You are here: Home » General » “Illegal”
Luis Feliz and the immigration advocates trying to eliminate the word “illegal” from our discourse on immigration are absolutely right–the word demonizes human beings and is deeply hurtful and damaging. Describing human beings as “illegal” should be eliminated from the lexicon and seen as we see other racial epithets that are unacceptable in respectable conversation.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Las Vegas Personal Injury Attorney
Sarasota Law Firms
Need Cash? Sky Loans can
help you! quick and easy money loans.
Bridging Loans
Paul Campos, Above the Law 2011 Lawyer of the Year
Erik Loomis, HNN Cliopatria 2011 Best Series of Posts
For administrative, advertising, or other inquiries, please e-mail here.
Immigration lawyers and advocates prefer the te undocumentated.
Much more humane and a perfectly accurate legal description.
But calling them “undocumented” isn’t accurate either.
They have documents – forged ones.
Expired is more the norm.
Yes. I believe expired is a misdemeanor (or less) and the forged is a felony.
No, most undocumentated have any papers forged or otherwise.
More accurate? Not really. Everyone has documents, eventually. Some documents just say something like “Detained” or “Deported” or “No entry allowed.”
What they lack aren’t documents, but documents providing them a legal right to enter the US. And the documents themselves are irrelevant; I doubt any immigration attorney is going to roll over and let clients be deported because they don’t have their visa on them when they get picked up.
Yeah, sans papiers. But after a while it’ll sound just as derogatory as any other word. It’s the concept, not the word.
Imbecile, moron, and mentally retarded were all medical terms that became playground taunts. Now the kids call you “special” if they want to make fun of you.
Have they given any consideration to just how close that is to “With Out Papers” and the acronym derived from it?
Don’t you mean “the urban legend derived from it”?
Backronym, not acronym. The OED’s etymologists’ best guess is
but it’s notable that their first in-print citation spells it .
Undocumented is inaccurate, just like illegal. The documents in themselves don’t establish any legal rights, they’re just physical indicators that such rights were granted.
Personally I find both sides of the immigration debate annoying. Those on the anti- side refuse to recognize that in many cases the same arguments were made against their own grandparents and great-grandparents. Those on the pro- side refuse to disclose exactly what they’re looking for; unrestricted immigration? Because in many cases that’s what the logical extension of what they’re arguing for.
There’s a middle ground between unrestricted immigration and the clusterfuck system now in place. If we would raise quotas from, say, Mexico to realistic levels instead of the laughably low ones that now exist, we would be on much firmer moral ground when we started to enforce those limits.
That said, what would be so terrible about unrestricted, or nearly unrestricted, immigration?
My great-grandfather was an illiterate sicilian with no skills at all. The only things he had to do to legally get into the country, if I recall correctly, was to actually GET here, have a clean criminal record, and get someone to vouch for him. (And I’m not sure about the latter.) Every good thing my family has subsequently enjoyed, from my grandfathers good union job on the railroads to my father being able to be the first in his family to attend college, stems from the fact that the country said “hey, you want to come here and work, go ahead.”
Denying this opportunity to others based merely on the fact they weren’t born at the proper time seems, not just immoral, but grotesque to me. Especially given that capital is allowed to flow freely across borders.
So everyone trying to escape poverty the world over should just be able to show up here next week and we just accept everybody? Get real.
My family moved to Mexico (from the US) and you would not believe the conditions and requirements that we had to satisfy to be eligible to move there. I do think we should try to deal with this situation humanely, but when Mexico complains about how we treat their citizens when they are found to be here illegally, we should take it with a grain of salt that they have the moral high ground on this issue. Their treatment of Guatemalan economic refugees into southern Mexico is brutal.
This. Other countries most notably in Europe, but also places like Mexico and just about every where else in the world have much stricter and frankly more racist immigration laws than the US. Indeed the US is just about the only country in the world where the children of immigrants whether documented or not automatically become citizens.
Certainly does not seem to have destroyed the country during the 19th century, when my ancestors moved here. We had no immigration laws at all until 1882, when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act.
