The ‘Illegal’ Trap

The New York Times ( Blog ) ^ | September 28, 2012 | LAWRENCE DOWNES

[moonshinner_09]

A vigorous discussion is taking place online about the word “illegal” as an adjective for certain immigrants. An immigrant activist named Jose Antonio Vargas, a former reporter, is urging news organizations like The New York Times to stop using it. He says the word is inaccurate, improper and demeaning.

The Times’s public editor, Margaret Sullivan (an independent voice who writes about The Times but is not part of its news or opinion operations), has been looking into this, interviewing editors and reporters and soliciting readers’ opinions. She says she will weigh in soon.

I figured I should, too, because I have thought about “illegal” a lot (I write immigration editorials). Five years ago I wrote an Editorial Observer called “What Part of ‘Illegal’ Don’t You Understand?” explaining why I didn’t like the word, but used it anyway. Not surprisingly, the article didn’t settle the debate. It’s still going around, in circles.

Those who agree with Mr. Vargas say “illegal” should be banned because it suggests that “illegal immigrants” are criminals, which often isn’t true. No human being is illegal, they say.

[ought-six]

“...western civilization is over and the muslims will once again rule the world for centuries.”

I think the Chinese will make short shrift of the muzz.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Here’s a good alternative. If someone is a legal US citizen, and they or their parents were from Mexico, we should call them “Americans”. If they are not legal US citizens, they should be called “Mexicans”, assuming they are Mexican citizens, or “Guatemalans”, etc.

By doing this, it clarifies things. These people are not US citizens, and they do not have legal papers to visit or have an extended stay in the United States.

As such, the US should provide them nothing other than deportation, any more than we should give money to their countrymen in their country. If they have taken services and goods from us they are not entitled to, as foreigners, we can choose to either bill them for the costs, or deport them and take the loss.

In either case, the most they should be afforded is the courtesy that we would afford any foreigner visiting the US who has broken our laws.

Are they “illegal aliens”? Technically, yes. But they are “citizens of Mexico”, and as such, need repatriation.

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

Fine Jose. I’ll stick with “illegal democrats” then. That eliminates the issue with the word, eh?