# "Illegals" as a descriptor of people -- considered hate speech or not? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [August 20, 2019, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934 "2019-08-20T13:54:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/41 "2019-08-20T19:05:19Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > I agree with Bone. Historically the word “Illegals” has not been treated as hate speech, and while it certainly can be used in a pejorative manner, it has not yet reached the point where it should be classified as hate speech here on the SDMB. > > That said, some of the forums here are less tolerant regarding the use of pejoratives, so just because the word is not considered hate speech does not mean that you can safely use the word in all forums. Context matters. > > But as far as actually being labeled as hate speech, no, it’s not. I’ll back up Bone and ECG on this. Expanding banned words or hate speech is something I’d approach very cautiously. Both because it’s very hard to enforce and because there’s no end to it. When one term is banned - for whatever reasons - there will eventually be another that will eventually be requested to be stricken from the list of approved words. This is not a system in which requirements can ever be fully satisfied. As stated, though, usage of any term with potentially pejorative connotations can be risky and can be very context sensitive. But it’s really the mindset you want to argue against, not so much the terminology. Also, a cite from Teen Vogue? Seriously? I wouldn’t trust them to tell me whether I should wear my chunky heels or strappy sandals to work. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/42 "2019-08-20T19:13:33Z")
I’ll have you know that Teen Vogue has been [at the forefront of politics and society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teen_Vogue#Politics) since 2016, buster! ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/43 "2019-08-20T19:25:08Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Isn’t “undocumented immigrant” akin to calling a shoplifter a “non-paying customer?” I liked the scene in _Thor: Ragnarok_, when Jeff Goldblum objected to the “slaves” term so his lackey suggested “prisoners with jobs”. ---
**Author:** ![Isosleepy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/isosleepy/32/479_2.png) [@Isosleepy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isosleepy)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/44 "2019-08-20T19:47:17Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Are there any other imaginary crimes that make somebody a criminal? Is violating 8 U.S. Code § 1325 not a crime? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/45 "2019-08-20T20:08:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **HurricaneDitka** : > > I don’t think anyone is claiming their existence is illegal, just their presence here. Millions of people are, specifically, anyone who refers to them as “illegals”. That’s what that usage implies. If you don’t want to claim that their existence is illegal, then use terms which don’t imply that. A shoplifter is a legal person who illegally takes items from a store, and so we don’t refer to a shoplifter as “an illegal”. A murderer is a legal person who illegally kills another person, and we don’t refer to a murderer as “an illegal”. You could refer to them as “illegal takers”, or “illegal killers” (though it’s unnecessary, because we have other words that work just as well), but that’s no problem, because those terms correctly state that it was the taking or the killing that was illegal. But calling a person “an illegal” means that the person themself is illegal. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/46 "2019-08-20T20:15:00Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Millions of people are, specifically, anyone who refers to them as “illegals”. That’s what that usage implies. If you don’t want to claim that their existence is illegal, then use terms which don’t imply that. > > A shoplifter is a legal person who illegally takes items from a store, and so we don’t refer to a shoplifter as “an illegal”. A murderer is a legal person who illegally kills another person, and we don’t refer to a murderer as “an illegal”. You could refer to them as “illegal takers”, or “illegal killers” (though it’s unnecessary, because we have other words that work just as well), but that’s no problem, because those terms correctly state that it was the taking or the killing that was illegal. But calling a person “an illegal” means that the person themself is illegal. Do you think it qualifies as hate speech? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/47 "2019-08-20T20:16:27Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > So criminals is OK? > > And how long will that last? > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Sure…if we can label everyone that has broken the law the same way. > > Have you ever broken the law? Let me fix that for you: Have you ever broken _ **A** _ law? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/48 "2019-08-20T20:20:34Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > … But calling a person “an illegal” means that the person themself is illegal. I subscribe to this view: > [@bump](#): > > I think you’re reading WAY too much into this. > > It’s clearly a short-hand/contraction of “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrants” because those are both relatively long in terms of syllables versus “illegals”. > > Reading into it that anyone’s implying that the people are illegal in some sort of existential way is absurd. People are objecting to the fact that they’re coming here, and trying to make their lives in total disregard for the legal immigration channels, and presumably with awareness that they’re disregarding the legal way to do it. And they don’t like the term ‘undocumented immigrants’, because it conveniently glosses over the question of whether or not they deliberately disregarded and flaunted our laws in getting here. It implies they just left their immigration card at home or something, which is incorrect at best. > > In other words, it’s not the “immigrant” part of “illegal immigrant” that they object to, it’s the “illegal” part. So it’s not surprising that it would contract to “illegals”. I don’t view it as a commentary on anyone’s “existence” ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/49 "2019-08-20T20:24:44Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Thanks for the moderator response. Has there been behind-the-scenes discussion about it, and is it up for further discussion? > [@Bone](#): > > There hasn’t been discussion about this term specifically. Generally we are cautious about expanding the scope of what is considered hate speech. In this specific example I don’t think this term has reached the tipping point where it would be widely enough regarded as derogatory enough to fall into that classification. In the meantime, I expect I will continue to point out\* that the use of the word as a noun is eschewed by decent people (IF the time ever comes that it DOES fall under that classification, I intend to deploy the “Report this Post” utility). \*(in the interest of clarity, I will mention that “pointing out” things is only meaningful when the things being pointed out are objective, non-debatable FACTS) ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/50 "2019-08-20T20:26:57Z")
You think what is “eschewed by decent people” is an “objective, non-debatable FACT”? