Jeff Session's DOJ uses the Racist Term "Illegal" to Describe People.

[VermontKevin]

DOJ is Now Officially Using The ‘I-Word,’ and Advocates are Outraged
by Rachel Stockman | 11:00 am, July 31st, 2017

There has been shift in the language that the U.S. Department of Justice is using in its press releases, and it’s not sitting well with some. The DOJ, under the leadership of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has now begun using the term “illegal aliens” to refer to immigrants who do not have the proper paperwork to be in the United States. Last week, in announcing stricter rules for so-called sanctuary cities, a DOJ announcement said, “So-called ‘sanctuary’ policies make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes.”

The DOJ also sent this press release out last month:

Attorney General Sessions Speaks with Families of Victims Killed by Illegal Aliens
06/29/2017 12:00 AM EDT
Today Attorney General Jeff Sessions met with families who have lost loved ones because of crimes committed by illegal aliens. In the meeting they discussed the progress being made by the Trump Administration to strengthen laws protecting Americans from crimes committed by illegal aliens and, the need to keep working to ensure that federal immigration laws are enforced.
Advocates for immigration reform contend that the term “illegal” is a “racial slur” and believe it is dehumanizing. Instead, they prefer if the term “undocumented immigrant” is used.

“They’re using a legally inaccurate term that’s deployed to unfairly label and scapegoat people who are out of status due to a variety of systemic circumstances,” Xakota Espinoza from the Center for Racial Justice Innovation, told LawNewz.com

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/sessions-doj-is-now-using-term-illegal-aliens-and-advocates-are-outraged/

I think anyone who uses the term "illegal" is a racist.

[WinkyDink]

1. What does "out of status" mean? IOW, what is "status" in this regard?

[VermontKevin]

3. Immigration status. Your status can change. For example, you

may have come in legally at one point, and your circumstances changed.

[GulfCoast66]

34. If you come here legally and you status changes

Then you are no longer here legally. Your presence here is now illegal.

We are losing on all fronts and you want to fight over a word that is not by its nature pejorative.

There are a million miles between being humane to those undocumented already here with comprehensive immigration reform and no longer enforcing immigration law.

If we reach an agreement with the Republicans and get a law of our dreams deportation of any future unauthorized immigrants will be a big part of it.

[Baconator]

2. There are lots of things to get irritated with in this administration...

This is not one of them...

[VermontKevin]

4. Using racist terminology to dehumanize? I can multitask.

[lunasun]

5. Every Latino is an illegal to them I'm sure . They are just revving the hate words

[lunamagica]

6. Joy Reid doesn't allow anyone to use that word to describe people in her show. It's demeaning

dehumanizing and it a good reason to get much more than "irritated".

[Baconator]

7. Meh...

[VermontKevin]

9. When humans are "illegal" they are subject to lawlessness. Lynching. Summary execution, lack of

due process.

Treat people with dignity. Thinking that human beings can be "illegal" in and of themselves is what puts people in camps.

[Orrex]

20. That sure is one fucked up attitude you've got there

Good luck with the dehumanizing.

[VermontKevin]

8. No human is "illegal." It's just demeaning and disgusting.

[Igel]

10. But "undocumented"?

I mean, is an undocumented person still a person, and I'm not sure their host country has to document them--here legally or not.

I assumed "undocumented immigrant" isn't "a person who immigrates without documentation" but "an undocumented person who immigrates." That would put the onus on their country of origin, wouldn't it. And as soon as they have their matricula consular, if they're Mexican, by definition they're "documented immigrants." They can still be chucked out.

(Yes, it is word play, but it has to stick. If "illegal immigrant" means "an illegal person who immigrates" then an "undocumented immigrant" must mean "an undocumented person who immigrants. And let's not get into this like a "disqualified runner," "a disqualified person who runs" or a "bad singer" who can only be "a bad person who sings." Language games aren't argumentation.)

There's more of an argument with calling them "illegals". But if we don't play the dehumanizing game with them, don't play it with anybody. It's just bad form.

[VermontKevin]

11. I never used the word "undocumented." You may think it's "word play."

But humans are not "illegal."

[hughee99]

12. What term do you use for someone that migrated to another country by means other than those

allowed by the law?

[VermontKevin]

13. I start with "human".

Depending on the circumstances, the person's citizenship or legal status may or may not be relevant to the conversation at hand.

[hughee99]

14. If the person's legal status is relevant, how do you

Distinguish between a person who has followed all the appropriate immigration laws to move to this country, and a person who has not?

[VermontKevin]

17. You just answered your own question.

[hughee99]

18. No, I didn't. My question is what terminology do YOU use?

[Orrex]

21. By calling people "illegals," you specifically avoid calling them "people"

That's the point--deliberately opting to select a dehumanizing term rather than a term that recognizes their humanity.

