I would say with the caveat that it’s used accurately and not maliciously. For example, if a poster knowingly refers to legal citizens as “illegal immigrants” due solely to ethnicity or country of origin, I think that would run afoul of a couple of existing rules.
But in general use I agree with you.
Are we sure there are no legitimate uses for ‘invader’? If I lived in Crimea, and hundreds of thousands of Russians started moving in and displacing the locals, would it not be fair to describe them as ‘invaders’?
What if 10,000 cartel members came across the southern border with the intent to bring crime to the US? Or we started seeing large numbers of young male CCP members coming across? I’m not saying that is happening, but if it was and someone said, "I think these people are invading us for malicious reasons, or “Those young males look more like invaders to me than refugees”, that may be a legitimate comment.
That’s why mod judgment is needed, and not hard rules.
Yes agreed, as we established. We are not making a hard rule. All will remain on a case by case basis.
I somewhat doubt that this is true. You can find references to the term “illegal immigrant” (and “illegal immigration”) is US Congressional sources going back to the late 1880s. Not coincidentally, around the time that the United States began to regulate immigration, provide for the exclusion and removal of “illegal immigrants,” and create an immigration bureaucracy.
I think you’re at least partly correct (and with a cite for the US Congressional sources would agree you’re entirely correct). I’ve finally found something of a cite that’s online (earlier, @SCAdian referenced their offline copy of OED), and it says:
So I withdraw that comment, and appreciate your correction. The rest of what I said–that everyone from Elie Wiesel to the AP Style Guide have objected to the term–remains intact.
Weird gender (and age) specificity on the applicability of “invader” there. I get that you’re trying to put forward a hypothetical situation that has emotional connotations of an actual invading army, and making it about “young males” in particular facilitates that.
But IMHO that actually just exposes the drawbacks of promoting melodramatic rhetoric like “invaders” instead of more neutral and precise language. We already have more neutral and precise terms that are better suited to describe each of your hypotheticals than the word “invaders” is, AFAICT.
For example, large groups of civilians voluntarily moving into a neighboring region for personal advantage is called “mass migration”. Large groups of criminal cartel members extending their illegal activities across borders is called “spread of transnational organized crime”.
I admit that I cannot for the life of me figure out what hypothetical motive you intended to suggest for the mysterious putative “large numbers of young male CCP members” entering the US. I presume you meant “Chinese Communist Party”, rather than the Canadian Conservative Party or something else with the same acronym?
I agree that the mods have a perfectly workable case-by-case policy for evaluating uses of the term “invaders”, and I don’t think any of your suggested hypotheticals are making a persuasive case concerning appropriate use of the term. In all of those scenarios, anybody who would gratuitously bring in the word “invaders” to describe large-scale movements of civilians across borders for mysterious non-military reasons would be setting themselves up to be perceived as a xenophobic bigot.
(With the exception, perhaps, of a situation where one criminal cartel is transnationally moving in on the “turf” of another: I think that calling that an “invasion” would not raise anywhere near so many eyebrows. ISTM that it’s generally perceived as more acceptable to use military metaphors and rhetoric for conflicts between criminal gangs than for economic migration etc. by non-criminals.)
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/15/us/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-trial/index.html
Article is relevant in the discussion because of this:
Just so it’s clear that those who want to use that word to label people whose only action is to cross a border are in the company of a mass murderer.