[schoen]

It's also frustrating that every common term for some concept can easily acquire connotations that suggest a particular affiliation. For example, there's no easy way to refer to people who are present in a country in violation of its immigration laws without either conveying a connotation of sympathy or hostility toward them. "Undocumented immigrant" is criticized by anti-immigrant groups as (maybe intentionally) implying that someone's unauthorized immigration status is a mere bureaucratic oversight or accident, while "illegal immigrant" is criticized by pro-immigrant groups as (maybe intentionally) denying someone's personhood or inherent worth (as if there were something inherently illegal about the person).

I think I've seen someone try to use "unauthorized migrant" but there is even a prospect of getting pushback from people who hear this and assume that it must have been chosen in order to avoid showing support for their own "side".

This difficulty repeats itself a lot!

[nkurz]

> It's also frustrating that every common term for some concept can easily acquire connotations that suggest a particular affiliation.

Upvoted, but for sake of example I'll mention that your use of "anti-immigrant groups" can be one of those loaded terms. While there likely are some people who are actually against all immigrants, the more common position is to support legal immigration (with differing opinions on how restricted this should be) while being against illegal immigration (with differing opinions on how those who break these laws should be treated).

Since there aren't mainstream groups who think of themselves as universally "anti-immigrant", it tends to be used only as a pejorative. I think a reasonable general principle is to try to use terms that people choose to apply to themselves. On the other hand, I don't know that there is an equivalent descriptor that everyone would consider fair. Language is hard!

[schoen]

Yes, I realized that this was also a problem but couldn't think of a better way to refer concisely to people who favor more enforcement of immigration laws! I understand that many people favor immigration but also want laws that restrict it to be enforced.

I was thinking of giving an example about abortion and realized that even talking about "pro-abortion people usually call themselves 'pro-choice' and anti-abortion people usually call themselves 'pro-life'" would also have the same problem, because some people who favor legalized abortion also want to discourage abortion or reduce the number of abortions that occur, so they don't agree that they are "pro-abortion".

In college I strongly favored drug legalization while also strongly opposing drug use, which makes it unclear to what extent it would have been appropriate to call me "pro-drug" or "anti-drug".

[jrowen]

The suggestion made in the article is to ditch the bid for brevity and just use the more verbose forms, i.e. “people who favor more enforcement of immigration laws” or “people who are present in a country in violation of its immigration laws.”

The idea would seem to have merit as you ended up needing those anyway when the more concise forms were inadequate.

[x3n0ph3n3]

> I understand that many people favor immigration but also want laws that restrict it to be enforced.

Too often the xenophilic restrictionists are left out of the conversation of immigration and coerced into one camp or the other.

[tshaddox]

> While there likely are some people who are actually against all immigrants, the more common position is to support legal immigration (with differing opinions on how restricted this should be) while being against illegal immigration (with differing opinions on how those who break these laws should be treated).

Isn't this a bit like saying "I'm for medical marijuana being legalized, but meanwhile I support any and all enforcement of marijuana prohibition and I don't want anyone to receive medical marijuana"? I would describe such a person as being opposed to medical marijuana.

[wassenaar10]

> Isn't this a bit like saying "I'm for medical marijuana being legalized, but meanwhile I support any and all enforcement of marijuana prohibition and I don't want anyone to receive medical marijuana"? I would describe such a person as being opposed to medical marijuana.

No, it's really not like saying that at all. Acquiring marijuana is something fundamentally different from immigrating to a country. Assuming your argument is actually in good faith, I'll explain how someone can be anti-illegal immigration but not against immigration per se.

A lot of people work very hard to immigrate to the United States using the legal channels. They pursue rigorous education, become proficient in English, and develop in-demand skills in order to find a US-employer. It doesn't really seem fair to these people if illegal immigration is allowed to run rampant.

If we have to use a medical marijuana example, then let's say medical marijuana is legal but somewhat limited in supply. For that reason, medical marijuana users must have a valid medical condition to acquire a medical marijuana card. However a large number of people without medical conditions make fake medical marijuana cards and buy from dispensaries for recreational use, thereby reducing how much medical marijuana is left over for legitimate medical marijuana users. It's not a great analogy, no, (since the type of jobs, residences, etc. occupied by legal vs illegal immigrants often differs) but again that's because immigration and marijuana are two very different things.

[tshaddox]

> I'll explain how someone can be anti-illegal immigration but not against immigration per se.

