Despite the obvious free speech concerns, UCLA’s undergraduate student government unanimously passed a resolution last week to declare that any use of the term “illegal immigrant” is now deemed racist and offensive. It is an example of how anti-discrimination policies are cutting deeply into free speech. Millions of people in this country are indeed here illegally. While many would prefer to use “undocumented workers,” many others believe that these individuals are illegal by definition and should not be allowed to circumvent immigration laws. It is a worthy debate with arguments on both sides. However, I am very uncomfortable with students (who historically have been voiced for free speech) declaring that use of this descriptive term is now considered racist or prejudicial.
The resolution, entitled “Drop the I-Word,” stated:
“[W]e are aware that certain racially derogatory language used in media, political discourse and other institutional settings has historically bolstered the foundation for racially harmful actions, including racial profiling practices, punitive policies targeting socially marginalized groups, hate crimes and violence . . . the use of the term illegals (the ‘I-word’) and its derivatives when referring to people dehumanizes and divides communities, contributing to punitive and discriminatory actions aimed primarily at immigrants and communities of color . . . undocumented students at UCLA and across the UC have expressed their concerns and fear with the recent appointment of Janet Napolitano, former US Secretary of Homeland Security, as the new University of California President…”
The students also declared “Journalists have an obligation to use neutral language that promotes democratic dialogue and upholds professional ethics and standards, and the term illegals is incorrect and inaccurate usage, as well as unfair and offensive.” Some news organizations have agreed not to use the term while others have objected that the status of many of these individuals is by statute “illegal.”
My concern is that such declarations chill speech by declaring certain words to be de facto racist or prejudicial. We have seen recently students leading fights to limit speech, including the recently successful campaign of Jewish French students to punish people for speech on the Internet. While many prefer to use “undocumented workers,” others find that description as inaccurate and want to refer to the illegal status of the individuals as lacking entry papers or permission to remain in the country.
What do you think?
omg, David and I are on the same side on this!
The students are right, “illegal immigrant” is racist and discriminatory. People are not “illegal”. Their status may be illegal if they haven’t gone through channels for “proper” documentation, but they are not illegal anything. Considering the persona as “illegal” is degrading and limits their entire being to their status. They are, as people, far more than their residency status.
bettykath I agree that possibly from a grammatical point of view using illegal as a noun is not correct. So instead I propose what they really are which is illegal immigrants since they do not have permission to be residents here. That applies to ALL illegal immigrants since 40% of them have enough documents to choke a horse and only a fool would think that they are undocumented. Or better yet, call them suspected crooks since illegal entry is a crime. At least it would not apply to the decent folks who came here legally, but overstayed their visas. So If they illegally entered, they cannot be slandered any more than any person who commits a crime can be slandered for describing their crime.
Well, I think the UCLA Student Gov. at least ought to provide “Equal Time” and ban “racist” and “redneck”, too. Which, would pretty well shut down their political speech in toto. Because, without two words. they wouldn’t have anything to say.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
blhlls,
**I think they’re really trying to get at a different problem than the one they are actually reaching **
What certain people in the govt pushing for immigration reform are in part after in a national registration & tracking system for everyone of us not just Mexicans.
The state of Oklahoma has a law that any piece of new legislation can only deal with one issue.
It’s not that way at the Federal level, they pile on all kinds of different crap inside those bills that are mostly hidden from the public at large.
ie: Obamacare
Here is a problem we have developed in this country. We cannot use words that reflect what is going on because someone will be offended. (I am not talking about the typical racial slurs. But that discussion is for another day.) if a person comes into this country without following the proper legal procedure, his/her immigration is illegal. He is an immigrant and his immigration is illegal thus he is an illegal immigrant. Of course some have taken this phrase and used it inappropriately but it does reflect what is going on. Of course the human as a human being is “not illegal” but his status as an immigrant is, in fact, illegal.
My other concern about this kind of “rule” is that it erodes free speech.
David,
The US already has a legal way for immigration.
I, as one of approx 300 million people of the USA, “We the People”, own my One Share/One Stake of USA Inc!!!!!!!!!!
Each of us Own One Share!
Shareholders, or as we are Stakeholders, we are Owed our Profit.
Now I hate it the Queen of England’s BP destroyed My Gulf of Mexico.
But I Insist I get My One Share of the Profits from the Oil/Gas from the Gulf & the rest of the US’s profit’s from Our Resources.
Yes, the Govt can tax it all back or Wallst can Steal it from us later, but I Demand a full accounting of those profits & a Check made out the Me directly for My Fair Share & everyone should demand their share.
To do otherwise is to just make us all Slaves/Serfs that are nothing more then Debt Donkey’s servicing Royalty.
Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.
