I think it’s an important point. I’ve heard the argument (as recently as today) that illegal immigrants are committing a crime every day that they remain in this country. This is an attempt to portray illegal immigrants as active ongoing criminals. And to use this supposed ongoing criminal activity to justify the treatment they receive. Somebody who commits crimes on a daily basis? They deserve whatever abuse they get.
If you acknowledge the legal reality, that same person goes from somebody who commits crimes every day to somebody who committed one crime, which may have occurred years or even decades ago. It’s much more difficult to portray that person as a threat to society. People might even start thinking that a statute of limitations might apply to a minor crime that occurred so many years in the past.
My understanding is that there’s no ongoing crime being committed. It’s not like someone who crosses the border illegally is committing a crime every second of the day, that when they’re sleeping it’s a crime in progress.
If I shoplift a shirt and wear it, I don’t think wearing the shirt comprises an additional crime, and that walking down the street in the shirt makes me an illegal. The crime was committed at the moment I stole it. (I just looked up "possession of stolen goods to make sure I wasn’t missing something there).
When you kill someone you’re a murderer. 4 days later you may not be in the middle of offing someone, but you’re still a murderer.
If you break in to my house, and for reasons unknown decide to stay there, you may not actively be breaking and entering, but you’re somewhere you’re not supposed to be.
(But Isosleepy will disagree, because he/she equates the harm of a person occupying space, consuming resources, and creating goods within US territory as similar to the harm of a person occupying space, consuming resources, and creating goods within one’s home.)
I wouldn’t call it hate speech. Rude, and definitely insulting, like Broomstick said, but I think hate speech is definitely setting the bar way too high.
Uh, I think money laundering involves a little more than that. :dubious:
Sure. I’ve driven over the speed limit. That made me a speeder. That’s a common term that reduces a driver down to their offence. I don’t find it particularly dehumanising. But if you want to call me an illegal driver and therefore an illegal, or a criminal driver and therefore a criminal, that’s fine.
More to the point, I think that the objection to the use of the term “illegals” is politically based. I don’t think that people are objecting to the term because they simply dislike it, I think they have an agenda. So “illegals” will be forbidden today, and “illegal immigrants” will be forbidden in six months, and “criminal immigrants” will be forbidden in twelve months, and then in eighteen months, any term but “undocumented immigrants” will be forbidden. And “undocumented immigrants” makes it sound like the illegals have only made a clerical error rather than entering or staying in the country in violation of the law.
You know what though, I’m willing to compromise. I don’t really view illegal aliens as immigrants anyway; I view them as criminal economic migrants. Crimigrants as shorthand will work for me.
PS Note that I am aware of the differences between criminal and civil law and also aware that overstaying an entry visa in the US is considered a civil infraction and not a criminal infraction. However, any crimigrant who works without paying taxes, or who falsifies an employment eligibility form has committed a criminal violation. I’m actually surprised the 2017-2019 US Congress didn’t correct this gap in immigration law. Politifact has a discussion of the legal nuances:
Incorrect.
I disagree that once you enter illegally, no further crime occurs: I.e. that that’s just something long in the past, and no longer relevant. The method of entry is illegal, therefore the presence is illegal.
Now, I happen to believe all immigrants add value, regardless of their status. I don’t agree with the restricted nature of US immigration policy. I’m not in favor of repatriation (where I am in favor of burglars leaving my house)
But none of that takes away my central point. Those present after illegal entry or overstaying legal visa are a group with that very fact in common. It is an important enough commonality to warrant a collective noun.
And it isn’t Hispanic. It isn’t just immigrant. And it needs to indicate the nature of the thing the group has in common.
Ascribing to the term “illegals” notions like “it really means Hispanic” or “It indicates violence towards members of the group” means buying in to the narrative a certain very ugly subset of Americans is trying to establish.
This same argument could be (and has been) made about any racial slur, including the n-word. Growing up I knew many white guys who swore that it wasn’t about all black people, just the bad ones. It was a bullshit argument then and I think it’s still bullshit. There are plenty of ways to refer to people who crossed the border illegally that aren’t common perjoratives.
I’ve been an expat on about six different occasions, but never an immigrant. I’ve also always done so legally. “Undocumented immigrant” doesn’t cover non-immigrants, and doesn’t apply to asylum-seekers who have been documented.
We kind of find ourselves in a conundrum where we have to describe every type of presence in the country differently:
[ul]
[li]Present illegally but not an immigrant.[/li][li]Present illegally but intends to be here forever.[/li][li]Opal overstayed her visa due to being in a coma at a hospital.[/li][/ul]
I don’t know anyone who refers to asylum seekers as “illegals,” but the use of “illegal” certainly describes, as an adjective, the circumstances of everyone in the bullet list. English has a proud history of nounizing adjectives and verbizing nouns. Some people may intend hate when they use the word, but on its own it’s just a useful shortcut, and not even pejorative. It’s informal, granted, and I wouldn’t use it on a paper or in court, but on a message board or conversation?
Not off the top of my head. Why does it need one, except as a perjorative? There are plenty of groups of folks, even groups with millions, that require at least two words to describe.
I don’t consider it hate speech, but it’s definitely rude, along the lines of referring to black men as “thugs”. I don’t know if the board should sanction people who use it but they should definitely allow other members to call them out if they do. And if calling out becomes difficult to manage, maybe it’s best to restrict usage of the term to the pit only, where posters can let the fur fly.
“Mexican” might fit. In some cases maybe “Guatemalan”, or “Honduran”. I think the important thing here is to forgo decency and focus on verbal efficiency (Damn, that’s 2 words.)