaning?
“The term “alien” implies “strange,” “adverse,” and “hostile” — not to mention “non-human” — according to Webster’s. None of that is accurate.”
Nor is any of it relevant. “Alien” is the internationally accepted term in English for a non-citizen present in a country. It may have other connotations in vulgar usage, and that is valid too obviously, but why should that usage crowd out all other meanings of the word?
“If that doesn’t sway you, then consider the practical implications. Many politically engaged Latin@s are insulted by the terms “illegal” or “alien.” Needlessly alienating large numbers of Latinos and Latinas is poor strategy if you actually want to have your policy preferences on this issue enacted.”
Strange logic – to the extent this is still any kind of a democracy, why should the feelings of this or that pressure group be dispositive? It is not as if they own the issue; it involves and impacts everyone. While we are on the issue of insulting terms though, there are plenty of Mexicans here and at home who find the term “latino/a” colonialist and insulting, and the odious term “Hispanic” strange and meaningless.
Kevin,
“I prefer “border-crossing migrant workers” because these folks are no different than the Okies escaping the 1930’s dust bowl into California, looking for work and finding cops and vigilantes greeting them with guns and night sticks.”
And the Mexicans are marginally more welcome. I grew up in California when the term “Okie” was synonymous with “white trash”. And when immigration from the east was enough of a political issue for Governor Reagan to ask people what they expected him to do, “put machine gun nests in the passes?”
RonF,
“I don’t deny the complicity of U.S. corporations who have turned an blind eye to the law in order to make profits. They too should face punishment under the law. “
That will happen when someone starts doing name-and-shame on their whores in Congress who obstruct these investigations and enforcement actions.
Jd,
“illiegal immigration is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. “
It’s a federal misdemeanor.
This comment was written by Jim.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 9:17 am
I’ve written literally thousands of posts about the wider issue, and I always try to use the correct, legal term: “illegal aliens”. I don’t use “illegals”, but I also avoid “illegal immigrants” because IAs aren’t immigrants, which implies legality. And, I’ve noted that those who use “undocumented” or similar are almost always trying to deceive. Likewise with those who simply refer to “immigrants”, even when it’s clear they’re talking about IAs.
As for jd’s comment, coming here illegally can be a felony in some cases.
This comment was written by TLB.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 9:27 am
I find that, in actual practice, that is when referring to real people, I call them Mexican (Salvadoran, Guatemalan etc.) workers. I live in a semi rural area of California. It is pretty common here to talk about “Workers” meaning farmworkers. On reflection, I don’t know how I feel about that. It doesn’t seem to offend “workers”. “Legal” residents are usually called Mexicans, or Guatemalans etc. without appending “worker”. That’s because people with legal status don’t do farm work.
Seasonal farmworkers are an important part of the local economy and the great concern here is that there won’t be enough of them. Even our rabidly right wing local media is not participating in the hysteria over ‘illegals’.
I was involved in a local faith based immigrant rights group. It sort of petered out because, rather than drawing in immigrants, it became a forum for local businessmen to bother politicians about their fear of a labor shortage. At the same time, there was a May Day march of 10,000 people, organized almost completely off the English speaking radar.
There was a lot of participation by unions, notably the farm workers, teamsters and SEIU. Many of the marchers carried home made signs saying that they were marching for their rights as workers.
I guess, given all of that context, that “workers” will have to do for now. Not to say that I don’t support banning the word “illegal”, just that I am a trade unionist myself and see no indignity in being called a worker.
This comment was written by Jon.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Amp–thank you so much. Thank you. This means the *world* to me, and I appreciate that you are taking this step. Thank you.
This comment was written by brownfemipower.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Robert and Ron: Amp specifically pointed out that “alien” is an appropriate legal term, but it is not in common use. (See the third sentence in the first paragraph under #1.) Your responses were “Yes, it is” and “Actually, it’s the legal term.”
To me, this looks like you didn’t bother to carefully read Amp’s argument. If you actually meant to argue that “alien” is the term that’s commonly used in everyday polite conversation, you did a poor job of it.
I know some half-dozen documented non-citizens. I have never used the term “alien” to refer to them, either in the first or third person. I think it would be somewhat rude.
Finally, when I start hearing the term “illegal driver” being used to refer to people driving without a license, “illegal eater” to refer to people eating on the subway, and “illegal walker” to refer to people who jaywalk, then I’ll accept the term “illegal immigrant”. Until that happens, I’m going to assume that anyone who uses “illegal immigrant” has an ulterior motive for singling them out for “illegal” status.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Also, I currently know about 15 people who live in the impossible to find parking city of Ann Arbor Michigan who are driving on suspended licenses because of their huge amount of unpaid parking fines. Shall I start calling them criminal drivers? Or how about all those people who are driving without licenses at all? Or those people who haven’t filed their taxes in years? Should we call all these people who didn’t file the proper paper work in a correct manner criminal citizens?
