Proponents of the term “illegal immigrant” claim that it is both precise and concise; They also claim that the term is better than other pejorative terms in circulation. For example, New York Times editor Margaret Sullivan argues that while the Times rightly refrains from using the terms “illegal” and “illegal aliens,” the term “illegal immigrant” should be used because it is clear, concise, precise, descriptive and “does its job in two easy-to-understand words.” 1 If “illegal immigrant” is imprecise and racially problematic, what term should be used instead? Pro-immigrant Liberals often prefer the term “undocumented immigrants.” The nonprofit Define American, in its critique of phrases such as “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien,” recommends “undocumented Americans.” But the “undocumented” also have their faults. For many Conservatives, “undocumented immigrants” smacks of euphemism, making it seem like it`s simply an administrative or administrative mistake — as if a document had been misplaced or improperly issued. And “undocumented immigrant” is itself inaccurate, as a person can have many documents even if they have not entered the country legally or do not have federal permission to continue residing in the country. New York City residents, for example, can get ID regardless of their immigration status. And “undocumented Americans,” presumably meant to challenge the idea that only citizens are Americans, could also be problematic in imposing a label on people they don`t necessarily support themselves — after all, not everyone identifies as American or wants to be considered American. To a large extent, this way of thinking has taken root because it has been adopted by immigrant advocates. The same organizations that used to denounce the term “illegal alien” and rightly emphasize the “undocumented worker” bent have been so defensive in today`s anti-immigrant environment that they have accepted a simple-minded formula – “illegal, evil, good legal immigrant.” Although they have now spoken out against efforts like CLEAR, these immigrant advocates have helped lay the groundwork for the false premise that these two groups can be easily distinguished and separated. Of course, the fact that immigrant advocates have abandoned illegals, helping to legitimize many of these misguided proposals, explains why the rest of us have joined the fight. Because even though they legally resemble their friends, neighbors and compatriots here, illegals are more vulnerable and vulnerable. And without voting, they have limited ability to hold accountable those who claim to represent their interests. In short, illegal immigrants are the weak link in the migration chain.
But even if we had the means to reliably distinguish illegal immigrants from legal immigrants, it would still not be easy. Because at this point, we would run into the false assumption that illegals are a distinct and separate population that exists independently of legal immigrants and the rest of American society. Proponents of the term “illegal immigrant” also reject the alternative term “undocumented” on the grounds that it obscures the “legal reality” of the situation and is inaccurate. For example, in its memo defending its use of the term “illegal immigrant,” the Associated Press claims that terms like “undocumented” and other similar terms “downplay the seriousness of someone`s illegal presence in the country, making it seem like a minor paperwork issue.” 2 In addition, the Associated Press asserts that the term “undocumented” is inaccurate, noting that “many illegal immigrants are not `undocumented` at all”; They may have a birth certificate and passport from their home country, as well as a U.S. driver`s license, Social Security card, or school ID card. What they lack is the fundamental right to be in the United States. 3 MARTIN: Ruben, towards the end of your article, you write that for me the preferred term is illegal immigrants, but you said – frankly, I think the whole debate boils down to a stupid waste of time and energy. Why do you say that? Lord. Johnson: No, and I wouldn`t – I`m not one of those people who write to remove Rubens` column from the paper, and he can use the term, but if you start the discussion by calling someone`s status illegal, without defining exactly what that means, you`re creating connotations and malice towards that person.
These numbers also show why poll after poll shows that the American people generally don`t make clear distinctions between illegal and legal immigrants. As unfortunate as this prospect may be from a civil liberties perspective, it is hardly irrational. Illegals are part of the chain and wool of American society. The focus is currently in Washington and Sacramento on defining clear boundaries between legal and illegal immigrants – especially with the tools we currently have. Most recently, in April 2021, the Biden administration ordered the U.S. immigration authorities to replace the term “illegal alien” (used throughout U.S. immigration law) with “undocumented non-citizens.” Any foreign national entering the United States is required by law to have a visa issued by the U.S. Department of State. If someone comes to the United States without a visa or stays after their visa expires, that person is breaking the law. Meanwhile, the strange anti-immigration consensus that has developed in recent months threatens to intensify anti-illegal sentiment. Worse still, the current set of proposals, when it comes into force, will once again have wrongly raised the expectations of the American people about resolving this difficult issue. The history of post-war immigration policy has been marked by inaccurate predictions, unintended consequences and exaggerated expectations – and a steady increase in legal and illegal immigration.
We must crack down on illegal immigrants. But we must also be ourselves and face the fact that the problem of immigration is much broader and more deeply rooted than the mere objectives sought in these hotly debated proposals. Mr. Johnson: I do not think it is a waste of time because it frames the debate that we are going to have. When we call people illegal, inhumane, illegal aliens, wetbacks, Mexicans, Hispanics, people we don`t like, devils, it affects how the debate will unfold, and I think we have to be very careful in the debate, and we already see in this discussion about comprehensive immigration reform a very heated debate, controversial and soon, hopefully not, but probably overheated. This phrase that I sometimes hear on the left – no human being is illegal – is, in my opinion, a way of justifying the presence of people who are here without permission, saying that it does not matter and that everyone has the right to come here and improve their situation, and therefore we should have an open border. And so I think it`s an awkward situation where people are on the left. Just as the proposal to ban illegal immigrant children from attending public schools originally included a provision of Proposition 187 and is now included in immigration legislation pending in Congress, the CLEAR initiative assumes a sharp distinction between illegal and legal immigrants that simply does not exist. But the idea that illegal immigration and legal immigration are different phenomena that can and should be treated separately reflects a consensus that, ironically, even immigration proponents have accepted.
The almost certain result will be a harsh and punitive policy that will crack down on illegal immigrants and will prove ineffective precisely because we are avoiding the harsh measures necessary to deal with a world on the move at the end of the millennium.