Why 'illegal immigrant' is a slur (ridiculous yet with interesting history)

[alp227]

Editor's note: Charles Garcia, who has served in the administrations of four presidents, of both parties, is the CEO of Garcia Trujillo, a business focused on the Hispanic market. He was named in the book "Hispanics in the USA: Making History" as one of 14 Hispanic role models for the nation. Follow him on Twitter: @charlespgarcia

Last month's Supreme Court decision in the landmark Arizona immigration case was groundbreaking for what it omitted: the words "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens," except when quoting other sources. The court's nonjudgmental language established a humanistic approach to our current restructuring of immigration policy.

(...)

In this country, there is still a presumption of innocence that requires a jury to convict someone of a crime. If you don't pay your taxes, are you an illegal? What if you get a speeding ticket? A murder conviction? No. You're still not an illegal. Even alleged terrorists and child molesters aren't labeled illegals.

(...)

The term "illegal immigrant" was first used in 1939 as a slur by the British toward Jews who were fleeing the Nazis and entering Palestine without authorization. Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel aptly said that "no human being is illegal."

(...)

As (Justice Anthony) Kennedy explained, removal of an unauthorized migrant is a civil matter where even if the person is out of status, federal officials have wide discretion to determine whether deportation makes sense. For example, if an unauthorized person is trying to support his family by working or has "children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service," officials may let him stay. Also, if individuals or their families might be politically persecuted or harmed upon return to their country of origin, they may also remain in the United States.

(...)

In Luntz's book "Words That Work," Appendix B lists "The 21 Political Words and Phrases You Should Never Say Again." For example, destroy "undocumented worker" and instead say "illegal immigrant," because "the label" you use "determines the attitudes people have toward them."

And the poison is effective. Surely it's no coincidence that in 2010, hate crimes against Latinos made up 66% of the violence based on ethnicity, up from 45% in 2009, according to the FBI.

full: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/opinion/garcia-illegal-immigrants/index.html

Hmm. Some interesting facts such as "illegal immigrant" originally being an anti-semitic slur, but Garcia's conclusion sounds overboard.

[PoliticAverse]

1. So it's "unauthorized migrant" then ? n/t

[Igel]

6. Hardly.

Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor, would say that "no human being is unauthorized."

Then again, no human being is Holocaust, either, which is what she'd have to argue "Holocaust survivor" means: "a Holocaust person who survives." Simplistic grammar for simplistic people.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Not everyone here illegally intends to immigrate.

Everyone here illegally is an alien, however.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. I, for one, agree with Garcia and hope the term is in the dustbin.

[nykym]

4. Luntz's book would make

an ideal "Republican Phrase of the Day" for a progressive news show.
Start with the first words that work pointing out why they work and who uses them.
If done often enough it may change the discussion.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. "Ridiculous" is right.

[Igel]

7. "Illegal immigrant" first attested in 1939?

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=i&p=3 shows it from 1892 in American English, 1887 as "illegal immigration".

Now we know that CNN can't Google--or is so blinded by the truth of their beliefs and so tempted by showing themself right that it has no need of accuracy.


As for "illegal immigrant" being an anti-Semitic slur, even if the first use was as (wrongly) indicated, please don't fall for the historical fallacy. How a word was used historically has great importance in reading historical documents and writings based on them. It has no import for what a word means today.

For example, when I say "I'm starving" I don't mean I'm dying, just that I'm deprived of food and it's serious (or hyperbolic). "He's been starved" means that he's emaciated--if I mean he's dead I really have to say, "He's been starved to death." Yet the Old English predecessor of "starve" meant what sterben means in German: To die.

When I speak of "lord" I don't mean the person who holds the bread for the work crew. When I say "French" I don't mean a Germanic dialect or German tribesman any more than when I say "vandal."

People suddenly go language-stupid when it comes to advocacy. We are constantly and consistently amused by their reasoning and claims.

Of course, until the 18th century "amused" primarily meant "cheated" or "deceived." But then again, as native speakers of English we all already knew that.