Ezra Klein is just fine with the term illegal immigrant. He’s not partial to just calling someone an “illegal.” Here’s part of his logic:
it’s not as if the word games fool anyone. The people who need to be convinced of comprehensive immigration reform — which must include a path to legal status for illegal immigrants — are angry about illegal immigration. Trying to paper over that won’t help, and might actually hurt.
But it’s not about convincing opponents of immigration reform. It has to do with how we talk about human beings who happen to be caught in a broader tension between global capital flows and claims to national sovereignty. To refer to a group of people as “illegal” in any kind of discussion is to assert their illegitimacy in the public dialogue. This is why when we have conversations on this issue, few people in the media think to talk with/get the perspectives of those who are “illegal” themselves.
If Klein wants to keep using the term “illegal immigrant,” let’s just go ahead and call anyone who violates the law “illegal ______.” Anyone with a speeding ticket is an “illegal driver.” After all, let’s not avoid the issue using PC language. Parking ticket? No…”illegal parker”! We don’t do it because we see those who commit those infractions as full human beings who made a mistake.
I often ask my class whether undocumented immigration is more like a misdemeanor or a capital crime? If it is a capital crime, then maybe the term applies. Sure, call someone a “murderer” or a “rapist” as their defining characteristic. I’d argue that maybe that person has ceded their expectation that society will view them as a multidimensional, human being. But what have undocumented immigrants done to be placed in that category?
Here’s more what I have to say about it. FYI, not sure why my image is so huge on that site! It’s a little scary 🙂
Comments 8
Dubi — October 15, 2010
dunno. I don't mind being called an immigrant. Why is this a more defining characteristic of me than an illegal immigrant being one? I wouldn't say "the paintings of this illegal immigrant are great", but when talking in the context of immigration reform, I fail to see the problem with referring to people based on their most relevant characteristic.
Also, while I could somehow understand this contention when discussing individuals, clearly when talking about the group of illegal immigrants, no other term is more suitable, as this is the exact characteristic that makes them into a group. They are immigrants, who have done so illegally. Illegal parkers is also fine with me. Illegal drivers is wrong, because it's legal for them to drive, but some actions they did WHILE driving were illegal. So, maybe, "illegal intersection crossers" for people who ran a red light. (Illegal drivers would be true if we called "illegal immigrants" those who immigrated legally, but did something illegal WHILE immigrating, like illegally importing goods.)
jose — October 15, 2010
Why is being undocumented a person's most relevant characteristic?
Dubi — October 15, 2010
When discussing immigration? What else is relevant? His skill as a driver? His artistic talents?
jose — October 18, 2010
The conditions that motivated that person to cross the border for starters...all of which isn't encapsulated by the term "illegal."
Dubi — October 18, 2010
How are global conditions a characteristic of a person? Also, the conditions that motivate a person to immigrate legally are very different from those that motivate them to immigrate illegally. Ignoring that impoverishes our discussion. It's a basic tenants of any system of thinking: lessening the amount of information at our disposal (like the legal legitimacy of one's immigration) limits our ability to understand a phenomenon.
Arturo — October 18, 2010
I'm not sure if the motives to migrate legally or illegally are that different (pursuing a better life in a place that seems to have more opportunities I would assume cuts across a lot of different groups)--though I suppose there are some exceptions.
But I think the point that the term illegal "de-humanizes" this group of people is right on. I couldn't quite put my finger on why the Whitman scandal was bothering me until last week's debate. Just the way she was characterizing the "the unfortunate situation" of learning of her maid's undocumented status, made it seem like she was forced to wipe her hands clean because the maid had "obviously violated the law." Okay I understand why she has to do that given the base she's trying to speak to, but let's not pretend that immigration is such a black and white issue (that there are law abiding immigrants and then the illegal ones). Given the the economic/labor pull factors of immigration, it just seems to me a little bit hypocritical to adopt such a simplified world view, especially when in Whitman's case, she was personally benefiting from the arrangement for almost a decade. We like our cheap tomatoes and cheap domestic labor, as long as the help keep themselves invisible, and our simplified world view intact.
Perhaps the maid should be deported, but after 9 years you would think that any decent employer would at the very least tried and get her a lawyer. She is human after all.
Dubi — October 18, 2010
I fail to see the relevance of the hypocrisy of certain people to the question of whether or not someone immigrated legally or not. This has nothing to do with "law abiding" or not. The opposite of "illegal immigrant" is not "law abiding immigrant" but "legal immigrant". A legal immigrant may nonetheless break other laws. Here: I'm a legal immigrant, and I sometimes drive over the speed limit. I'm not an "illegal immigrant", and not a perfectly "law abiding immigrant". See?
I can see how calling somebody just "an illegal" is dehumanizing, but calling someone "an illegal immigrant" is no more dehumanizing than calling then "a legal immigrant".
And law, actually, IS a black and white thing. Either you immigrated legally, or you didn't. There's no third option. There is no "gray".
Arturo — October 18, 2010
Oh, I think there is a lot grayness to this issue, or at least grayness meaning complexity to immigration if one cares to think about it. There are tremendous economic benefits to exploiting a large population of undocumented workers whereupon entire industries have become dependent on cheap, expendable and hence exploitable labor. From domestic work, to agriculture, to construction, undocumented workers have played a key role in bringing prices down, as well as keeping the economy going. We like our cheap foods and cheap work, but we rather not be bothered with how businesses are actually able to keep their labor costs so low. It is precisely the designation "illegal" that makes this group so vulnerable to exploitation--they can be fired with no protection, and as the Whitman case shows, even working for someone close to a decade affords these individuals little in the way of stability/security. On the flip side, these same dynamics have been undercutting union wages, as well as worsening job conditions for years, almost guaranteeing that no American can actually afford to do this work anymore.
For me, also an immigrant, I feel there is a serious need for immigration reform but I think it means confronting some uncomfortable realities. Realities that get lost is this type of, the law is black and white kinda of a framework in my mind. The US economy has become dependent on immigrant labor over several generations; I think the figure is close to 12 million undocumented immigrants from Mexico alone reside in the US, with entire families living in the US sometimes over several generations. It would be impossible to deport this entire group, as well as the fact that the entire CA economy would likely collapse. After working and contributing to the economy it also seems inhumane to uproot these entire communities. Then again, are we ready to start paying livable wages and prices for our agricultural goods. Are we ready to start paying child care workers enough to afford a decent living. I think the answer should be yes, even though it would be economically very difficult to do for many of us.
I don't actually know what reform should look like, and what difficult choices we should/should not pursue, but I do know this: the reason why this issue has never been resolved is precisely because these individuals have been made invisible within this narrative of legal vs. illegal. Rather than confronting the difficult realities of immigration, we tend to frame the issue of who is breaking the law and who isn't. I don't think the above post is advocating that we deny that some people are "working illegal" in the United State, but as we ponder on solutions it's important to remember that these workers are humans. Perhaps the first step is developing a new language about who these people are, and why there are here.