And we all know that nothing changes over time. Whatever worked a couple hundred years ago must still be the perfect policy for today!
We also didn’t have the ability to fly across the world for 1/5 the median income in India and had a relatively small population compared to todays.
This is what unregulated immigration means, potentially: another 500 million Southeast Asians, 200 million West Africans, and 200 million South And Central Americans. The immigration stops when it’s worse here then where they’re coming from. Where are you planning to put them?
Do you really think there are that many who could afford the costs of moving here? If so, I have some swampland in Arizona that I would like to show you.
I am not actually advocating unregulated immigration, but I also think there is far too much irrational panic (your comment nicely embodies this) on the topic.
So you’re saying that 20% of the people in the undeveloped world lack both the means and desire to emigrate? That seems . . . unlikely, given that the median income is over $1200 in India and Nigeria, for example. You’re just taking the upper middle class at that point.
But so I’m off by 200 Million. Now you only have to find room for 700 Million people, not a billion. No problem there, right?
During the Great Famine, when things were Pretty Fucking Bad, and the United states was pretty much open borders for white people, about 12% of Ireland emmigrated. Most humans won’t migrate.
Also: you put them in the Great Big Empty that is the Midwest.
Also, too: why do you assume more people won’t equal more economic activity? Want to solve the housing glut yesterday? Let 50 million people in.
Also, finally:
I believe in that shit.
We can all agree that it didn’t destroy the country. I’ll go further and say that it benefited the country.
But the question is one of distribution:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=2&
So, this is where the serious debate lies. I understand that David Card has responded with his “natural experiments” while Borjas says the data points to a more dramatic decrease in wages for unskilled natives than previously known.
We can all agree that it didn’t destroy the country. I’ll go further and say that it benefited the country.
And I’ll say you are completely right.
But the question is one of distribution… So, this is where the serious debate lies.
Also agreed. But if we assume the country as a whole benefits, then a 10% problem at the bottom of the scale is something that, in principle, can be solved through some combination of minimum wage and EITC. So the problem remains one of politics, not economics.
“If we would raise quotas from, say, Mexico to realistic levels instead of the laughably low ones that now exist”
As far as I can tell Mexicans receive more immigration visas than any other nationality on earth:
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY12AnnualReport-TableXIV.pdf
“Realistic levels” under the current system would result in those immigrant visas being significantly reduced; how is it fair that people from far more populous countries like China or India get significantly less visas?
Quick summary for the argument against*
1. Low-skilled immigration drives down the wages of the native low-skilled.
“… while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education … they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans.”
2. Welfare State:
“…open immigration can’t coexist with a strong social safety net; if you’re going to assure health care and a decent income to everyone, you can’t make that offer global.”
3. Income Inequality:
“…it’s clear that the earlier wave of immigration increased inequality and depressed the wages of the less skilled.”
*These aren’t necessarily my opinions. I’m just innocently pointing the convo in the right direction. The author of all the quotes is Paul Krugman.
Gosh, maybe the GOP will do an about face on immigration reform. After all, it could drive down labor costs and make it necessary for us to abandon our welfare state. Both outcomes would be features rather than bugs!
“That said, what would be so terrible about unrestricted, or nearly unrestricted, immigration?”
The German economy was derailed for a decade when they had to absorb East Germany. Although there may be some clear benefits to immigration, there does also appear to be a clear upper limit beyond which immigration starts to do more harm than good.
“Out of status” is also good.
Calling people “drug dealers” is deeply stigmatizing as well.
We should refer to them as “undocumented pharmacists”.
Should we refer to conservative politicians as “well-documented assholes?”
…actually, I like this.
Why restrict it to politicians?
And they said bipartisanship was dead!
I think the most important benefit of the change would be a reduction in the number of people (including many who should know better) who believe being in the country sans papiers is a criminal offense. That belief creates a whole lot of bad assumptions.
The biggest obstacle will be getting Americans to voluntarily use a five-syllable word.
Why do you think that’s going to happen because they’re changing a name?