It would be self-evidently absurd to call such immigrants "illegal people," because that term is so widely applicable as to be ridiculous. I downloaded a song a year ago without paying for it, so I am an "illegal person." You changed lanes without signaling a few weeks back, so you are an "illegal person." Jeff Sessions perjured himself before Congress, so he is definitely an "illegal person."

The terms "illegal immigrant" and "undocumented immigrant" are preferable to "an illegal," because the former two recognize that the person is a person.

Further, I have never seen nor heard of a non-brown person being identified as "an illegal." I invite you to provide examples of white immigrants so identified.


Frankly, it's not that difficult to understand.

[hughee99]

25. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

It sound like you think I'm defending the term "illegals", and I'm not.

I understand the argument against using the term "illegal", I'm a little less clear on why the OP doesn't use the term "undocumented" but since the OP has been clear on which terms they WON'T use, I'm interested to know which term they WILL use.

[Orrex]

28. Well, as I stated explicitly in my reply

The terms "illegal immigrant" and "undocumented immigrant" are preferable to "an illegal," because the former two recognize that the person is a person.

The OP seems to place an appropriate priority on recalling that the people question are people, and ultimately that recognition is more important than the soundbyte-friendly label we might apply to them.

I can't otherwise speak for the OP, but I would guess that any term that respects the people's humanity is generally preferable to a term that does not.

[hughee99]

29. And as I stated, I understand that argument and don't disagree with it.

Personally, I've been using the term "undocumented immigrants" but It doesn't really seem like it's accurate. If the OP has a better term, I'd like to know what it is, maybe it will be preferable to this and I'll start using that instead.

[Orrex]

31. I don't see why you're making such a big deal about it, honestly

You say that you get why "illegals" is offensive, and I believe you.

I have presented at least three other ways of referring to the people in question, and the OP has presented at least one. How many additional designations do you require?

And why?

[hughee99]

32. I'm not "making a big deal of it", I'm asking the OP what they think.

And I don't believe that's a question you can answer. Based on the OP's comments and your own, I'm not sure you two would agree.

[Orrex]

35. Your question sounds disingenuous

And rather like you are going out of your way to fail to understand.

Or maybe you're failing sincerely. Either way...

[hughee99]

37. I'm not failing to understand. The OP expressed THEIR views, and when asked pretty bluntly what

their preferred terminology is, they've been cagey about it.

You keep pretending like I don't understand why they don't like the term "illegal" but I've explained several times I understand why they don't like it AND I agree with them. If you want to discuss something that I don't understand, you seem to be trying to dissuade me from asking this question, and I don't really understand why. The OP clearly has strongly held views on this, enough that would bring them to start a thread anyway, do you believe there's something wrong with wanting more information on this from the OP? Do you believe my question is somehow disruptive? Is it out of line, offensive, or not in keeping with any of the rules on the DU? Do you think I'm "trolling" the OP by asking what their preferred term is?

[Orrex]

38. "You keep pretending like I don't understand why they don't like the term "illegal" Well, no.

As I noted explicitly in reply #31:

You say that you get why "illegals" is offensive, and I believe you.

What part of You say that you get why "illegals" is offensive, and I believe you. is unclear?

I don't think that the OP has been cagey. When asked, the OP responded that the people in question should be called "humans," which seems pretty straightforward and on-point.

[hughee99]

39. Speaking of being disingenuous...

"When asked, the OP responded that the people in question should be called "humans," which seems pretty straightforward and on-point."

Yeah, just like the poster I was responding to, you know what I meant, which I clarified anyway in my next statement which you also read. Post#14.

So since this has now become a conversation between you and I, let me ask you, why does it bother you that I'm asking what the OP's preferred terminology is? Clearly it does, since you seem to be trying to convince me that either I shouldn't be asking or that I've already gotten a satisfactory answer (I don't believe either of those things).

Do you think that I'm wrong to not accept "human" as an answer? Do you think I'm trolling the OP in some way? Do you think I'm here to disrupt the DU with this question and you're defending it?

[Orrex]

40. Frankly, because it sounds like you're looking for an excuse to call people "illegals"

And your questioning comes across as an effort to equivocate upon any word more specific than "human" in this context.

Clear enough for you?

I don't know why the many answers you've received aren't satisfactory to you, nor is it clear why you're digging in your heels over one poster who (more wisely than I) has apparently chosen to ignore you.

Perhaps that poster thinks that nothing is to be gained from discussing this with you, perhaps because your question on its face appears disingenuous. I don't know, but that seems a reasonable possibility to me.

