[wahern]

1) Because they're not necessarily all illegal immigrants. AFAIU, ICE puts asylum seekers who are otherwise following the letter of the law into these detention centers--show up at the border, request asylum, get put into detention while awaiting disposition of your case.

2) Are you an illegal driver for driving over the speed limit? Illegal usually implies something criminal. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor--no more than 6 months in prison. That is criminal strictly speaking, but within a certain grey area where we very often refrain from branding people as criminals.

I'm not really hung up on the phrase. I understand both sides, which really come down to wanting to emphasize different aspects of the situation to highlight different political priorities.

I'm curious, though, if newspapers have style guides regarding usage of "illegal". If I Google 'site:theguardian.com "illegal immigration"' I find many hits, so perhaps at least for The Guardian it's at the discretion of the particular journalist.

[blancheneige]

I am referring to the terminology used by the department of homeland security [1] and other legal institutions that oversee their cases. If they are predominantly asylum seekers, then why not refer to them as asylum seekers?

>Illegal usually implies something criminal.

No, illegality does not usually imply something criminal. These are two different concept that have precise definitions in court. Nor does your "usually" carry any weight, for else we should abide by this probabilistic distribution and call them asylum seekers.

[1]: https://www.dhs.gov/topic/immigration-and-customs-enforcemen...

[wahern]

But not all people are using legal terms. Nobody who objects to the phrase "illegal immigration" disputes the fact that illegal immigration and illegal immigrants exist as a technical matter. There's no 8 USC § 1325 truther movement. They're very up front about their reasons for objecting to the use of the phrase, and while perhaps extreme you can draw analogies to colloquial distinctions we've always made regarding terms like "criminal".

If you find the language games obnoxious, so be it. I wouldn't dispute that sentiment because I can understand it, I just don't openly espouse it because I personally also find it a little obnoxious to be rancorous with people who are clearly just trying to be empathetic.