When I say “anti-illegal immigration” I mean “in opposition to immigration which is currently illegal,” not “in opposition to immigration that would be illegal if the laws were exactly how I think they should be.” That last one is essentially tautological, but seems phrased to deliberately obscure intent. It would be like saying “I’m against illegal homosexuality” but then adding “oh but I think homosexuality should be legal.”

I completely agree with the appropriateness of your analogy, but I remain consistent: I disagree with the people who oppose breaking the law to get medicine, and I instead oppose those who create and enforce the laws restricting access to medicine.

[manicdee]

"Illegal immigrant" is quite plainly an anti-refugee phrase that was invented to criminalise people seeking refugee status. It's never been used otherwise.

"Undocumented immigrant" does technically describe a person's status but it's only used in relation to certain types of foreign visitor. Across the white English speaking world we'll almost universally use "undocumented immigrant" to refer to brown-skinned people, while we use "visa overstayers" to refer to white-skinned people.

Some guy from India comes to work for a cousin's business on a sponsored work visa and stays a week too long? Undocumented immigrant.

Some white woman from the UK comes to work for a major tech company and stays a few years too long? She just overstayed her visa.

Then to round of the discussions about words changing in meaning over time, remember when holding thumb and forefinger together in a circle was just "the game" and you'd do things to get your friends to look — at which point they'd lose "the game"? But these days, it's only a white power symbol, thanks to some anonymous idiot on 4chan.

It's a crazy world that changes so quickly. I can understand why some people want the world to stay just the same for a decade or two. But that can't be done. We have to adapt or die.

[BeetleB]

> It's never been used otherwise.

Absolutism will not get you anywhere. You're not omniscient, and do not know the minds of (literally) millions of people who use the phrase.

[luxuryballs]

> “is quite plainly an anti-refugee phrase”

legally speaking a refugee is not illegal, “illegal immigrant” is just a term for a person who enters through the border illegally in a country where there are both lawful and unlawful methods of entry, refugees are accepted by law also, and if accepted through the defined process of law are not “illegal”

[lazyasciiart]

But we're talking about vernacular usage, not legal.

[natchy]

Although I think there’s some merit to your comment, I don’t think it’s racial, I think it’s cultural or classist.

A black English actor (like Idris Elba) would be “overstaying his visa” as would a wealthy Indian tech CEO.

People coming from another country in the anglosphere are viewed differently because there is a shared culture. There’s a huge venn overlap in race between these countries but that’s because they were English colonies.

All-in-all your comment seems a little hostile. We’re all learning. Even you don’t have all the answers, surely.

[ALittleLight]

I think class is part of it, or it makes us assume motivations, but I think the differences in terms actually describe what's being done. If you move to a country to live there from now on, in violation of the law, you're an illegal immigrant. If you visit temporarily with a visa, but overstay or violate the terms, without intending to become a permanent resident, then you are overstaying your visa.

We probably assume something about the rich actor versus the poor janitor, but if we knew their intentions I think we could describe them accurately.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with the term "illegal immigrant". We have terms for crimes that are frequent or frequently talked about, e.g. drunk driver, deadbeat dad, arsonist, whatever. Immigrating, in violation of the law, is illegal and the people who do it are fairly called illegal immigrants to differentiate them from those that don't violate the law. I think insistence on "undocumented" is more of a rhetorical use from people who think immigration should be more permissive.

[Grustaf]

The common objection to "illegal immigrant" is of course to say that "people are not illegal", and strictly speaking a more grammatically correct term would perhaps be "illegally immigrated".

But this is a mostly irrelevant objection, the same construction is used in other phrases, including "undocumented immigrant". It's not the person that is necessarily "undocumented", it's their act of immigration, and everyone understands that.

[ALittleLight]

That is commonly what people say, but as you point out I don't think their objection is consistent. You might call someone who perpetrated an act of violence a "Spouse abuser" even if that person spends 99.9% of their waking hours not beating up their spouse.

Calling someone a spouse abuser, drunk, jaywalker ("Nobody actually walks jays!"), illegal immigrant, whatever doesn't at all imply that you are summing up the totality of that person as all and only that appellation. It just means you think they've committed the associated crime. It would be rude to call an illegal immigrant an illegal immigrant at every opportunity, but it is just dishonest in my view to assert that they are not an illegal immigrant.