Thread: Illegal immigration and the English Language

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4990449 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The illegal immigration debate and the English language
Conor Friedersdorf, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 01/11/2007 12:00:00 AM PST


The immigration debate sometimes reminds me of a Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald duet: You say illegal alien, I say undocumented worker. Let's call the whole thing off.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If King of English for a day, I'd invent a neutral term for those who unlawfully enter the United States. My subjects could eat cake, forget semantics and focus on the best way to fix our immigration policies.
In reality, the Modern Language Association is the body that issues decrees about the English language. Its delegate assembly, composed mostly of English professors, last week urged "that the phrase undocumented workers be used in place of the abusive term illegal aliens."

I'm tempted to defer to an august body of scholars who've spent years studying the English language. As Billy Shakespeare once wrote, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

It occurs to me,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
however, that "undocumented workers" is a strange substitute for "illegal aliens" since those who come here unlawfully aren't exclusively workers. Surely it doesn't make sense to call a 3-year-old child carried across the Rio Grande in her mother's arms an "undocumented worker."
Does the Modern Language Association really want me to call an unemployed gang member, an 85-year-old retiree and a federal prison inmate "undocumented workers" if they happen to be in the country illegally?

The term isn't even a good one for those who enter the country illegally and find jobs. Yes, they lack documents to work in the United States, and they're workers, but the same can be said for a factory worker in Mumbai, the president of Mexico and a guy born in Kansas City who lost his Social Security card. They're all "undocumented workers," though none are remotely relevant to the immigration debate.

The fact is that people who enter the country illegally are controversial because they came to the United States without permission, violating immigration laws in the process. Whether you think that's relatively unimportant, or that it justifies their immediate deportation, you can't escape the fact that their illegality is central to the immigration debate.

I object when they are simply called "illegals." It's dehumanizing to drop the noun, as though they aren't people. But it is appropriate and relevant to use "illegal" as an adjective to describe them.

So what about "illegal alien"?

The term is accurate, though I find it flawed. "Alien" seems to me overly legalistic, like calling someone a "legal guardian" rather than a "father." It isn't a word that seems suited to everyday usage, save when we refer to its other meaning, a creature from outer space.

That's why this column uses the term "illegal immigrant." It isn't without flaw. "Immigrant" typically refers to someone who comes to a country to take up permanent residence, whereas many who come to the United States illegally work for a while and return to their home country. But it seems to me the least imperfect term.

Unlike the Modern Language Association, I don't think "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" are inherently abusive terms. Sure, some people pronounce those words as epithets. But that's because they hate people who come here illegally, whatever they are called.

If the Modern Language Association got its way, and we all started using the term "undocumented worker," some people would begin pronouncing those words as epithets. New terms cannot make ugly sentiments disappear.

This column also uses a few other terms that readers are welcome to challenge. A border "fence" seems to me a flimsy locution for a 700-mile, double-layered behemoth. I call it a wall.

Though the term "wetback" was once common, this column regards it as an epithet unworthy of civilized conversation, and reprints it only to argue against its usage. It is undeniable that the term is offensive to many people, and I can't think of any argument for keeping it around.

I'm also reluctant to refer to those who favor amnesty for illegal immigrants, bilingual education and multiculturalism as "immigrant advocates." I don't doubt these people intend to help immigrants. On the other hand, there are plenty of immigrants who oppose illegal immigration, want their children taught in English and prefer a melting pot society to a multicultural one.

I haven't settled on a term better than "immigrant advocate." Any suggestions?


E-mail conor.friedersdorf@dailybulletin.com on any matter related to the language of the immigration debate. He will be posting about it all week at www.beyondbordersblog.com.

I haven't settled on a term better than "immigrant advocate." Any suggestions?

I don't know, how about "anti-American"?