This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.

« Judge Overturns CA Ban on Gay Marriage | Main | Re: Obscene Wealth »

March 14, 2005

Terms of the Debate

Question: Do we label someone who drives without a license an "illegal driver?" Do we call someone who has a forged, or borrowed license, an "illegal driver"? Or do we label them as “unlicensed drivers”? I suggest that most refer to these criminals, who show no regard for our rule of law, as unlicensed drivers. After all, driving, like citizenship or a green card for the foreign born, is a privilege, not a right.

The term “illegal alien” is an oft-used semantic tool and effective fomenting agent in the illegal immigration policy debate, but it is really argumentum ad hominem. I hope to avoid coloring the substantive issues with this type of invective and name calling in my series. (Read this article for more on the semantics debate.)

Like the unlicensed driver, an immigrant who has entered this country without the proper documents is an undocumented immigrant. But as pointed out to me by Dr. Wayne Cornelius, Director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD), "undocumented" is a misnomer. He wrote in an e-mail, "A large majority of "undocumented" migrants actually carry some type of ID document that is either purchased (falsified doc) or borrowed from friends or relatives (valid doc)." Dr. Cornelius prefers "unauthorized."

Because "unauthorized" covers both the undocumented immigrants and those immigrants with falsified documents, I will adopt Dr. Cornelius's nomenclature for this series. With the terms of the debate established, I hope we can engage in a thought provoking and soul searching discussion of this important issue.

Posted by Rick at March 14, 2005 05:15 PM

Trackback Pings

Comments

Is a bank robbery an "undocumented withdrawal"?

Posted by: oxymoron at March 14, 2005 06:39 PM

Is a bank robbery an "undocumented withdrawal"?

Hah!

I loathe the semantic dodge "undocumented". It suggests that a person (oops!) forgot to pick up certain tedious paperwork. No! Illegal is illegal. Let's stop using devious phrasing.

Posted by: John at March 14, 2005 07:20 PM

I am thinking about this, Rick. You'll see on my latest post about this that I tried to use a different label. The problem is, the very presence of these people in the USA is illegal. To call them "undocumented" is a little too cute for me, and to call them "unauthorized" seems misleading as to the nature of their status. Analogizing, to call trespasser an "unauthorized entrant" seems similarly to soften the nature of the person's acts. (This is pretty hard-core reasoning from a guy like me who's been accused of being "squishy" on immigration issues.)

I'll keep thinking about it!

Lowell

Posted by: The Hedgehog at March 14, 2005 08:30 PM

The problem with this semantic argument is that it's based on picking and choosing specific examples -- unlicensed drivers, for example.

We have a lot of terms for people who break the law in various ways, based on exactly how they're breaking the law. In this case, the common terminology is "illegal immigrant", and most people understand exactly what that means -- it's someone who has bypassed the legal means of entry into this country.

Changing the terminology to "undocumented" makes it sound like a much more trivial offense, like "oops, I forgot to fill out the paperwork." Changing it to "unauthorized" seems to replace one perfectly good term with an exactly equivalent term fewer people are familiar with, and that only serves to confuse the issue.

Really, what's the point here? You claim "illegal immigrant" is an ad-hominem term (I don't buy that) and then you claim "unauthorized immigrant" is better (I don't buy that either.) Maybe you shouldn't worry so much about terminology... get to the substance, and if the terminology becomes a problem, let's deal with it when we come to that point.

Posted by: LotharBot at March 14, 2005 09:11 PM

These are all great comments. If "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" didn't carry with it, what I see is clearly racist baggage (not saying all who use the terms are racists or mean it to be racist), I would use it like I would use "trespasser."

The point of my post is that the term itself has become a rhetorical tool and is often ad hominem. LotharBot, you don't buy it - fine - but I encourage you, like Hugh Hewitt has, to read the comment sections of prominent blogs who have touched on the subject. It's insane and definitely not something God-fearing people should be part of.

So, I prefer to use unauthorized, you can use illegal - I won't delete your comment or anything :-). I just don't want to be associated with the racist xenophobic loons.

Posted by: Rick Brady at March 15, 2005 12:31 AM

Huh... I've never run in to that sort of discussion. Of course, I happen to be the Evil Moderator of DOOM over at the place where we're likely to have that sort of discussion, and the only blatant racist we've ever had got his stuff deleted pretty much on the spot. I guess I'm just used to moderated discussion in a community that doesn't tolerate a lot of bull.

I can appreciate the desire to define new terms in order to avoid negative association with other terms, but in my experience, it's not likely to help matters. Anybody who's paying attention will pick up on racism or lack thereof just from the context in which you use the term, and people who aren't paying attention will make assumptions no matter what you say. Because of that, I find it works best to just stick with the most descriptive term ("illegal") and simply be clear about what you're talking about.

But, like I said, I'm used to a community that doesn't tolerate a lot of BS, so maybe I'm a bit spoiled.

Posted by: LotharBot at March 15, 2005 05:58 PM

If the documents are fraudulent (which also applies to the “borrowed ID), how does this improve their status as “illegal”? Seems like a “difference” without a difference to it. Both employers and their illegal workers who ignore the law only create scofflaw attitudes that subvert the standards that undergird society. We need to do better.

Posted by: RLG at March 15, 2005 10:47 PM