We Need to Dump the Word "Illegal"

http://www.truthout.org/what-part-illegal-dont-you-understand-we-need-dump59758

But there is a word more commonly used and much more damaging to immigrants and Latinos: illegal. We need to stop using it ourselves, and demand that media outlets retire the word as well.

So what's the lesson for immigration? It's time to stop kidding ourselves. As long as illegal immigrant remains an acceptable term, we lose. We certainly lose so long as our side continues to use the term. The Center for American Progress uses illegal immigrant interchangeably with undocumented immigrant. Contributors to the Huffington Post have no problems with the term. Even the t-shirts and signs protesting Arizona's SB1070 by asking "Do I look illegal?" are acquiescing to a right-wing semantic ploy. It's time we stopped.

What does a media campaign to have mainstream media talk right look like? It starts with a history lesson, to remind media outlets that illegals and illegal immigrant are terms that were created and deliberately propagated by right wing hacks. And it explains that, whether as a noun or as an adjective modifying a person, the terms are inaccurate and un-American: one of the fundamental principles of American jurisprudence is that it is the act that is illegal, not the person.

A campaign to rid us of this flawed term would also point out that the range of terms used to demean and dehumanize people - illegal alien, illegals, aliens - are simply defamatory. They are intended to not only insult, but to vilify. Which is, of course, why it is so brutally effective for the right wing's purposes. By implying criminality where there is none, no further argument is needed by those who wish to maintain the status quo, and no further argument is possible for those who see the need for immigration reform.

There is an opening right now to dramatically change the conversation. Earlier this month, 21-year old student Jessica Colotl caught people's attention after she was shot into deportation proceedings after being stopped for driving without a license. Pleas from her sorority sisters prompted ICE to give Jessica a one-year deferment and release her from detention, which in turn produced howls of protest from anti-immigrant extremists. The Sheriff of Cobb County responded to his constituents - including the owner and patrons of Mulligan's bar - and issued an arrest warrant and sent out a posse of deputies to haul her in. She has become, in the words of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a new face on an old debate.

Jessica and other young people brought here as children, who have no pathway to legalization and are now facing deportation, have disrupted people's cozy, simplistic ideas of what it means to be out of status in this country. That opens the way for new thinking.

I thought crossing the border without papers was a crime.

I realize that she was just a child @ the time,but her parents(and her) came into this country ILLEGALLY. Nuf" said?

are 'illegal'. There presence in this country maybe illegal, but she is a valuable member of our society.

No DL? Student loans?(some grants) Not employed? What has she contributed?

Find a college young adult that is LEGAL in the state of GA that has not had their DL since they were at least 16!

They may not be "illegal" people, but they came into our country "illegally"! I was taught from a very early age-obey the laws.

call somebody an illegal driver after they get a speeding ticket. These people are here in our country, but lack proper documentation and have no way of obtaining it. Let's give people who have lived here and have 'kept their noses clean' for decades have a path toward correcting that.

as if they materialized out of nowhere. They made a conscious choice to deliberately enter this country in violation of our laws. Their immigration into this country was entirely, completely, and in every way illegal, which is why it is entirely appropriate to call them illegal immigrants. Sorry if you don't like the definition of illegal, but that's what it is.

Your analogy with drivers is rather silly, since one speeding ticket is not the sum and substance of any person's driving. An illegal act IS the sum and substance of these people's entry into our country.

rectifying their status. I love your use of 'these people' and 'our country'.

That you upbraid me for using phrases that YOU introduced into the discussion. See your post 19 above if you want to know where I got "these people" and "our country"

And the issue of children is another straw man...the vast majority of people who enter this country illegaly are adults. It's a shame that they have to (deliberately and conciously) put their children in this position, but why should that absolve the adults from responsibility?

.....call somebody an illegal driver after they get a speeding ticket."

