That makes no sense.
You’re stupid. Everyone not a drooling idiot knows that undocumented, for example, is referring to the idea that the government lacks the requisite paperwork. Also, this just in, not everyone in the distaff side of the population owns a spinning wheel. Being a nitpicky ass about this is not somehow more correct; it’s jerk-off behavior.
What about the Greys? They illegal too?
His point was that ultimately they’re illegal non-citizens, and that all these alternate terms for them is reframing the debate in ways that minimizes the illegality of their actions in favor of all sorts of mushy-headed crap about their documentation status, immigration status and other stuff.
It’s a classic tactic really… to use an extreme example, if for some outlandish reason, there was a push to quit calling child molesters by that name, and instead call them something more palatable, the entire debate would inexorably change. One man’s insurgent is another man’s terrorist, and all that.
The usual complaint about the term that I hear can be expressed in a similar way:
They’re not “illegal” - there is no definition of the legality, or illegality, of a person. Illegally in the country? Yes. Illegal as a person in and of itself? No.
shakes fist at ElvisL1ves
What term does the OP propose for people who have done everything they are required by US law to do, but have reached a point where they need to do another step and cannot because the US government is not doing one of its own parts in a timely fashion? Those people do not have every document they need, but they have never chosen to break a US law.
By law, they still need to leave the country. Choosing to stay IS breaking US law then.
That’s not always fair, but that’s the way US law currently stands and how the law stands in dozens of other countries.
I’m not sure how you’d get into this situation, though. If you’re here on a visa, the length of the visa is fixed. You can apply for an extension, but that usually necessitates travel outside the US. And if you’re a permanent resident alien, you’re already good to go.
What’s up with uninsured drivers? They could have health insurance, life insurance, homeowners insurance…all kinds of insurance! Why should they be called uninsured?
Yeah… no.
Why on earth would I choose to frame the debate the way you want, to serve your interests, to tilt perception and opinion in your favor? That would be dumb. Just like I’m not pro-death, and I support marriage equality. I’m not conceding to you.
Exactly. So we’re allowed to argue over the most appropriate term from a legal or ethical perspective. Since the term “alien” is itself made up, saying “stop making up other names” is stupid.
Yes, I think people do want to minimize the illegality of their actions because they (justifiably perhaps) feel that the term “illegal alien” overstates the severity of the conduct.
ETA: almost everyone violates some law at some point in their lives, but we don’t make that their defining label for all time. I am more than a frequent speeder, to use an earlier example. A person who comes here without legal authority is more than an “illegal alien.” The term, as used in the U.S., implies serious misconduct. Some people like “softer” terms because they don’t think being here “illegally” is such a big deal.
I don’t see what’s so bad about illegal aliens, especially when they make kids’ bikes fly majestically across the image of the moon.
That’s interesting. I’m a Canadian immigrant and I found that going through the immigration process made me more sympathetic to the undocumented. It was expensive, time-consuming and, of course until my application was processed, I could have been separated from my wife at any time. And, I had probably the easiest route in, as well as one of the most boring applications: American, only ever lived in one state(and really, only one area within that state), never been a member of any organizations, had glowing references, no major health issues, etc. Even as lucky as I was, it was still a frustrating and expensive process. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be for someone who isn’t a native English speaker or is from a third-world nation or wasn’t fortunate enough to have the required funds easily available. I’m sure there are some who become undocumented for selfish reasons, but most just want a shot at a better life or to be with their families.
Saje:
One who has settled in another country is an emigrant.
One who comes as a permanent resident is an immigrant (OED).
saje, I edited your post to make it clearer which parts are quotes from Machine Elf and which parts are your responses. Please don’t change text inside the quote boxes. Even if you use color to highlight your responses, it can be confused - and it makes it hard for other posters to quote you and answer your post.
And yet, amazingly, the annual quotas for legal immigration never go unfilled. Clearly the difficulty and expense of filing the required forms is not the problem.
American, married to a Brazilian, and my response is similar to that of happycamper*5. Immigrating is expensive in both time and money, and I definitely feel that we were given preferential treatment because I was born American. Before we were married, my wife had almost unanimously terrible experiences with US customs. For some reason, she encountered a much higher rate of racism among customs agents than among the general public (and still sometimes does, when she shows her passport at the airport). For people who don’t speak English, don’t make a lot of money and can’t afford to take time off to take care of their immigration process, I understand how it can be theoretically possible but impossible in any realistic sense.
Put me down with the crowd that thinks “illegal alien” is purposefully trying to skew the conversation away from treating them as humans and equals.
How do those differ? And how are they relevant to saje’s point that “immigrant” says nothing about legal status?
The words are somewhat synonymous but emigrant and emigrate focus on the leaving of one country to settle in another, and immigrant and immigrate focus on arriving in one country to settle there, after leaving another. Neither implies anything about legal status. (Several dictionaries.)
There are two reasons I think it’s erroneous to use more palatable words:
- It weakens the debate by looking like one is using doublespeak.
- It potentially reduces the focus on what needs to be done. Undocumented immigrants (or whatever one wants to call them) are here illegally. The fix is not to document them but to remove the laws that make them illegal.
They are here illegally and they’re here to work. Be strong and not afraid to call them “illegal workers” and let’s get the law(s) changed. 
Not quite. Most of us are, in fact, “anchor babies.”