Or what about those thousands of men walking around who have raped women and never got charged? Should we start calling all men who can’t prove that they are not rapists illegal males?
I mean, we have to really challenge why we insist that those who are in the country without proper documentation (changed to recognize that not all immigrants are people of color) marked for their criminality when others who are just as guilty of committing violent and non-violent crimes are not.
This comment was written by brownfemipower.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 9:48 am
[...] Also: “Illegals” “Illegal Aliens” “Illegal Immigrants” “Undocumented Immigrants”, Visas and jobs, Do We Need Immigration Reform?, Rejecting Racism: Stop Running The Fat Cat’s Rat [...]
This comment was written by Over there! | Prose Before Hos.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Yeah, we say that they “illegally parked”, not that they’re an “illegal parker”. If you want to say that someone “illegally crossed the border”, then have at it.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Jon: Thanks for the historical note. Coming from White Trash, I feel a certain class bond with the workers from south of the border.
RonF: Speaking of history, I think PBS ought to be authoritative enough.
This comment was written by Kevin Moore.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Ok, this is pretty off/odd to me. Let’s stop calling people arrested for DUI “Drunk Drivers” because people have different tolerances and it is offensive to say that because they were over the legal limit they were “drunk”. That term has a very negative connotation. From now on I propose we use the politicly corrected term…”people who had a BAC over the legal limit but may or may not have been in fact drunk”.
Pornography has a negative connotation. From now on we should use the term “undressed or semi undressed pictures in sexual or semisexual positions”. Maybe that will help reduce the stigma.
When did being offensive in US start to outweigh the first ammendment? No offense Amp, it is your blog so it is sort of like not wanting something in your “house”… I just think that after a while if you limit the words people can use you will start to limit the ideas…after that you may as well talk into a mirror, you will get just as many suprises and insights.
And BFP…if we were writing articles or comments about people driving around illegally, without licenses or on suspended licenses, as a group..then yes I would fully expect you to use the term “illegal drivers”. Can you think of a better all inclusive term?
This comment was written by ed.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 10:48 am
“Shall I start calling them criminal drivers? Or how about all those people who are driving without licenses at all?”
Please do, and agitate for getting them off the road. But before that, get the uninsured drivers off the road. That would realy be a public service.
“Yeah, we say that they “illegally parked”, not that they’re an “illegal parker”. If you want to say that someone “illegally crossed the border”, then have at it.”
That’s not just a closer analogy, it also says more. How about “illegally present”?
The term in use for peole legally preent is “Lawfull Permanent Resident” acronymed as LPR (”lapper”). We might call those unlawfuly here Unlawful Permanent Resident” (UPR?) if they really are residing as opposed to just seasonally here for work.
I’d really prefer LPR for all of them. How hard would it be to get passport offices and then consular ofices out in the towns where people can get to so that can come here with nothing hanging over their heads, not prey to coyotes to get them in, not prey to employers paying them half of what their work is worth. Cui bono.
Kevin,
I thnk you meant me. I never heard the term white trash in that context, just used it by way of translation because it carried the same intent. I only heard the term as a reference to time spent living in the South, and then it was an in dosapproval of the Southern class system. I think the venom I heard was a response to current immigration at the time - mid-60’s, which was paving California over - more than any real animus towards those earlier immigrants.
This comment was written by Jim.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Well, that’s a stupid idea.
That’s kinda stupid as well.
I get that you’re trying to draw a comparison between these situations and undocumented immigrants. Problem is, you’re just mentioning ridiculous actions; you’re forgetting to draw an actual comparison between them.
It doesn’t. The First limits the power of Congress to criminalize speech. Nobody is trying to criminalize anything here. We are pointing out that some speech is boorish. If you engage in it, then you are not being criminal, you are being boorish. The First is, in this case, irrelevant.
Funny how I don’t hear that too often. I wonder why that is.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 11:21 am
well, i think the real question is then, if you (as in Jim and Ed) are willing to call those driving illegally “illegal drivers” or “criminal drivers” are you also willing to submit to random checks by the government (including house searches, car searches etc) so that they can see that you have receipts and official registration for your car? Are you willing to submit to mass random roundups at work by gunweilding federal agents? We all know the cities where those who drive illegally congregate at–Are you willing to send federal officials into those cities to round up, shackle and imprison all those who drive illegally?
