Who can steelman an argument against using the term ‘illegal immigrant’ in favor of ‘undocumented immigrant’? For the record, I’m one of those people who believe in 100% open borders and I am an immigrant myself (through a lottery) and I’m fucking baffled by the heat of this dispute. ‘Illegal immigrant’ strikes me as a neutral and factual term. Someone is an
I've taken to using "unauthorized immigrant", in order to avoid both the pitfalls of affirming an "obfuscating euphemism" and of triggering an autopilot reaction to "illegal immigrant". Nobody has had an immediate "No human being is unauthorized" reaction, derailing rational discussion.
I agreed with your basic stance until this post prompted me to reconsider. I still don't have a strong feeling, but the thing that gives me doubt is that I failed to think of a single other case where we say someone is an "illegal X" for any other crime.
Some crimes have separate words as a descriptor, such as "murderer".
Sometimes the word illegal is applied to a different object ("illegal firearm").
But I can't think of any phrase like "illegal driver", which makes me think that "illegal immigrant" actually is an outlier phrase.
I'm not claiming this is a proof you shouldn't use the phrase, just that it makes it more likely that the objectors have a core of a point, even if they've failed to articulate it well.
Well done: attacking the language used in the mainstream is a great path out of this simulation we've built around ourselves over the last several decades.
I'm curious how anyone can be an anarchist but it seems particularly odd given your advocacy of 100% open borders - Surely, in the USA at least, this would result in pitched gun battles on the US/Mexican border and the mass lynching of any immigrants seen as "taking our jobs".
> Something can still be illegal even if there are no criminal penalties.
If someone drives without a license, we don’t call it “driving illegally”. “We call it driving without a license”. Just because something is unlawful doesn’t mean we are required to use the word “illegal”. “Undocumented” is more informative than “illegal”, because it indicates that they lack authority to be in this country. “Illegal” tells us nothing, although we assume a lot.
> The other response can also be the equally asinine “no human being is undocumented either”.
I disagree with you here. Human beings can be undocumented. It means they don’t have documents. They can’t be “illegal” though. It’s a misuse of language.
The point behind “undocumented immigrants” is that if it’s shortened, it doesn’t become something really offensive in the way that “illegal immigrants” becomes “illegals”.
Whatever we can do to humanize other people is a good thing, in my opinion. “Illegals” dehumanizes people.
I’ll keep saying “undocumented immigrants” until someone comes up with something better and which gains traction.
The term "illegal immigrant" is itself something of a euphemism. There was a long period not so very far in the past when non-citizens were called "aliens" instead. This just highlights the problem with a focus on supposedly offensive language: the slippage just continues indefinitely into the future as each term is declared offensive in its turn, meanwhile the underlying conditions which no one really wants to acknowledge as being bad remain the same.
I've taken to using "unauthorized immigrant", in order to avoid both the pitfalls of affirming an "obfuscating euphemism" and of triggering an autopilot reaction to "illegal immigrant". Nobody has had an immediate "No human being is unauthorized" reaction, derailing rational discussion.
Thanks for "illegal immigrant"; a breath of fresh air.
I agreed with your basic stance until this post prompted me to reconsider. I still don't have a strong feeling, but the thing that gives me doubt is that I failed to think of a single other case where we say someone is an "illegal X" for any other crime.
Some crimes have separate words as a descriptor, such as "murderer".
Sometimes the word illegal is applied to a different object ("illegal firearm").
But I can't think of any phrase like "illegal driver", which makes me think that "illegal immigrant" actually is an outlier phrase.
I'm not claiming this is a proof you shouldn't use the phrase, just that it makes it more likely that the objectors have a core of a point, even if they've failed to articulate it well.
Note that in the 2000s there was, for a while, a trend in mainstream newspapers (as well as right-wing talk radio) of calling folks "illegals," which I think most would agree is an even more dehumanizing term than "illegal immigrants," see for example https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/FIELD-POLL-Majority-against-illegals-getting-2694342.php
Well done: attacking the language used in the mainstream is a great path out of this simulation we've built around ourselves over the last several decades.
Wow, like hardly anyone has read this but keep up the great posts.
I'm curious how anyone can be an anarchist but it seems particularly odd given your advocacy of 100% open borders - Surely, in the USA at least, this would result in pitched gun battles on the US/Mexican border and the mass lynching of any immigrants seen as "taking our jobs".
> Something can still be illegal even if there are no criminal penalties.
If someone drives without a license, we don’t call it “driving illegally”. “We call it driving without a license”. Just because something is unlawful doesn’t mean we are required to use the word “illegal”. “Undocumented” is more informative than “illegal”, because it indicates that they lack authority to be in this country. “Illegal” tells us nothing, although we assume a lot.
> The other response can also be the equally asinine “no human being is undocumented either”.
I disagree with you here. Human beings can be undocumented. It means they don’t have documents. They can’t be “illegal” though. It’s a misuse of language.
The point behind “undocumented immigrants” is that if it’s shortened, it doesn’t become something really offensive in the way that “illegal immigrants” becomes “illegals”.
Whatever we can do to humanize other people is a good thing, in my opinion. “Illegals” dehumanizes people.
I’ll keep saying “undocumented immigrants” until someone comes up with something better and which gains traction.
The term "illegal immigrant" is itself something of a euphemism. There was a long period not so very far in the past when non-citizens were called "aliens" instead. This just highlights the problem with a focus on supposedly offensive language: the slippage just continues indefinitely into the future as each term is declared offensive in its turn, meanwhile the underlying conditions which no one really wants to acknowledge as being bad remain the same.