Part I: Call it by the rightful name - ’illegal alien’.


http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=9283

The law: US Code Title 8, Chapter 12, subchapter I section 1101 & subchapter II section 1325, defining improper entry to the US without inspection by an immigration officer as a crime. (New rhetoric from illegal-immigration advocates says "it's not a crime to enter the US illegally." That's nonsense; it's both a civil and criminal violation of US immigration laws.) The immigration officer verifies the "visa" that insures the entrant is free of contagious diseases, is not a convicted criminal, can support himself financially, and does not threaten Americans' safety and security.

Immigrant: an individual who has received permission to enter and permanently reside in the US. The written permission document issued by the US government to the immigrant after successfully completing required health tests, financial checks, and criminal investigations is called a visa.

Alien: an individual in the US who is not a US citizen. After entering the US, the "immigrant" becomes an alien.

Illegal alien: Anyone in the US in violation of the law. The illegal alien has intentionally chosen to violate the law and lacks the evidence VISA that they have observed all US laws in entering and remaining in the country.

Most illegal aliens enter via the US-Mexico border, either alone or with a smuggler. Other illegal aliens entered the US legally under a student, tourist or other temporary visa (promising to leave at the end of their "visit") and chose to remain after their visa expired. When the temporary visitor chose to "overstay" their visa, they became an illegal alien. Their original "legal" entry doesn't give them upgraded status from the more common illegal border-crosser.

Both are illegal aliens, both are violating US immigration laws, and both are subject to deportation.

Sounds pretty straightforward so far, and it actually is.

The "confusion" comes from politicians and their allies who cry "the immigration issue is very complex." It's nothing of the kind.

What's "complex" is their strategy for convincing law-abiding American citizens and taxpayers that willful violators of US immigration law should be rewarded with legal status and "perks" paid by citizens' tax dollars. These politicians and their special-interest lobbies deeply resent Americans who express their outrage over illegal immigration, and are desperate to stop public debate on immigration policy. They want to convince you that the issue is so "complex" that you, a simple American voter, will never understand it, throw up your hands in frustration, and leave the resolution to mass immigration lobbies and the politicians they control with campaign donations.

The "moving target" has always been a most effective tool, adding new ambiguous phrases to replace the clear, legal and straightforward terms listed above. By constantly adopting new deceptive terms in the name of "political correctness" and "sensitivity," they hope to confuse rather than clarify. The "moving target" succeeds when the public spends more time and effort in futile attempts to keep track of the endless parade of new "hype" than education on the actual issues.


If - ah - we let them in - they will vote!
Anyone using the following terms is an "immigration reform" scam artist:


"undocumented persons" - removing "illegal" masks that the alien is a lawbreaker and sounds so much better!

"illegal immigrants" - an oxymoron. Immigrants obey US laws by applying for and receiving a visa to enter the US. How can someone who obeys the law be "illegal?" Just one more term to confuse voters.

"migrants" - irrelevant to the immigration debate. An immigrant isn't automatically a migrant. As well, a US citizen can be a migrant, totally removing them from the immigration issue.

That they intentionally use terms that confuse rather than clarify is automatically suspicious. They'll stop at nothing to stop public discussion of immigration issues. Those who insist on using clear and accurate terms will be intimidated with accusations of "racist," "xenophobic," "hate-mongers," "anti-immigrant," and "bigot" and the rest of their tired litany.

In their attempts to manipulate American immigration policy and Americans' opinions, Hispanic-rights groups like MALDEF and LaRaza have dictated that the term "illegal alien" is a "racial slur." Baloney! "Alien" and "illegal alien" are terms found in federal immigration law describing both the individual and the violation. Americans need not apologize for insisting that lawbreakers be called exactly what they are.

A recent "letters to the editor" column contained a new politically-correct euphemism for those who choose to violate our immigration laws: “unofficial immigrants." An obvious illegal alien advocate urged that US borders should remain open to “unofficial immigrants,� allowing them to “steal� taxpayer-funded services reserved for Americans. I was amazed that the newspaper printed my reply exposing as ridiculous his refusal to "call an illegal alien an illegal alien."


Does he leave his car unlocked, keys in the ignition, gas-tank on "F," for use by "unofficial drivers?"

Does he leave his house unlocked to enable easy access by "unofficial residents?"

Does he stock the refrigerator and pantry to feed "unofficial residents" while they're taking "unofficial posession" of his belongings?

Does he leave his wallet in public with credit cards available to "unofficial cardholders" who may want to use them? ?

When his bank is robbed, does he dismiss the loss of his money as an "unofficial withdrawal?"

The current non-enforcement of US immigration laws means we have no idea who enters the US. The illegal alien may intend to steal jobs, health care, education, housing, and welfare benefits or may be your garden-variety "unofficial terrorist."