This is more than just “find an all encompassing name to label them under”–there are very real repercussions in calling a human being “illegal” or a criminal. And this is a concern to ALL–citizens or not, because these repercussions involve intrusion of the nation/state into the lives of citizens and non-citizens alike that is unnecessary and unlawful in and of itself.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that crossing the border illegally constitutes ONE act of illegality–it is NOT a crime, much less a “continuous” crime, to be in the country without papers.
http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/ctapp/2007/20070817/96613.htm
6. 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (2000) declares an alien’s unsanctioned entry into the United States to be a crime. While Congress has criminalized illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime unless the illegal alien has previously been deported and has again entered this country illegally. 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (2000) makes it a felony for an alien who has been deported to thereafter reenter the United States or at anytime thereafter be found in the United States.
7. Those persons who enter this country illegally are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (2000). Deportation may be based upon any number of factors, including the alien’s initial entry into this country contrary to law or acts while in this country, such as the commission of certain crimes. However, while an illegal alien is subject to deportation, that person’s ongoing presence in the United States in and of itself is not a crime unless that person had been previously deported and regained illegal entry into this country.
This holds true of ALL crimes in the U.S. (you are not legally in a continuous state of committing a crime because you have committed a crime at one point in your life). It seems to be to be shaky legal precedent to set to make ANY crime a continuous crime or to make any person who is guilty of committing a crime continuously guilty of committing it simply because they haven’t been caught.
This comment was written by brownfemipower.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Whoops, sorry, Jim. I scrolled too quickly through the comments.
While “white trash” is often used pejoratively, I tend to embrace it as part of my own Southern heritage. Not for stupid “white pride” reasons, but to acknowledge the class system that oppressed my family a few generations back (and still plays a legacy role in their psychology and lives.)
But I got your meaning, and FTR, took no offense.
ed: And also, FTR, my preferred term, and Amp’s preferred term is not driven by a concern to be “politically correct” (a loathsome fascist concept), but by a desire to respect people who work hard and travel hundreds and thousands of miles to support themselves and their families in a global economy that has wrecked their communities. Why scapegoat them? Why make them the focus of The Problem when the real crimes are committed by multinational corporations and their representatives in the U.S. government? I don’t cotton to piling on the oppression of the already oppressed. These people are looking for work. So what if they have to cross a border to find it? Keep in mind, it’s my country, too, yet I don’t feel “violated” or “invaded.” I feel a compassionate urge to help these people, as much as I do the workers here who get displaced by cheaper labor these folks provide at the encouragement of those who exploit them.
In sum, blame the exploiters, not the exploited.
There, Robert, is that Godless Commie for you enough? ;-)
This comment was written by Kevin Moore.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 11:52 am
This comment was written by Gordon Sumner.I’m an immigrant.
I’m a documented immigrant.
I’m an Englishman in New York . . .
Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
When did being offensive in US start to outweigh the first ammendment?
When did being asked, politely, on a private weblog to not use a particular term become a first amendment violation? Put up your own web site and call people anything you want on it. No one’s stopping you. Then you can ban the use of the term “undocumented immigrants” there and everyone will be happy.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Kevin:
Speaking of history, I think PBS ought to be authoritative enough.
I can’t think why. Just because the PBS has incompetent editors doesn’t mean that the meaning of the word is now changed.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t think that you do a very good job summarizing my points. Why don’t you cut and paste? It’s one thing to argue against what I or others have said; it’s bordering on ridiculous to argue against your restated interpretation of what I said when the original is sitting right there for you to use.
It also avoids the “amorphous opponent” issue, which I feel is also somewhat dishonest. I’m not Robert or RonF–while we have similar views on immigration they are NOT THE SAME. If you attribute points of view to me which aren’t mine, or lump me together with people I don’t agree with, that’s simply wrong. And it’s yet another reason to post the originals, with attribution, if you want to reply to posts.
I don’t argue that it’s “MOST accurate,” rather than it IS accurate, and appropriate. That’s an important distinction, lest you argue against a straw man.
The status of an immigrant is a legal matter. If you’re talking about a legal matter is is very strange to ignore legalese, dontcha think?
Also, I believe it is by far the most common manner in which Americans refer to those who come over the borders without permission, or who overstay their time without permissions. So if you want to go by common usage (and I’m fairly sure that you usually do), “illegal immigrant” should be A-OK.
?? This is simply incorrect. It’s illegal to steal a candy bar; it’s illegal to drive when you’re 12; neither are felonies. Where are you getting this from?
You are demonstrating my point through your own examples. The status as “teenager” or “driver” or “is not the issue at hand. Someone who is speeding is driving illegally, but their LEGAL STATUS AS A DRIVER is not brought into question. Neither is LEGAL STATUS AS A TEENAGER brought into question.