I think they’re really trying to get at a different problem than the one they are actually reaching. It is the all too common assumption that those who are from, or whose families are from, central or south america have entered the country illegal that is racist. I’m from the UK, but it never seems to occur to anyone that I might have entered the country illegally. Even if those making race-based assumptions in applying the descriptive label stop using that particular phrase, the new descriptive phrase will simply be applied on the basis of race by those making that assumption.
In any event, “undocumented” isn’t accurate, so hardly an improvement. Some professor, who I should credit but I don’t recall where I got the information, suggested “unauthorized migrant.”
I do agree that the student newspaper should not do anything to infringe upon free speech, but the term illegal aliens has taken on a new meaning and is used by some as a derogatory term, without knowing the actual status of the party or parties being discussed. I would like to know how any of us really know if our relatives came here legally? Have we all checked the records to see our relative coming in legally and later becoming a citizen?
I agree with Gene that the reason most illegal aliens cross a border is for employment and a better life. Many times the employer looks the other way so that they can pay this person sub-standard salaries. The illegal employers need to go to jail.
rafflw you are breaking the party line again. When the ICE and Obama arrested some employers, and shut down their crooked business the pro-illegals raised holy hell about that. Watch yourself, you obvious racist.
If US companies say they can’t find legal US workers let them hire “Economic Refugees” but force them to report them, pay 3 times the minimum wage & seize their entire operation if they get caught not complying.
Oky1 wrote: “force them to report them, pay 3 times the minimum wage & seize their entire operation if they get caught not complying.”
I say get rid of the minimum wage and let people work for whatever the employer and worker agree upon. No need to make employers report the workers. Fix the laws so people who are able to come here can have a work visa and path to citizenship if desired.
Since it’s supposed we can no longer use Prez Ike’s phrase Wet Back,
And they wish we no longer use the phrase Illegal Alien or Illegal immigrant, I suggest we call them as they are “Economic Refugees”
We should be calling on congress to help these Economic Refugees by arming & training them to go back to Mexico & take their nation back from the lunatic sociopath mafia Wallst Bank/Insurance Trash!
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Under the Rule of Law, “illegal immigrant” is a non-normative descriptor, but for those who Rule by Law it is a pejorative to incite action.
First Amendment trumps
Arizona has a law the intent of which is to punish businesses that hire illegal aliens, but in practice it has been largely ineffective. (I’ve read that the law was then-Gov and former Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano’s idea. The idea was then adopted by other democrats because they thought the republicans were too beholden to business and so would never approve the law, but the dems were wrong.)
From Martinez v Regents (9/15/08):
Defendants prefer the term “undocumented immigrants.” However, defendants do not cite any authoritative definition of the term and do not support their assertion that the terms “undocumented immigrant” and “illegal alien” are interchangeable. We consider the term “illegal alien” less ambiguous. Thus, under federal law, an “alien” is “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3).) A “national of the United States” means a U.S. citizen or a noncitizen who owes permanent allegiance to the United States. (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22).) Under federal law, “immigrant” means every alien except those classified by federal law as nonimmigrant aliens. (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15).) “Nonimmigrant aliens” are, in general, temporary visitors to the United States, such as diplomats and students who have no intention of abandoning their residence in a foreign country. (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F), (G); Elkins v. Moreno (1978) 435 U.S. 647, 664-665 [55 L.Ed.2d 614, 627-628] [under pre-1996 law, held the question whether nonimmigrant aliens could become domiciliaries of Maryland for purposes of in-state college tuition was a matter of state law].) The federal statutes at issue in this appeal refer to “alien[s] who [are] not lawfully present in the United States.” (8 U.S.C. §§ 1621(d), 1623.) In place of the cumbersome phrase “alien[s] who [are] not lawfully present,” we shall use the term “illegal aliens.”
Gene agreed.
The big and the small. Reminds me of the comments on the post about Deen, racists have no problem hiring African americans to look after their children, too many wealthy, and not so wealthy, have no problem hiring cheap labor (read “illegals”) to watch over their kids.
leejcaroll,
“I notice from the comments so fra no one has a word to say about the employers who hire these folk.”
They should be penalized out of business. They only do so to avoid paying minimum/fair wages and taxes. We need business in this country. We don’t need that kind of business.
And I’m really tired of that “my ancestors” crap. Welcome to 21st Century America, and leave that 17th, 18th, and 19th century crap behind.
I’m sure about 99 and 44/100ths percent of the lib-tards screaming amnesty would have a stroke if someone cut in line in front of them at Whole Foods.
This is how a country goes down. This generation has learned that certain speech should be prohibited. The next will take it one step further and as the commercial used to go and so on and so on and so on……
(as to the illegal status, I notice from the comments so fra no one has a word to say about the employers who hire these folk. No jobs for them then there is no reason to come here illegally.)
Guess I’ll just start referring to them as “1325’s” (8 USC 1325)…
Californians like numbers, like 187 (CA Penal Code Section 187 for homicide).