Because “undocumented” doesn’t, in itself, bring criminality to mind.
It doesn’t? So when I say somebody’s driving without a license, you don’t immediately think, “Huh. Somebody’s breaking the law there?”
I think you guys on the “let’s change the name” thing are really hoping for a lot here.
The euphemism treadmill is perhaps worth mentioning here.
Nonsense; there is such thing as a difference between legal and non-legal; and it has nothing to do with demons but with the Rule of Law.
Using the word illegal as a noun or calling someone an illegal immigrant is dehumanizing since the literal grammatical interpretation of that is to say the person is illegal. Which they aren’t. The phrase “illegal immigration,” on the other hand, does not have this problem.
Which is why Chesty feels dandy addressing perfect strangers as, “Ho, Gay!” and “Stop right there, Black.” Just rules of law, or whatever the fuck.
Does Eric Loomis believe that a country should be able to regulate immigration? If not, then I see why he doesn’t like the term “illegal” (because using that term asserts the legitimacy of the law). He should say so explicitly.
But if he thinks there should be regulation of immigration then those that fail to follow procedures are behaving illegally. Using “undocumented” is a softening of the charge, similar to calling a drug dealer a “pharmaceutical distributor”.
From now on, I’ll be referring to murderers, rapists and jaywalkers as illegals. It makes as much sense.
Did you see the news about more illegals in Stubenville, Ohio?
I hear those two girls are soon to be determined illegals, along with those illegal boys who raped the girl.
All the underage drinkers at those parties were illegals.
Quite right, they aren’t “illegals.” They’re “convicts,” or “delinquents,” or “felons,” depending on exactly what they’re status is (I haven’t been paying attention.)
I’m not sure where this is going. Do you want to call convicted criminals “undocumented” because they would be free but for those pesky conviction papers?
And I’m sure they would cry themselves to sleep if the press started referring to them using the dehumanizing term “illegals” instead of referring to them as convicted rapists.
Selling illegal drugs – criminal act
Overstaying your visa – not a criminal act
Hey there! I’m Section 1226 of the Aliens and Nationality Code! I’d like to have a few words with you. If you’re still a little confused, my good buddy Section 1253 can come on by.
“Illegal” is not a synonym for “criminal.”
That’s why I refer to all people who drive 66 miles an hour as “illegals.” Rule of Law, motherfuckers!
From now on, I will refer to all conservatives as “fuckwitted conservatards” and to nativists as “vile, racist fuckwitted conservatard Know Nothings”. those have the advantage of being accurate descriptors.
I think there is a difference between referring to entering (and staying in) this country without authorization as illegal and referring to the person themselves as “illegal.” It actually is fairly dehumanizing.
“Undocumented” though goes too far the other way, minimizing the effect that at some point many undocumented workers did in fact knowingly break the law.
When people start applying the same word to the people who hire the undocumented workers, we can talk.
Fine by me.
+5
Don’t think you will get much push-back on that proposal among those on this side of the debate.
We need to crack down on the border to stop. ILLEGALS from crossing in an ILLEGAL manner. ILLEGALS drive up crime and ILLEGALS depress wages. ILLEGALS ILLEGALS ILLEGALS ILLEGALS.
Also too, they’re obviously behind the serious shortage of BOLD FACE CAPITALS.
But italics are mercifully unaffected.
What about BOLD CAPITAL ITALICS?
So basically you’re a fucking asshole
Here we have it folks. The followers of the religion of Political Correctness will haul off and call someone a “fucking asshole” in a split second, but gets the vapors and clutches their pearls when a perfectly innocuous, non-profane, and accurate term like ILLEGAL is used.
If it were perfectly innocuous, you wouldn’t be so obnoxious about clinging to it when someone questioned its accuracy. You protest too much and in doing so prove that it’s meant to be pejorative.
Wow for somebody who is against political correctnesss you sure don’t like to be called by what you are
And by the way I was merely using the correct legal term for what you are so why did you get offended you PC Thug
I see English is about your sixth language of which you have only marginal comprehension. The people are not illegal. They may, however, be in this country illegally. There is an important difference.