I don't care if you're trolling or not, though it's interesting that the label would occur to you.

[hughee99]

42. So your concern is that I'm looking for an excuse to say something that I've already said I don't

believe and that it's a term I don't use.

Why aren't the "many answers" I've received satisfactory? I've received ONE answer, from the poster I asked the question of, "humans". A term that encompasses Hitler, Mother Theresa, Donald Trump and the kids my son plays baseball with. The thread is specifically about immigrants who came here by means other than the officially approved process. The OP was pretty clear about what terms they don't like to use, but unclear as to what their preferred nomenclature is. I specifically asked about that, which is directly related to the topic of the OP.

You've been asking me why I'd like an answer to my question and suggesting that I'm looking to do something I've specifically avoided many times already. Something that's not really relevant to the conversation (my motivations). If you had to categorize one of us as participating in the OP's discussion and one of us trying to sidetrack it, I'm the one who wants to talk about the OP, and you're the one who wants to talk about me.

If the poster chooses not to respond to me, that's their prerogative, but it seems like if anyone is attempting to disrupt the conversation here, it's you, not me.

It's interesting that you are so concerned about asking a poster a fairly innocuous question. What is your concern? What do you think will happen if I get an answer? If you think I'm out of line, go ahead and alert me. If I get a hide, it will probably be my first since 2004, when I started posting here.

I don't really care all that much about the answer, but I'll be damned if another poster is going to harass me or try to make me feel like it's a question I can't ask here.

[LanternWaste]

15. Consistency would then dictate we refer to anyone driving thirty mph in a school zone

Consistency would then dictate we refer to anyone driving thirty mph in a school zone as an 'illegal driver.'

However, I do understand that bias can often compel us to avoid consistency when it's convenient to do so.

[hughee99]

16. I guess it depends. Would an "illegal driver" be one who is driving in an illegal manner,

or one who has not gone through the necessary process to become a driver at all (no valid driver's license)?

I was just wondering since the OP doesn't use the term illegal or undocumented, what term do they use? In their opinion, what's the correct terminology that accurately describes such a person without being offensive.

[Amishman]

22. I agree, and the term is technically correct

If you did not enter this country through the proper immigration process, your presence in this country is illegal.

I think we play word games a little too much, and this is a good example.

I actually have reservations about using undocumented and other similar toned down terms as I feel it detracts from the message that we have laws in place that are hurting people. If we want immigration reform, we need to focus on changing the laws.

Yes, I know this is going to be very unpopular. I do want to be clear I am discussing the terminology of this subject and not the larger policy principles involved. I do not support Trump's anti-immigrant platform.

[TeamPooka]

23. There are a lot of reasons to block fellow DU'ers. This is one of them

Bye.

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Sure, our DOJ is now an enemy to decent patriots, like all of us, but surely

this is preferable to ... ...


oops

I almost did it AGAIN



Let me know when it is OK to remind people HOW we got here and HOW not to repeat it!

And WHO worked day and night to give the election to the GOP!

And who is TODAY here and elsewhere CONTINUING to work toward making sure the GOP maintains power!

Hint, they aint all republicans.

[Orrex]

19. "Illegal" should be reserved for assholes who perjure themselves before Congress

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. Works for me.

[Weekend Warrior]

24. The President is racist.

Seems his pick for the DOJ would follow suit.

[AlexSFCA]

30. terminology

IMO, there are so many things that are wrong with this administration that this word play is not even in top 10.
USCIS uses terms 'legal resident alien' and 'illigal alien'. There is nothing wrong with that terminology. All it means is that there are people who are present in this country illigally and are subject to removal and deportation unless the law changes. This is the point of the immigration reform - to change the law and adjust the immigration status but until such time the law is the law even if we don't like it. There is nothing racist about the terminoogy as illigal aliens are people of all races and ethnicities.

There seems to be two extremes now right and left and nothing in the middle when even the terminology itself is under attack. Way to lose democratic and independent votes by oversimplifying the issue and surrender them to the extreme right. Of course humans are humans, but some have no legal basis to be present in this country under CURRENT law which is arguably unfair. One is either legally present in the country or not. Let's not sink to rethugs levels and stick to the facts not emotions or desires.

[loyalsister]

41. The use of the terminology reflects a mind set

as does accepting dehumanization as not important enough to challenge.

[hunter]

33. Curious that, 'cause the deity Sessions claims to worship calls them "neighbors."

The Republican Party is a festering pit of Christian hypocrites who wouldn't know Christ if they were nailing Him to a cross.

Or worse, maybe they would...

[Dreamer Tatum]

36. Wow, finally a reason to dislike Sessions. Whew.