When status is part of the description, “illegal” gets used fairly often. We call someone who is trespassing an “illegal entrant.” We refer to someone as “illegally possessing a firearm.” We refer to people as “illegal participants,” in other scenarios. We refer to people as “illegal occupant” if they don’t have a right to be somewhere. Because immigration IS THE ISSUE OF STATUS, it gets referred to as “illegal.”
Also, immigration tends to be somewhat black and white. If you’re driving illegally, you could be breaking one of about a thousand laws. Even if you’re an “illegal driver,” you could be breaking many different laws, so it’s not very descriptive or helpful. People tend to use terms that have use, and “illegal teenager” doesn’t have much descriptive use.
OTOH, “Illegal immigrant” is a fairly obvious term, with high descriptive value. It also matches up quite nicely with other uses of “illegal.” And finally, since it talks about legal status, it (appropriately) connects well to the “legalese” you talk about.
I’m not so sure about that–but is this a question, in any case, where it “must be superior to win the fight?” If you’re going to ban usage of a common term, I’d imagine you would have a better criteria than “not perfect.” Sort of a straw man, ya know.
It won’t prevent it. It’s just ridiculous not to be able to use it in such a conversation. It is especially ridiculous not to be able to use “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” when we are talking about legislation, since those are common terms used by government officials and “illegal alien” is a legal status.
You appear to be well aware of the semantic implications of switching away from “illegal” towards “undocumented.” The very thing that people find insulting (the implication that they’re breaking the law; that they are doing something wrong, etc) is, well, the point for some of us. I don’t want to grant them the power to make themselves discussed in only certain, polite, terms.
Semantics are powerful. Just ask a propaganda specialist. (are we “pacifying,”
“responding,” “targeting,” or “slaughtering” people in wartime? Do you think those will get the same response? Do you seriously claim that people’s response to “undocumented migrants” is the same as to “illegal immigrants?”)
You are requiring that we use that side’s propaganda. Your blog, but it seems like a backhanded way to win an argument.
If I thought it was needless or irrelevant, I’d agree with you. But if I thought it was needless or irrelevant, I’d not be having this argument. Sometimes insulting people is OK (you insult people all the time through your statements, and so does everyone else here.)
Since I would prefer that illegal immigrants not immigrate illegally, I am disinclined to concede to their request to refer to such practice in more polite terms. Why would I want to make it more pleasant for others to do something I don’t want them to do?I won’t go so far as to use nasty rhetoric, but outside your private space I’ll sure as heck continue to use “illegal immigrant.”
Look, I understand your side (though I don’t agree with it.) But judging from your post here, in this particular instance you seem to be exhibiting an unusual-for-you lack of getting your opponents’, or at least my, position correct.
…. which applies fine to “illegals,” or to other more offensive terms like “wetbacks,” etc. But which reduces itself to the same semantics argument as soon as you’re on the more neutral terms of “illegal immigrant” or “illegal alien.”
Quick Illustrative Quiz:
Are the Palestinians: 1) civilians, 2) terrorists, or 3) freedom fighters?
Are the Israelis 1) defending themselves; 2) at war and fighting an enemy nation; 3) occupying a civilian area and stomping on its government?
Are our efforts in Iraq 1) fighting terrorism; 2) killing civilians in droves; 3) needed; 4) horrible?
Are people who come into the United States without permission: 1) Illegal immigrants; 2) illegal aliens; 3) undocumented migrants; 4) undocumented immigrants; 5) immigrants?
If Joe avoids blacks on the subway, is Joe 1) Cautious, 2) a victim of his upbringing; 3) discriminatory; 4) racist?
And so on.
Semantics MATTER A LOT. You want your side to win? Fine. It’s your blog. But come on, Amp… the claim that this is just factual is a bit ridiculous for you. You’re more self-aware than that, and I don’t get why you are claiming this isn’t a propaganda move.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Quick Illustrative Quiz:
Are the Palestinians: 1) civilians, 2) terrorists, or 3) freedom fighters?
another quick illustrative quiz:
Do U.S. citizens willingly and openly support the violence Israel perpetrates against an entire group of people because U.S citizens believe that Palestinians are:
1. terrorists
2. freedom fighters
3. citizens
As a Latina, I don’t find the use of “illegal alien” offensive because it’s offensive. I find it offensive because it allows violence to be visited on entire communities at the hands of the nation/state with the open and willing support of entire communities of people. It allows MY civil rights as a U.S. citizen to be infringed upon because I have a name that sounds “illegal” and I live in a community of people that *look* “illegal” and I have family members that speak an “illegal” language. A man in RI just recently not only refused service to two U.S. citizens unless they showed him their SS cards, but also threatened to call ICE on them. This is happening throughout the entire country and it’s being written into laws that it is *legal* to do such a thing. The laws are not being written because people are concerned that the crime of non-u.s. citizens not filling out the proper immigration paper work. Otherwise, they would make it a law that ALL people are required to show their SS cards to make a purchase. These laws are being written because U.S. citizens don’t want to listen to Spanish in their stores are look at brown people congregating in their parks.
