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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.