I will bet you any amount of money you care to name that JenBob does not speak six languages, however badly.
Well, there is gibberish, jibberjabber, wingnut, and whatever the voices in his head speak to start with. Now none of these is a human languages, but still.
i think you have to count Klingon to get to 6
I believe he speaks gerbil as well.
Given, though, that this “commentor” has been banned multiple times without effect . . .
. . . maybe we should call him “Illgal.”
And once again we see that the well-thought-out Republican position on any issue is WHATEVER WE THINK WILL PISS OFF LIBERALS.
Don’t tell anyone, but it would really upset this African-American female liberal if hordes of Republican fucktards did the following:
1. Take a radio into the bathroom and plug it in near the tub. Tune it to Rush Limbaugh, because Rush Limbaugh really pisses me off.
2. Fill up the bathtub, because taking baths is a waste of water. We should all take really short showers and it upsets me no end when people take sit down baths.
3. Stir about a pound of salt into water because, um, all of that salt is bad for the environment, particularly my favorite animal, the earthworm.
4. Get really comfy in the tub and pull the radio into the water.
#3 should be hot water, because hot water, and the implied Brownian Motion, a clear waste of energy, enrages me as a liberal.
With that addition, and the renumbering of subsequent points, I would be filled with a sense of helpless rage.
VIRGINIA BEACH
VIRGINIA
COLONIAL HEIGHTS
VIRGINIA
The shorthand “illegals” is a noun and refers to human beings as being illegal. I see no issue with using illegal as an adjective modifying a noun such as immigrant. I would say that there are bigger issues than nomenclature in immigration, but obviously it doesn’t mean we can’t change it.
Wholeheartedly agree with the noun vs. adjective usage. “Illegal” is fine an adjective, but when used as a noun it’s deeply offensive and dehumanizing.
… fine AS an adjective
I’m in your camp on this, Johnny.
I feel much the same way about the word ‘amnesty.’ Not necessarily pretty, but accurate in a general way.
Yeah, I’d agree with this. “Illegals” is offensive. “Illegal immigrants” seems perfectly fine to me.
There’s a difference between an immigrant who’s illegal and someone who engages in illegal-immigration. I tend think nitpicking over the exact way phrases parse is very often silly, but if people stop using the phrase “illegal immigrant” I wouldn’t really mind.
Well, then, how about “criminals.”
Is there a way to include a ban of that fucking Phil Collins song? No? Oh well.
“Another Day in Paradise”?
That album was really the point where Phil Collins went from uneven to unlistenable.
Hey, “Something Happened on the Way to Heaven” was pretty good!
The first one?
No, he’s gt to be thinking of Led Zeppelin:
How. Dare. You? Comparing Led Zeppelin to Collins is like … Comparing Rush Limpbaugh to … to … anyone not Rush Limbbaugh.
This is true. Led Zeppelin can only be properly compared to Rush during their “By-Tor And The Snow-Dog” era.
That was low.
Cruel but fair.
Sussudio?
Fine, I should have been more specific. At the very least it would have averted crap music flashbacks. Thanks guys, really.
I think everyone who knows the song is just embarrassed to admit it.
The fact that it’s actually on my iPod is probably even more embarassing, but In my defence rarely ever scrup tracks from my music library,and I also have no taste.
I’ll admit I have no fucking clue which song he’s talking about.
I’m really sorry to do this to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_61hzuGGJX0
OMG. This whole time I thought y’all were talking about this song: Englishman in New York
I managed to mix up Sting and Phil Collins, and get the lyric wrong.
“I Don’t Have Hair Anymore!”?
I prefer “freelance invaders” or “immigration criminals”.
The people themselves are not “illegal,” but for those who entered without inspection [by an immigration officer] have broken federal law. I would then suggest the legalism “EWI” to indicate a person whose presence in this country is not legal. A small difference, imho, but I appreciate not demonizing those who are here in an attempt to better their social/economic standing. We should actually celebrate the fact that so many are clamoring to live in our country.