Pretty weak argument there since they are not illegal drivers after receiving a speeding ticket. They have been punished for breaking a rule of driving, and in most cases, not a grievous one, but they're still legally able to drive. That's the law. The guy/gal who commits an illegal act of driving that gets their license suspended, such as DUI, reckless endangerment, hit and run, etc. is after suspension or revocation, an illegal driver if they choose to get behind the wheel. If someone acts to enter this country illegally, is caught coming in, and deported back to their home country, they are not an illegal immigrant. If they enter this country contrary to the laws set forth on immigration, and succeed in their endeavor, they are here illegally, which by logic makes them illegal immigrants. I think the reason logic is so hard to understand by many here on DU is their desire, need, addiction to become the most loved, and admired liberal they can be. Too much competition there. I'll stick with logic, and common sense. Thanks.
quickesst

but their status here is "illegal".

but if you're a WASP it is called manifest destiny.

Thus, illegals.

Just as those who committed bank robbery are called bank robbers. I detect you be picking at straws, for whatever reason I do not know.

Our culture makes no distinction, especially in this area, between the act and the perpetrator. You are "murder", a "robber", or an "illegal immigrant". There is a general preference in the liberal community for "undocumented worker" but even to my ear that sounds rather convoluted.

The reality is that the right can get on their high horse about "my grandparents came here legally" because their parents came at a time when there were no immigration restrictions. If you think for one minute that my ancestors checked on their visa status before climbing out of the ditch they were living in, and into the lowest hold of the ship, you're dreaming. They just came, and were treated like crap the moment they got off the boat. The problem with "illegal immigration" is that we have unreasonable restrictions on immigration. We need these people. We benefit on balance from having them here. So we let them in, and then complain about them (after they mow the lawn).

*THAT* is the debate worth having. Not what should we call them.
Do we benefit, on balance? Is it "racist" to just flat out say THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE HERE, period, regardless of their ethnicity, language or work ethic? California has many millions of people too many for the infrastructure; that's not being a racist - a misanthrope perhaps - we don't need *ANY* more, regardless of where they are from. We actually need to figure out how to create jobs and provide schools and fresh water for those who are HERE. If this means that people in other countries have to rise up and change their governments then THAT is what our foreign aid dollars should be going for, not 'nation building' thousands of miles away where we are hated anyway.

We benefit from having immigration, in far larger numbers than is currently "legal". Can you get too many too fast? Yes, but we are no where near that amount. There is always an imperfection to labor distribution. There are too many people in Detroit, and that's true with, or without immigration. NYC has suffered through various levels of immigration, often more than the city could use at the moment. However, on a NATIONAL scale, we aren't anywhere near "full" yet.

Having them here means they are consumers here, building, buying, creating, and oh yeah, paying taxes here. Keeping them out means they are consumers "else where". On balance, we benefit. Our biggest problem is China, not Mexico. We've been creating jobs in China, and that hurts us, and it has hurt Mexico too.

that's the only reason people hire "People Who Are In The Country Illegally".

That's the sum total of your political position. :sarcasm:

my fucking position is. Do you condone it or not? I have to conclude that you see nothing wrong with it.

That's exactly why undocumented laborers need the opportunity to become legal residents - so they're less exploitable. Not like 10+ million of them are just gonna *leave* otherwise, you know.

Many folks here are being paid ABOVE minimum wage, and in fact are paying income taxes and FICA as well. When they raided the meat packing plant in Iowa, they were all being paid just like the legal citizens. They are here because there is work for them, and they can find it. That's not to say that there aren't folks working "off the books" or otherwise not working for minimum wage. But you'll find American citizens doing the same thing for a wide variety of reasons. Not everyone working the day worker corner or parking lot is an illegal immigrant.

They are subject to the same economic forces that everyone is.

but it's the sole right of the citizens of this country to decide who will be most beneficial to admit as immigrants. We are the ones who get to decide, through our elected representatives, how many people will be allowed to enter the US from other countries, where they may come from, how long they may stay, and for what purposes. People seeking to enter or remain in this country in violation of our laws are entitled to no voice in those decisions.

