“MIRROR MIRROR, ON THE WALL WHO’S THE DINKBAG OF US ALL?”

A person who overstayed their legal presence here has a short window of time in which to leave. If they don’t, their continued presence is ILLEGAL … and the fact that they’re trying to obtain some other kind of legal status doesn’t matter.

I for one, am sick and tired of these ILLEGAL ALIENS snubbing their nose at our immigration laws and the many other laws of this Country. If our Federal Government can not ENFORCE our immigration laws, and get these ILLEGAL ALIENS out of this Country, then let the States do it! One way or another, an end has to come to this illegal immigration, and not with AMNESTY! Amnesty will only encourage more ILLEGAL ALIENS to invade our Country and reward those who broke our laws and raped the American taxpayer in many ways…depressing our wages, taking our jobs, overwhelming our schools with their ILLEGAL ALIEN children, driving without a license or car insurance, all the crime from stolen identities to rape, drugs and everything else.

It’s time for ZERO TOLERENCE with these ILLEGAL ALIENS. It’s time for them get out of this Country and back in their own Country where they belong. When we get rid of the ILLEGAL ALIENS, we will get rid of all the problems that go with them. That is a fact!

So, we will just have to look for a more adequate term than that of “unauthorized alien/person” since it is not completely accurate.

It’s what distinguishes them from aliens who happen to be here *legally*. Who also exibit pluck and perserverance, but substantially less contempt for our laws.

Certainly many do fit this description. But many others do not. I suggest people read the Arizona Republic for accounts of how savagely the human smugglers, many of whom are not in the country legally, treat these people. The Republic has reported that this smuggling is a $1.6 to 1.7 billion per year business, which money must then be laundered.

In the abstract, I, like many others, applaud those who try to improve their condition, but the adverse consequences stemming from these illegal entries into the U.S. are too great (for me) to ignore (regardless of how those entering the country illegally are denominated).

Your comment illustrates precisely my objection to the term “illegal alien.” In your view, the unlawfulness of their residency within the borders of the U.S. is “the most crucial characteristic of the group in question.”

I believe that your view (even if shared by much of the voting public) is statist, immoral, and xenophobic.

Unauthorized aliens (to use a term no one has voiced serious objection to) are, as a group, notable for perseverance, entrepreneurship, the courage to flee repressive and corrupt states, and work ethic. (In this sense not unlike some of my–and probably your–own ancestors, who emigrated to the U.S. under more liberal laws.) I would appreciate any explanation of how the violation of an arbitrary and counter-productive law becomes “the most crucial characteristic” of the people you are referring to.

The objection isn’t that it’s cumbersome. The objection is that it deliberately elides the most crucial characteristic of the group in question: That they’re here ILLEGALLY. “Illegal alien” is no more cumbersome than “undocumented immigrant”, and perfectly describes the group in question: Aliens whose presence here is illegal.

The phrase “undocumented immigrant” is not meant to illuminate, but to obscure. I can understand your wanting to throw up a smoke screen, when public opinion is so strongly and persistently against you, but that’s all you’re doing, and you shouldn’t expect anybody to cooperate with you in your effort to confuse things.

“Yes we can…. pass compre immig reform. …. What is needed in the bill to get passed…. is 7 key principles… Americans support legal immigration. The concept should be to be pro-legal imigration and anti-illegal immigration.
1. illegal immigration is wrong! The goal must be to dramatically curtain future flows. And we have to use the words “illegal immigrants.” When we use “undocumenteds” (as democratics do) we convey to the people that we are not serious about “illegal aliens”. Americans won’t accept reform if the don’t believe the government is serious about it.
The public can smell when you are not serious about illegal immigration.
I have met with the pro-immigrant advocates and told them don’t say say “undocumented” say “illegal immigrant”.

“Undocumented immigrant” is NOT a cumbersome phrase.

And let’s tell it like it is: I’ve never heard anyone defend the pejorative use of “illegal alien” except those who “don’t want our country to become a third world country,” and who subscribe to all the other anti-immigrant myths perpetrated by the Center for Immigration Studies, the mouthpiece of FAIR, the richest and most persistent anti-immigrant lobbying group. Both FAIR and CIS were founded by John Tanton who has documented ties to white supremacist and hate groups. See Southern Poverty Law Center reports for some of Tanton’s pronouncements. And by the way, Numbers USA and at least a dozen other organizations are offshoots of FAIR with equally vicious anti-immigrant pronouncements. Let’s face it,86% of the voting American public favor humane and just immigration reform. We need an end to the myths and vitriol and violence. We need to learn how to live together as a nation. We need a workable solution to the broken immigration system which reflects our national values and moves us all forward together!

“Illegal alien” is just a common (and perfectly reasonable) euphonious neologism (apparently) derived from the rather awkward terms (“illegally-present alien, illegally-enter[ed] alien”) you suggested.

Your sciolistic* grammatical nitpicking seems to be nothing more than political barking and yapping.

*“Illegal” may even be used as a noun.

“Illegal alien” simply doesn’t make sense: how does the adjective “illegal” accurately modify the noun “alien”? An alien cannot be “legal” or “illegal,” because the word simply means “a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen ).”

This has been said ad nauseum, but I’ll say it again as the point evidently hasn’t gotten across: A person cannot be illegal; only her actions can be. So you would have to use something like “illegally-present alien” (for the visa overstayers) or “illegally-entering alien” (for the rest).

These are perfectly acceptable terms and I would be happy to see them become the standard vocabulary. They use English grammar properly by having the word “illegal” become an adverb (“illegally”) that modifies an adjective (“present”) or verb (“entering”), and the combined phrase then modifies the noun. An alien cannot be illegal, but she can be illegally-present in the U.S.

Unfortunately, you and your allies like the idea of derogating another human as being herself “illegal,” so grammatically sound terms won’t become common among you.

So “undocumented alien” is misleading; as others have pointed out, it’s a euphemism intended and utilized to confuse the issue.

If “illegal alien” seems too pejorative, substitute “invader.”

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/C054124.DOC

and the footnote

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.”

As JP notes, many of the people labeled “illegal immigrants” are not actually trying to relocate to the U.S. permanently, only to slip into the country, work for a while and make enough money to go back home. We’ve seen this in the large number who have left the U.S. during the recession, which is not the behavior one would expect for people who want to live in the U.S. permanently.

And typically, Brett ignores the significant number of people whose *entry* to the U.S. is legal — who come over with the approval of the government on tourist, student, temporary worker and other visas — and whose *continued presence* in the U.S. is what lacks a proper document. Often many of these people are in the process of obtaining such a document: an extension of the visa, a new kind of visa, asylum, etc.

Of course, if one intends to speak only of those who never had any documents, then “illegal entrant” seems to me the most precise term, just as “visa over-stayer” captures most of the rest.