Another example–the queer community has often been under attack by unfair laws–but even queers are not convicted of the crime of being queer. If they get into legal trouble it is for committing the “crime” of having anal sex etc. If two gay women are living together and they never sleep together once, they can NOT be prosecuted.
But, to go at it another way–by calling all gay men pedophiles and thus attaching criminality to the identity of male queerness, the entire gay community becomes guilty of the crime of existence, and they come under hyper surveillance such that gay men who are NOT criminals are targeted and attacked for engaging in sexual activities with consenting adults.
If it is this terribly important to you that the crime of not filling out the proper immigration paper work is punished, fine. I disagree that not filing out the proper paperwork is a crime worthy of hunting down, rounding up, shackling and imprisoning people for indefinite amounts of time–but I’ll give you that not filing out the proper paper work is, at this point and time, a misdemeanor and there should be consequences for it.
but I do NOT agree that labeling an entire community of people as “illegal” simply for *existing* (because *that’s* what’s at stake here, NOT the crime of not filling out paper work) is wrong because it makes incidences like this possible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Dw1ioGPGY&eurl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf0cTadzjDA&eurl
ALL Spanish speaking people are “illegals,” ALL spanish speaking people are out to get him, ALL brown people not born in the U.S. are “invading the country” and blah blah blah.
Crimes are being committed in the name of defending the U.S. from people who don’t fill out the proper immigration paper work–and I’ll take people seriously who say they are only concerned about “the crime” and not “being overrun” or some other such rhetoric when there is equal diligence in prosecuting and rounding up those who commit the crime of bodily intimidation, violence, destruction of property etc. as there is in prosecuting and rounding up those who do not fill out the proper immigration paper work.
This comment was written by brownfemipower.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
This seems to me more of an argument for using “undocumented” than “illegal,” regardless of the word that you use afterwards.
As for “identity theft” — it should be known that the vast majority of harmful identity theft cases (where it ruins the real person’s credit, etc.) are committed by born and bred Americans. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants who do steal SSNs and such (and those are actually rare) actually just end up adding to that person’s SS payments, giving the “legal person” a bigger reward down the line. I’m not recommending or even condoning this, and I would never knowingly allow someone to use my SSN — but if someone were going to steal it, I’d much prefer it to be an undocumented worker who uses it to get a job and pay into SS that will benefit me down the line than the typical American ID thief who intends and succeeds at ruining my credit.
This comment was written by Eliza.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Jim - My fault, I was unclear. Illegal immigration isn’t simply a criminal problem, because being illegally present in the country is not a crime. Since no one would care if the illegal border-crossers were coming over to buy a magazine and some smokes and then going home, what we’re really talking about is illegal presence, which does not necessarily denote any illegal activity. (even a lot of illegal immigrants from central america have expired documents, rather than none)
Yes, crossing the national border illegally is a crime, but we need to think more broadly than that, because that isn’t the only way people are in the country illegally.
This comment was written by jd.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
BFP, no immigration restriction advocate gives two shits about the paperwork not being done. Have you seen a single person writing or advocating about legal immigrants who didn’t finish filling out their forms properly? No.
What I care about is that my country can control its borders, and that we have the ability to enforce the will of the citizens of the country in terms of who will be invited to join that group. That will is immensely majoritarian and clarion clear: the American people want immigration, we want a lot of it, and we want it to be controlled and scrutinized by our law enforcement and border security governmental agencies.
The Mexican national who goes through the procedures and has his or her criminal history vetted at the consulate and waits in line, is welcome. The Mexican national who just hauls across the desert, is not welcome. You can replace “Mexican” with any other nationality; Canadian river-swimmers can fuck right off too.
As a nation, we have decided that we want a lot of immigration, but we want the existing citizenry to be the ones choosing who gets to come here. Far more people want to come than we want to, or can, assimilate; therefore, some people are not going to be able to come. Right now, Mexican and Canadian immigrants are able to take advantage of their geographical proximity to evade the wishes of the citizenry much more effectively than equally impoverished and equally worthy would-be immigrants in the other 5.5 billion people of the world.