Would you condone that policy too? Because goddammit, it's our right as Americans not to have to live next to brown folks, or have our children play with theirs, or let our daughters marry their sons!

US immigration statutes before 1965 to justify your claim? In any case, even if immigration decisions have not always been made for the noblest reasons, that is no way changes the fact that the right to make those decisions rests ONLY with US citizens and their representatives.

Our immmigration limits are so painfully low, they aren't being supported by our own citizens. We need them here, and to a great degree we accept them here. It is because we benefit from them being here.

Egypt they don't say illegal they call them fatalities because they shoot at them.

In Israel they call them infiltrators and jail them without charge for years on end. They can be deported at a moments notice without hearing or appeal.

In Iran they are call Spy's

In Pakistan and Yemen they are call Al Quieda

Since thats what the hell they are! I wont say I blame some of them that are poor and want a better life for their kids. I know I would do the same.

..it's this thread again.

I see your point. The term illegals is said and meant to be derogatory by many. But, I also agree with the poster that suggested "undocumented worker" doesn't seem to fit, either. What word would you prefer?

It takes a really long time to say..."Person who entered the country illegally, but is working and living in America."

Most immigrants from past generations - Irish, Italians, etc. - weren't "legal" either.

immigrants weren't legal.

Nowadays it's basically impossible to emigrate here "legally" without a whole lot of time and money.

We are not obliged to make it easy for people to immigrate to this country, legally or illegally. Our immigration policies should be crafted first and foremost to benefit our society. The only reason to make it easier to enter is if we are not getting enough of the people that we feel will improve our country.

The indigenous people of the North American continent. I've heard so called "nativists" here in Arizona claim that the Mexicans are invading, but it is more like a counter-invasion. If your ancestors were not here 600 years ago then it is YOU who are the immigrant and invader. These lands were not acquired through legal means, but through force of arms and conquest; leaving the people who have been here for thousands of years stripped of all rights and dignity. And now that the effects of White European Neo-liberal economic policies (i.e. NAFTA) have forced the disadvantaged native people of this continent to seek better means of supporting their families all people in this country can do is bitch about the "wetbacks" stealing their jobs. Yet they never complain or do anything about their corporate overlords shipping the means of production off to someplace where labor can be exploited at lower costs. This whole debate frustrates and sickens me because not one person discussing it can see past their fucking noses.

Too many damn Mexicans in this country already! :sarcasm:

To say that someone is "illegal" implies that he or she is beneath the protection of the law.

I propose the following phrase, even though it's admittedly more cumbersome to say: A person who entered the country illegally. No one is illegal; only actions can be illegal.

and got creamed on DU for it.

Fight on, comrade! We are not alone!

If we really cared about the illegal immigrants that are coming from Mexico, we'd help the Mexican population get Mexico to clean up its act.

Republicans want a cheaper labor force. Democrats want votes. And, its a win-win. Democrats get the votes whether we have comprehensive immigration reform or not.

Without it, we get the talking point. Vote for us, not those racist, bigoted, republicans. We care. Eventually, we'll do immigration reform.

Blah, Blah, Blah.

Republicans...just want to continue depressing wages. And, as soon as we legalize the 12 million or 20 million, or however the heck many millions of illegal immigrants, we'll get a new batch. Because once illegal immigrants become legal, they want what Americans would have demanded to do the same jobs. Better benefits and higher wages. It never stops.

Here is Ted Kennedy commenting on the 1965 immigration bill,Quote
“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission.”
--------------------------------
Ted Kennedy on the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Bill, Quote:
“This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.”
---------------------------------
Ted Kennedy(2007) on the McCain/Kennedy immigration proposal, Quote:
“The plan will strengthen our borders and our national security while providing a tough but fair path to citizenship for millions of people.”
--------------------------------
What is the definition of insanity?

I'm sorry, but illegal is as illegal does.