There’s been some debate over whether the term “illegal immigrant” should be retired. I think it should, largely because the bare “illegal” is used as a slur and the longer “illegal immigrant” doesn’t reliably pick out a specific class of people or what’s wrong with their legal status. The U.S. government treats people very differently depending on the specifics of how they got here.
This isn’t just fun with intensions and extensions; it’s significant to the debate. Around four million people who are here unlawfully entered legally; they’re people who could get visas and later violated the terms of them. They are people with slightly more options, because in some cases having overstayed a visa isn’t a bar to becoming a permanent resident from within the country. Some estimated number (anywhere from about two to about 30 million, depending on who you ask; having entered without inspection means no one counted you coming in) are people who came in by sneaking in. Every legal option for them that’s in place now requires them to leave the country first, and usually wait out a ban of ten years.
So, yeah, ditch “illegal” in favor of using words that actually have some meaning. And some cases are heartwarming (and, I’ll admit, odd, in that impersonating an American citizen is about the quickest way to get a lifetime, non-waiverable ban; but there’s about a zillion exceptions in immigration law and she may have very well fallen into one of them.)
The Edge of the American West 
15 comments
October 13, 2010 at 4:10 am
Dave
So, would ‘persons with no right of abode’ cut it. ‘Non-regularized current residents’? Can’t help thinking you’re stuck somewhere between a skirmish in the PC Wars and the Euphemism Treadmill here. E.g. “Asylum Seeker” is now a dirty word in the UK immigration “debate”.
October 13, 2010 at 6:04 am
Anderson
“Differently visaed.”
October 13, 2010 at 8:34 am
Jennifer
I agree with Dave – if you’re here illegally you’re here illegally regardless of whether you initially entered legally with a visa and then overstayed your welcome or snuck in. I wonder how many people apply for a visa and come to the US intending never to leave when their visa expires!?!? Probably more than we care to know. I don’t feel that these “immigrants” are any better than those that are never “counted coming in”! You can change the terminology but that doesn’t change what people are doing or the fact that it is illegal. Remember that today’s PC term will almost always be tomorrow’s “slur”. And, more importantly, the fact that we are trying to devise different terminology for one humungous problem is a major indicator that this problem has escalated for way too long and something drastic needs to fix it!!
October 13, 2010 at 8:58 am
dana
I think you read a different post than the one I wrote if you think I’m arguing for new euphemisms. I also recognize that we commonly distinguish between infractions of the law, misdemeanors, and felonies. I don’t call describing a parking ticket as an “infraction” a euphemism, just being accurate instead of screaming about ILLEGAL CRIMINAL FELON PARKING.
There are different solutions for different kinds of immigration problems, and it’s not helpful, to my mind, to count the unfortunate widow of an American serviceman who (until very, very recently) was “illegal” because her green card hadn’t been processed before his death in the same category as the victim of trafficking or someone who crossed the border illegally versus someone who was caught out of status on a tourist visa when the volcano blew up a few months ago.
October 13, 2010 at 9:09 am
dave
Jennifer’s point is not mine. But it does rather illustrate that your assertion that these things aren’t ‘euphemisms’ is naive. If others regard them as an attempt to obfuscate what they see as a clear-cut issue, the combat is launched, regardless of your intent.
October 13, 2010 at 9:27 am
dana
I understand “euphemism” to be a term to that puts a good face on something by obscuring details. I take myself to be proposing the opposite.
If they see it as a clear-cut issue, then I submit they’re wrong, according to how the law currently treats the different infractions.
October 13, 2010 at 9:51 am
dana
And to be clear, I don’t think that renaming the problem will make it go away; I do think it increases the odds of getting a effective solution.
October 13, 2010 at 10:23 am
politicalfootball
Me, I’ve got no problem with euphemism, political correctness or other attempts to affect perception by changing the acceptable description for a phenomenon.
Yes, I mock “death tax,” but I also envy it. Would that our side had such message discipline!
So yeah, I’d like a more sympathetic description of folks who enter the country by sneaking in, because I’d like to see them treated more sympathetically as a matter of public policy. But I don’t see a specific proposal here.
Is “undocumented immigrant” what you’d like to see? That’s what the National Association of Hispanic Journalists offers. Doesn’t seem as catchy as “death tax,” though.
October 13, 2010 at 10:56 am
David
The word “undocumented” also describes me when I don’t have my “papiere” with me. Fortunately I’m not an “olive skinned guy,” as Jeff Goldblum claims for himself, so I’m not concerned about being stopped with a demand to produce them.
October 13, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Matt Lister
You could do worse than use “undocumented (or perhaps irregular) migrant” for people who enter without inspection (that’s a term used a lot in the law, and such people are often called “EWIs” in the business). It’s not just not having your papers with you or having them up to date, but that your migration was not documented or not of the “regular” form. Others can be called “visa over-stayers”, as that’s what they are. Often, though, there’s good reason to want to talk about the groups together, and perhaps “irregular migrant” is best for that.
(I don’t think I’ve heard anyone sane suggest that there are now or ever were at a particular time 30 million people in the US who entered without inspection, or even that the total number of irregular migrants at a particular time was or is that high. That might plausibly be a number who have _ever_ entered w/o inspection or done so over the last X number of years, but large number return home all the time, that’s nearly 3 times the sane numbers for the total irregular population one hears from sane people. I don’t doubt that insane or deeply confused people might say something like that, though.)
October 13, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Anderson
“Border-crashers.”
October 13, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Jessica
The migrants are friendly, I know because I am in Houston. Why can’t the borders be merged so the people can share? If we wanted, we could become the country of the future.
October 13, 2010 at 7:27 pm
dana
EWI would work, as would “irregular migrant.” “Overstays” or “out of status” works for almost everyone else. I didn’t propose a term because I think the different categories are sufficiently distinct that I’d rather people explain what exactly they’re worried about.
October 13, 2010 at 7:52 pm
chingona
An Arizona newspaper I once worked for had a big search for a new term. Illegal alien and undocumented immigrant are partisan terms. Illegal immigrant is both less-PC than undocumented and less overtly offensive than illegal alien. It was pointed out that immigrants intend to stay. That’s not the case with many migrant workers. But some of them do intend to stay, so migrant was out too. Undocumented is inaccurate in that many of them have documents – just not the appropriate ones for their situation.
Eventually, they settled on the ungainly “illegal entrant,” for which the newspaper was roundly mocked by the general public. When we got tired of writing illegal entrant over and over, we used border-crosser to mix it up. (In fairness, we wrote a lot about actual border crossing, as well as the immigration situation in general.)
Which is to say, uh, good luck with this.
October 17, 2010 at 7:58 am
TF Smith
“Furriner” is taken, I take it?