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/51 "2019-08-20T20:31:55Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You think what is “eschewed by decent people” is an “objective, non-debatable FACT”? If you look at that particular poster’s history, you’ll notice a certain pattern, especially just before and around November 2016… ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/52 "2019-08-20T20:33:25Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > I’ll back up Bone and ECG on this. Expanding banned words or hate speech is something I’d approach very cautiously. Both because it’s very hard to enforce and because there’s no end to it. When one term is banned - for whatever reasons - there will eventually be another that will eventually be requested to be stricken from the list of approved words. It would also turn unavoidably partisan. You would have one side grousing that the “other side’s” slurs are permitted, but theirs aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/53 "2019-08-20T20:40:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t view it as a commentary on anyone’s “existence” OK. Maybe you don’t. But these days _a lot of other people do._ Of course, they are not the boss of you. You can continue to use the word any way you wish. On the other hand, you are not the boss of them. They can continue to form an opinion of you based on their view of your word usage. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/54 "2019-08-20T20:42:50Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > … Of course, they are not the boss of you. You can continue to use the word any way you wish. On the other hand, you are not the boss of them. They can continue to form an opinion of you based on their view of your word usage. I subscribe to this view as well. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/55 "2019-08-20T20:43:22Z")
I remember when the Republicans lost their second election to Obama, they held a conference on how to better appeal to Urban voters. One of the things they came up with was to stop referring to them as “illegals”. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/56 "2019-08-20T20:46:06Z")
Controlling language is a game authoritarians use to control thought. Its usually very selectively enforced. NWA recorded some of the most vile misogynistic songs ever but they were celebrated by Hollywood with a biopic. Depending on context its best to let people use the language that they choose. Forcing people to think/speak the way that others want rarely works out well. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/57 "2019-08-20T20:47:34Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > OK. Maybe you don’t. > > But these days _a lot of other people do._ How do you know this? I am interested only in verifiable methodology. ---
**Author:** ![Isosleepy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/isosleepy/32/479_2.png) [@Isosleepy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isosleepy)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/58 "2019-08-20T20:51:20Z")
Illegal as a noun is clearly used to describe someone not legally present in the U.S., as in, the moment they leave the U.S. they are no longer described as “illegal”. If it truly described their very existence as being ilegal the mere fact of them returning to their home country wouldn’t change that. And again, I suspect that whatever collective noun is used to describe those who are present in the U.S. after violating 8 U.S. Code § 1325 will soon be found pejorative: I suspect that the very calling attention to the fact that they reside here in contravention to US code is deemed not acceptable. There is a difference between those immigrants who entered and resided legally, often after significant hassle and not insignificant expense, and those who broke the law. Referring to both groups as the same is offensive to me and I suspect others in my situation. It is also ridiculous. My life and theirs is not remotely similar: my children don’t have to fear my not returning home one day due to an ICE raid, for starters. Since it is a group with significant factors in common, all as a result of their immigration status, a collective noun is entirely appropriate. We happen to have such a collective noun in broad use - multiple in fact. Illegal Alien, Illegal Immigrant, or, shorthand, Illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/59 "2019-08-20T21:02:01Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Millions of people are, specifically, anyone who refers to them as “illegals”. That’s what that usage implies. If you don’t want to claim that their existence is illegal, then use terms which don’t imply that. > > A shoplifter is a legal person who illegally takes items from a store, and so we don’t refer to a shoplifter as “an illegal”. A murderer is a legal person who illegally kills another person, and we don’t refer to a murderer as “an illegal”. You could refer to them as “illegal takers”, or “illegal killers” (though it’s unnecessary, because we have other words that work just as well), but that’s no problem, because those terms correctly state that it was the taking or the killing that was illegal. But calling a person “an illegal” means that the person themself is illegal. Your last sentence seems like an unjustified leap. You correctly note that we have a wide variety of terms for persons who have engaged in various unlawful activities (although presumably the objection about reducing complex individuals to their criminal behavior applies to other crimes as well). And we don’t have clear single-word terms to characterize various immigration statuses. But the term “illegal” is obviously intended to be (and obviously understood to be) a shortening of the standard term “illegal alien.” I’m inclined to believe that it is generally intended as a pejorative and I certainly understand the argument that it unfairly emphasizes a person’s immigration status, but it seems unwarranted to claim that the term “means that the person themself is illegal.” I don’t believe that there is anyone who is genuinely confused by the term. And I don’t think that particular claim is advanced by anyone who is not also seeking to advance a particular agenda with respect to illegal immigration more generally (like the Teen Vogue article, which falsely implies that unlawful entry is not a crime). ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934/60 "2019-08-20T21:06:54Z")
The big thing in my mind that makes it a pejorative rather than a description is that it is a term that is often used to refer to hispanics, including ones that are here entirely legally. It’s dehumanizing not only to those who were not fortunate enough to enjoy being born in our country, but also to those who were born or were legally naturalized here. If someone is lazy enough with language to use a term like “illegal” to refer to a human being, then they are likely too lazy to check the immigration status of someone who they think matches that term before labeling them with it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegals-as-a-descriptor-of-people-considered-hate-speech-or-not/838934.md?page=4)