Fr. Groeschel compared illegal immigrants to slaves

[rlg94086]

Ah, but it wasn’t just Jewish law - it was God’s law, which in its essence if not its particulars applies just as much today to those who have more than they need. The civil law of Jesus’ day may or may not have recognised this Biblical edict, ours certainly doesn’t, but the moral imperative is still there.

IOW…you have no idea. You just thought you would make the claim that Jesus was leading His disciples to break laws. Nice. I know He taught us to “forgive those who trespass against us,” but I didn’t realize He also taught us to trespass.

LilyM:

Now you set yourself up for my criticism by failing to make the legitimate distinction between those who had other options and those who had no other options. I like your assumption that there are plenty options for poor Mexicans. Would they choose to live under such miserable conditions in the US if their situations in Mexico weren’t substantially worse?

And tell me precisely what options DOES someone who has nothing to live on, and little or no prospect of getting any work or aid of any kind in their own country in the foreseeable future, has applied to migrate legally (often to multiple countries, I know my parents and most of their friends did so when they were wanting to get out of communist Eastern Europe) and been knocked back every time, have??? Do enlighten me.

Again, you are the one making the assumptions. It is incredibly ignorant for anyone to argue that all illegal aliens had no other options, no prospect of getting work, etc. There are towns in Mexico with worker shortages. If someone truly has no options, then I would support their *individual *decision. However, you and others are not doing that. You are making blanket decisions that the laws are not valid and people don’t have to follow them.

 

[LilyM]

IOW…you have no idea. You just thought you would make the claim that Jesus was leading His disciples to break laws. Nice. I know He taught us to “forgive those who trespass against us,” but I didn’t realize He also taught us to trespass.

Reread. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Roman occupation would’ve meant that Rome’s property laws applied - after all, they took censuses (meaning they recorded how much property each person had) and gathered taxes - they probably did control property law. In which case Jesus would’ve indeed been breaking the civil law. So yes, I have an idea.

Are you really telling us that Jesus taught that it’s never ok to break a law - even an unjust one like that which forbade JP2 from going to seminary and becoming a priest (which he broke with a crystal clear conscience by studying secretly and being ordained secretly)?

Again, you are the one making the assumptions. It is incredibly ignorant for anyone to argue that all illegal aliens had no other options, no prospect of getting work, etc. There are towns in Mexico with worker shortages. If someone truly has no options, then I would support their *individual *decision. However, you and others are not doing that. You are making blanket decisions that the laws are not valid and people don’t have to follow them.

Yes it would be ignorant indeed to argue that. But I didn’t. Where did I ever say that ALL illegal aliens fell into this category or that ALL of them had no other options? Or indeed that ALL of them were right to come to the US? Show me the quote. I don’t think a single person on this thread has said any of those things.

Now whatever towns in Mexico might have worker shortages, clearly they can’t supply jobs for all or nearly all the jobless in Mexico, or they would do so and there would be no unemployment. Or are you assuming that supply of jobs equals demand for them? Besides which, you seem to be assuming that any worker can take any job - of course a worker can ONLY take a job that they’re qualified for. A teacher can’t waltz into a nurse’s job, nor a hairdresser into a job as a chef.

That’s the thing here in Australia too, and in areas of the US as well - it’s usually very particular skills that are in demand, and particular skills demand particular training, meaning not just any jobless person can apply.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

You have a real hang up with a legal, descriptive term.

Actually it’s not a legal term or a descriptive term. It’s a common usage Government term and since you’re not speaking to a group of Government officials then it’s use here is entirely inappropriate. The term also is definately not descriptive.

Many enter the country illegally, but a large number of this group initially had valid visas, but did not return to their native countries when their visas expired. The broad use of this term to include not only those entering illegally, but anyone who is currently living here without legal documentation is not only an inaccurate description of the person but it criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering or residing in the United States without federal documents. These terms are commonly used pejoratively and any person of good will has no business using perjorative terms.

The terms undocumented immigrant or undocumented worker as may be the case, more accurately describe the person’s situation without being perjorative.

FYI: unlawful presence, those who are living here amongst us without proper federal papers are considered in violation of a civil law, not a criminal law. It is only unlawful entry that is considered a criminal misdemeanor, but is rarely if ever prosecuted as such.

Now I could also assume you have a real hang up with this one particular law being broken to the exclusion of other criminal misdemeanor laws being broken. Which I find really odd since by and large the people who come here illegally do our work; pick our fruits & vegetables, care for our children, clean our homes in other words “help us”. While the other law I’m talking about “speeding” causes so much hardship and strife, fatalities and costs to society. To each his own.