It’s ugly and shameful that people do bad things to illegal immigrants, and I’m sorry that it happens. There’s a nativist strain to some immigration restrictionism that I don’t find particularly appealing. But the fact that US citizens are treating illegal immigrants, or those perceived as illegal immigrants, in an unacceptable fashion has no bearing on the justice or lack thereof of the immigration law. We must arrest and prosecute those responsible for illegal acts - and then we must return our attention to securing our border and enforcing our will about how new people are added to the American experiment.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I agree in that Amp’s decision isn’t censorship, but I’ve heard and read this argument being used before.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Well, that’s my point Robert–even in your post you say that you don’t give to shits about “paper work”–but then you go on and on about “following the rules”. What are “the rules” except filling out the proper paper work and “waiting in the line” that filling out proper paper work creates?
And why must I be subjected to civil rights infringements and outright police profiling/brutality because rather than finding a comprehensive way to address the crime of not following the proper procedure for entering into a country, people would rather “make things unpleasant” for an entire group of people irregardless of their citizenship status? Does MY voice as a citizen of this county not count? Or am I a citizen that exists as acceptable collateral damage in this fight against people who didn’t fill out the proper paper work?
This comment was written by brownfemipower.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Good, so you see the issue too.
I am confused. I do not condone what happened to you. And I would agree that it obviously happened because the country has significant racism, and because many people dislike illegal immigration.
But I don’t get what exactly that has to do with the terminology.
Um. Amp, remember the confusion with “undocumented?” Here it is.
Some people who are in this country without permission, are here because they didn’t fill out the proper paperwork: they got in legally, and forgot to renew, etc. But many (probably most) people are here because they never tried, because we didn’t want them to come in. “Crossing the border while never having had paperwork,” is not the same as “forgetting to turn in paperwork.” Just sayin’.
I agree that some of the opposition is because people don’t want the U.S. to go through significant changes in composition, language, etc. Part of that is surely driven by racism. Some of it is probably driven by economic beliefs. Some of it is driven by annoyance that a law, even a comparatively minor one, gets broken.
And some of it is simply a desire to keep things as they are. i confess that I’d not be too happy if my town changed far away from what it is, since I moved here because I like the way it is. If you filled my town with lily-white blond Scandinavian eye surgeons or simply transported half of Manhattan here, I would be pissed. Many people don’t like change.
? Illegal immigrants are not convicted for the crime of existing, any more than a different class of people who have broken a particular law. They’re convicted for the crime of having crossed a border without permission.
The difference is that we have as a country agreed, generally, that “having sex” is something people should be allowed to do without a lot of government interference or oversight; so that criminalizing sex is usually bad. But we DON’T agree that “crossing borders” is something people should get to do without interference or oversight (and this applies pretty much worldwide, not just in the U.S.) so criminalizing illegal border crossing is considered OK.
That’s another excellent example, though I don’t think it supports your point too well: Gays are obviously NOT pedophiles. And generally, the gay community has done a lot to help that stigma go away, by openly rejecting those who ARE pedophiles. Conversely, the Man Boy Love Club (may have the name wrong) isn’t doing the gay community any favors in eliminating the “gays are pedophiles” stigma.
So generally speaking, if citizens and legal aliens want to avoid being taken for and/or treated like illegal immigrants, from a functional standpoint it would make the most sense to disassociate from, and/or condemn, those who you don’t want to be mistaken for.
If you want to stand shoulder to shoulder with someone and claim they’re similar to you, and/or try to change semantics in a manner that makes that someone sound more similar to you, won’t you get confused with them MORE often? Seems sort of predictable to me.
To use driver’s licenses as an example: I personally think that an innocent paperwork fuckup (and these certainly happen) is comparatively minor. It’s a bit like forgetting to renew your license when you are eligible to do so. I think that a government paperwork blunder (and these happen, too) is even more minor and should pretty much never be an issue. If you sent in your renewal and the DMV list it, it’s not your fault.
But a paperwork blunder when you didn’t have the right to be here isn’t in that category: if we don’t want Mr. X in the country, then it’s not an issue of paperwork. And I think that a border-sneak is even more major. And a huge, huge, number of people who are here illegally are NOT here because they misfiled papers, and ARE here because they knowingly snuck in.
NOT the crime of not filling out paper work)
No, no–they can exist. they just can’t BE HERE. A trespasser can exist, just not on my property. Same thing.
Well, that’s just idiocy. But I don’t think that the term “illegal immigrant” is to blame for his idiocy.
First: that paperwork thing again. Can we agree that paperwork messups are different from border sneaks? OK, then.
