Hacker News Reader

Comment by talmand | Hacker News Reader

Yes, changing illegal to undocumented is just a language tactic to downplay the issue.

I'm not sure it works that way because any negativity the change was likely to alter just gets transferred to the new word.

View on HN

The reason for the word change is because it is conceptually wrong

The action of being in the country might be unlawful, but the person himself is not unlawful. The use of "undocumented" instead of any other word not a "tactic to downplay the issue", instead it express the lack of legal residence status is due to not been able to obtain documents to correct its residence status

If we transfer the characteristic of the action to be a characteristic of the person then if you have drive above the speed limit, you are an illegal driver; and so on

But don't worry, I am pretty sure ICE was waiting for him outside the court

I disagree. They are an immigrant to the country and they entered illegally, therefore they are an illegal immigrant. I fail to see how that's an inaccurate description.

Switching from illegal to undocumented can be attributed to the effort to downplay such people's involvement in what is essentially a crime. I have read the reasoning behind such a change, that illegal criminalizes the person and not their actions. Which seems to be what you are saying. But the term does in fact name their actions, immigrating illegally, and not just the person. The person committed an illegal act, it is not unwarranted to name them as such. It is simply an attempt to separate the person from the action, which you cannot since the person committed the action.

As for your example. I would agree that in some instances such a person could be described as an illegal driver. Not for a minor offense, but if they committed an act that the law then barred them from operating a motor vehicle then they would indeed be an illegal driver if they later drive. Much like an immigrant is barred from entering the country outside of legal means.

To reverse your logic, bank robbers can just be described as undocumented withdrawers. But somehow that doesn't seem to make sense.

I'm personally okay with the full term "illegal immigrants" - which is not to say that the situation isn't more complicated and nuanced than most other crimes, but I tend to be suspicious of euphemisms like "undocumented".

However, the far right tends to shorten it to "illegals", which I find unacceptably pejorative.

How many bank robbers have you heard called illegal withdrawers?

The rational for this difference is sound, but I don't see this happening because the public decided undocumented was a better word then illegal for the direct object. More likely the language would adapt and allow the "incorrect" usage, for the same reason we're losing our irregular verbs.

We don't refer to bank robbers as illegal withdrawers, but we do refer to them as felons -- a person who has committed a felony. We attach the action to the person because shouldn't a person be defined by their actions?

People can have many titles. A felon can also be a father, a loving husband, a liar, etc. But why should a person who has immigrated illegally not have the title of "illegal immigrant" among their list?

By labeling them "bank robbers" you are criminalizing the person and not the action. That is inherently unfair and you should apologize to these affected people for your insensitive remarks.

The reasoning is sound and a quick look around at the groups who have been pushing the change in language, for right or wrong, shows that many of them use that very reasoning. To downplay the issue.

The funny thing about all this is I had a similar thread happening today about the proper use of the description "illegal firearm".

A person's actions should (and does, in my opinion) define them. Society does this all the time. A person who breaks the law and commits felonies has the title of felon. A person who does charity work has the title of philanthropist. A person who regularly speeds and does not pay attention to the road is a reckless driver.

One can do many things and thus have many titles, but I fail to see why a person who immigrates illegally should not have the title of illegal immigrant.

That's kind of a silly argument. If you go and kill people, you're called a murder. If you steal from someone you're a robber.

If you do not have legal status in the US, you are in the country illegally, thus you are an illegal immigrant.

But the term is "illegal immigrant" and denotes a person that illegally entered or resides in a country. Changing it to "undocumented immigrant" makes it sound like a simple absence of documentation due to a procedural fault, but that's not the issue. Generally they entered illegally and in cases where they stay past a visa, that action is also illegal.

The term is in fact 'alien'. Strictly speaking the law refers to 'illegal immigration' as a proscribed activity, but it's not extended to individuals, all of whom are classified as aliens (hence the old-fashioned term 'illegal alien,' which is no longer current since the passage of IIRIRA in 1994 but still exists in many older official documents. http://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary

I'm personally OK with 'illegal immigrant,' but when you say a person is illegal (qua 'illegals') then that comes across as an implicit denial of legal personhood. This might seem pedantic, but the US constitution already distinguishes between rights of citizens and of persons in general, while many people who object to illegal immigration would like to deny the rights to accrue to all persons to those who have immigrated illegally, including myself. Thus, the term has become somewhat loaded to a greater degree than the authors of the current law may have intended.

I think all people have rights, illegal immigrant or not. I also happen to think if you are here illegally you should be deported and required to immigrate legally. No ill will involved. I don't think of immigrants as sub-standard and anything even remotely like that (as an unfortunately large group of people think). Most of the population of the US is immigrants, strictly speaking.

As for terminology, IANAL. From my viewpoint if you illegally immigrate, through action or inaction, then you are an illegal immigrant. I've never much liked the term alien as it has also been used to describe little green men and such.

I think taking issue with calling a person illegal is splitting hairs, but I'll go along. The person isn't illegal, but their residency status is illegal.

And my last point, to reiterate on what I said earlier, I have no ill will towards illegal immigrants and know they have basic rights. I would expect they get treated fairly under our laws (well, as fair as out laws can be). That being said, they are not here legally and I would expect that changes the legal avenues available to them.

You can argue that "undocumented immigrant" doesn't capture the actual meaning, but that doesn't make jorgeleo's point any less valid: the action is illegal, not the person.

But the person committed the action, so it doesn't seem unfair for the description to describe both. Much like how we use various descriptions to describe people based on their actions.

Well, I'd argue that the person is in fact illegal in the sense that they are there illegally.

What do you mean the person himself is not unlawful? The presence of that person in this country is illegal which may be used as an adjective. That person is also an immigrant which is a noun. That person is "an illegal immigrant". Am I incorrect?

Pffft, you probably think of "retarded" as some sort of vicious insult too.

I reread my post to try to understand what you mean, but alas, I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

"Retarded", like "undocumented" of immigrants, originated as a euphemism meant to protect the people so labeled from the hurtful term in ordinary use for them (here, "stupid"). As you point out, it turned out not to be all that protective.

I understand this response, but can't still see how that relates to how you stated your first response.

My first response is phrased as an argument against your point, using what I thought was a well-known example that strongly supports your point. It's facetious.

I've read of a philosopher who made the argument, "the theory of evolution can't be true, because if it were true, that would imply that someone could make a lot of money by replicating images of Elvis Presley." My comment has the same structure, but I'm already aware that the evidence directly contradicts the stated point. So "your theory of terms having negative valence based on their meaning (instead of arbitrarily) is incorrect, as can be seen by how the slow of wit gained new respect from society when the socially-enlightened term 'retarded' replaced the old, denigratory 'stupid'. According to your model, 'retarded' would be an insult because of its negative meaning."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com