Next, will you take ME seriously? In my area, there’s pretty much no ICE enforcement at all, there is a large illegal immigrant population, and they use police services, get protected from illegal acts, etc. Which I support’ I recently had to threaten to withdraw from one of my clients who was trying to use the “report to ICE” card, because I don’t play that game. I have also represented illegal immigrants in non-immigration matters. Illegal immigrants in my town often go to court before a judge (for driving offenses, misdemeanors, etc.) they get a translator provided to them. And they don’t get reported to ICE.
Illegal immigration is not given much attention individually. Which is fine with me: on a PER INCIDENT level, I can really give a shit about illegal immigration. If the numbers were lower I probably wouldn’t care at all.
But there is a point at which I start to care because the numbers are so big, even if the effect is small.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Sailorman–in your example with the queer community distancing themselves from gay men who like young boys–the thing is, the “illegal” community are my family and friends. This is much more intimate than a few fringe radicals that you fairly easily kick out of your community. This is like Obama having his black minister and white grandmother–how does a U.S. citizen negotiate the space between her legal u.s. born white mother and her “illegal” grandmother?
the borders within the community are not so clearly defined to make something like distancing oneself from “illegals’ justifiable or moral for those that are in the community.
Also–this is a paperwork issue not in that there was an innocent fuck up and somebody forgot to fill out their paper work for license renewal. This is a paperwork fuck up in that the *criminality* aspect of this is TOTALLY based on immigrants “not following the rules” of immigration. Well, what are the rules of immigration? You will fill out the proper paper work and submit it. You will wait for us to get back to you. You will pay the paper work fee. Etc etc. the crimnality here is based on the bureaucracy of paperwork that in any other situation, u.s. citizens would rebel at.
This comment was written by brownfemipower.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Oh, and:
Your voice counts, of course, as it should.
But so do the voices of the other citizens, who are generally opposed to illegal immigration, and unsupportive of illegal immigrants, from what I recall of the polls.
Are THEY acceptable collateral damage? Am I? If you were a majority, would you account for their views? Would you account for mine?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I think the answer lies in the aspect of civil rights infringements. Are your civil rights being infringed upon by people crossing the border or over staying visas? Are MY civil rights being infringed upon by laws that are enacted by white majority legislatures that require citizenship be checked “in suspicious cases”? Are your’s?
I think you will be hard pressed to find any person who is supportive of immigration who will say that everything is just fine as it is and we should continue to let things go on the way they are. Even little ms. radical me thinks that there needs to be some major readjustments/changes to how the system is working at the moment.
but I prefer to err on the side of safety, bodily and familial integrity, and the respect of the civil rights, human rights, and international rights of ALL humans, citizens and non-citizens alike.
And when you attach the criminality aspect to an entire group of people based on features that are decidedly NOT linked to citizenship (i.e. brown skin, chosen language, fertility status, etc) That is wrong. I prefer to find a new way to address this–I prefer to put the impetus for change on the one who is creating the harmful laws and “criminal” status to begin with.
This comment was written by brownfemipower.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Well, that’s my point Robert–even in your post you say that you don’t give to shits about “paper work”–but then you go on and on about “following the rules”. What are “the rules” except filling out the proper paper work and “waiting in the line” that filling out proper paper work creates?
Going through a consulate, where our diplomatic personnel can find out who you are and whether you have a criminal record, for one thing.
Waiting in line for your fair turn at a limited resource, for another.
And why must I be subjected to civil rights infringements and outright police profiling/brutality because…people would rather “make things unpleasant” for an entire group of people irregardless of their citizenship status?
You mustn’t. How is this relevant to the issue under discussion? Yes, some people are being ugly to those they perceive as being illegal immigrants. Are those people Alas readers? Is Amp making a terminological request going to change their hearts? No, on both counts.
Does MY voice as a citizen of this county not count?
Of course it counts. It counts as one of the ~30% who think that illegal immigration is not a big deal and/or shouldn’t be a priority. Be an activist, vote, go out and persuade your fellow citizens of the righteousness of your point of view, and get what you want.
Or not - because your fellow citizens are overwhelmingly opposed to you on this one. And our voices count, too.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I really don’t know. I wish I did. There are some solutions which seem like they could work out in a perfect world, but I don’t know if they will.
Your feelings towards your family certainly make sense, and I’m sure that I would feel the exact same way if I were in your situation. I don’t think this is unique to immigration, though. It’s a bit like anything else. Would I condemn my best friend or my wife for cheating on her taxes? Would I expect someone to condemn their own spouse or best friend? no.
So although I have absolutely no interest in passing judgment on you or anyone else personally, I guess generally I think that at SOME point things start to change. I realize it is sort of a catch-22 and I don’t know where that border is.
I deleted the rest of my reponse and wrote this instead:
If I could wave a magic wand and impose my own personal immigration policy, it would mean that we as a country controlled immigration. Not “stopped,” but “controlled.” My own personal policy would NOT involve kicking everyone out of the U.S. who was here illegally. It probably would involve requiring some people to leave, but it would be much closer to universal amnesty than universal expulsion–ASSUMING that it was accompanied by control of the actual borders (where, in my perfect world, we would increase immigration, and completely stop illegal immigration.)
But what if I don’t get that choice? What if you argue for unity, and I”m forced to consider all immigrants as one body, whether they’re here, legal, illegal, elsewhere, etc? Then I basically have one of two options:
1) vote to enforce our immigration laws, as strictly as necessary
2) agree to abandon U.S. control over immigration
I choose Option 1. Which is NOT my preferred outcome, but IMO is better than option 2.
I actually think that I’m relatively mainstream on this. There are a lot of moderate people in this country who do not want to flagellate every immigrant and put them in jail. We just want to reaffirm the concept that Robert talked about: control, whatever that is, over our own country. If others make it so we can only make big changes, then we will, but we’d rather not.
If all the people who are pushing for amnesty are also tying it to other illegal entry, then I’m going to oppose it. But that’s your call.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
And our voices count, too
not at the cost of my civil liberties. And when white citizens are demanding to see the ID of Spanish speaking american citizens, it is MY civil liberties that are under fire. When people with names like mine but are U.S. citizens are being imprisoned solely because virgina legistlature (or texas, arizona, nevada, california etc) has made it legal to check the citizenship status of “suspicious” people, MY civil liberties are under fire.
This comment was written by brownfemipower.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
not at the cost of my civil liberties. And when white citizens are demanding to see the ID of Spanish speaking american citizens, it is MY civil liberties that are under fire. When people with names like mine but are U.S. citizens are being imprisoned solely because virgina legistlature (or texas, arizona, nevada, california etc) has made it legal to check the citizenship status of “suspicious” people, MY civil liberties are under fire.
Nah.
There is no civil liberty to not have to prove citizenship, or not to have to show papers for things. I had to demonstrate my eligibility to work legally in the US last time I got a job working for someone else; my liberties weren’t violated, and neither are yours being.
Laws that require or allow the checking of citizenship status in suspicious circumstances are not unreasonable, nor do they violate any right of yours or mine. But if those laws are causing the imprisonment of people found to be illegal immigrants, then I object to that. The penalty for being an illegal immigrant should simply be deportation.
Finally, you seem to think the “names like mine” thing is a trump card. It isn’t. I’ve got as many vowels in my family tree as you do, and if you want me to haul out grandma to tell the stories of how my immigrant family tree got just as much hassles and bullshit and viciousness from the Anglos as yours have, I’ll be glad to.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
you seem to think the “names like mine” thing is a trump card
sigh. yes. I’m using it as a trump card.
actually, I’m saying “names like mine” because I don’t really feel like disclosing my real name on the internet, but at the same time, a latino name CAN get you imprisoned. There is a case of a Latina woman who is a u.s. citizen and was imprisoned illegally solely and exclusively because she had a Latino name. There is a case of another latina who was also imprisoned because she had the same name of an “illegal” and they didn’t even finger print her to verify that she was, indeed, this ‘illegal’.
And frankly, I would fight and will fight just as hard to make sure that you or your grandfather aren’t illegally targeted or discriminated against because of your name as I would somebody in my own community. I’ve posted about white folks and males being fucked with by the nation/state in illegal, violent and harmful ways based solely on their citizenship status. for me, this is not about me trumping you, this is about ensuring that humans have more rights than nation/states do. That a nation/state doesn’t get to remove the humanity of ANY human based on bureaucratic bullshit that prioritizes the needs of corporations rather than citizens.
because let’s be real–these laws are not set in place to make sure citizens remain in control of their nation, they are set in place to service the needs of corporations that need workers. Which is why corporations can fund/sponsor immigrants and more and more family members can not.
This comment was written by brownfemipower.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Robert, I think you’re being way too cavalier about the shitty treatment of U.S. citizens, just because they happen to speak a language other than English and/or have a skin color other than white. Also, being targeted because of skin color IS generally a violation of civil rights, if that targeting is happening by a government agency (ICE, etc.)
IOW, it’s OK for the government to check the immigration status of everyone (including me). But it is totally NOT OK to check only those who “look like they might be illegal,” i.e. POC and spanish speakers in particular. Is that possibly more efficient?