Okay, but now you aren’t talking about illegal entry…unless you mean when they leave their wife and children behind (which often happens). I didn’t say I agree with the splitting of families by deporting one member.

No. I am talking about illegal entry, among others. I gave this example earlier along with links to articles so I am repeating myself here, but there have been numerous cases where a company is raided and mom and/or dad is taken into custody and deported leaving their US citizen children orphans in the US. Mom and/or Dad is not allowed under current law to legally apply to come back to the US for I think 10 years (I think it is 10, but it might be 8) once they have been deported. So what’s Mom or Dad gonna do? Their choice is have someone in the US bring their US Citizen child to Mexico where they have no job, no home, no way of feeding or caring for or even giving the child shelter OR justifiably ignore the law and cross the border without permission.

One of the guys I work with told me how his BIL got into a fatal car accident and was in critical condition at a local hospital (I live close to the border with Mexico). The BIL’s mom could not come to the US to see her son at the hospital and days later he died from his injuries. His wife had to have him buried south of the border so his mom could at least come to the funeral. If I were that Mom I would justifiably ignore a law that said I couldn’t be at my son’s side on his deathbed and attend his funeral.

These are just a few of the examples of how, as it stands now, our illegal entry laws do not serve the common good, the demands of the moral order, the fundamental rights of persons, the teachings of the Gospel, or an upright conscience.

You have a very low bar. People who believe that taxes are immoral could use your same argument and say the Catechism would support their decision not to pay taxes.

It’s not my bar. I didn’t set it. The Church does. I’m just bringing it to your attention.

 

[jman507]

It’s not my bar. I didn’t set it. The Church does. I’m just bringing it to your attention.

That’s right **rgl94086 **I know how you feel about abortion, I think that means you don’t have to pay your taxes.

I don’t know why there would be any need to bring up speeding and comparing it to illegal immigration, because according to this principle you can disregard the civil authorities, but would you also disregard the civil authorities on speeding? An ability to disregard a law on moral grounds is a much stronger case than disregarding a law by equating misdemeanors in general to the status of the misdemeanor of speeding. You could drop the whole issue, because the moral reasoning supercedes any need to compare laws.

 

[mangy_dog]

Ok…

Lets wave a “magical wand” and suppose that suddenly all Hispanic/Latino illegal immigrants are gone!

Suddenly we, the U.S. do not have a single illegal immigrant on our soil.

Problems solved? End of story? We are a better nation? Borders sealed, impenetrable from the Southeast and Southwest.

Whose next?..the Canadians?

What ideal have we attained? The elimination of…
Gang violence…at least MS-13. Now blacks and whites are free to fight and shoot each other in the streets without those pesky Hispanics in the way.

The bottom of the barrel jobs will now be available to our unemployed ,the “victims” of an evil Hispanic,illegal immigrant plan to take all the unwanted jobs.

The “rescue” of Medicare and Medicaid which will save all U.S. citizens from the high price of medical care. Everyone will have medical coverage.

Illegal drugs will be the exclusive domain of Americans.

Now we can concentrate on the plight of our homeless and impoverished citizens. Because while those illegal Hispanics were on U.S. soil we couldn’t pay attention to our homeless citizens.

It just boils my blood to think of the priviledged, entitled, self-righteous, pompous mentality that on the one hand preaches and teaches “give me your poor, your huddled masses…” and on the other can’t wait to push that shiny, red buttion that will eliminate those same “poor huddled masses”.

This is my final comment on this thread, good riddens.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s right **rgl94086 **I know how you feel about abortion, I think that means you don’t have to pay your taxes.

Sweet! …except, I don’t think that taxes are immoral, so there goes that idea.

jman507:

I don’t know why there would be any need to bring up speeding and comparing it to illegal immigration, because according to this principle you can disregard the civil authorities, but would you also disregard the civil authorities on speeding? An ability to disregard a law on moral grounds is a much stronger case than disregarding a law by equating misdemeanors in general to the status of the misdemeanor of speeding. You could drop the whole issue, because the moral reasoning supercedes any need to compare laws.

I agree. I think comparing speeding to illegal immigration is a ridiculous argument, and should never have been brought up by whomever brought it up. As I already mentioned, I fully believe in what the Church teaches in regards to civil laws. The problem I have with the disregard for the immigration laws on the part of some Catholics is that they make it a blanket disregard which encourages lawlessness.

 

[rlg94086]

Reread. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Roman occupation would’ve meant that Rome’s property laws applied - after all, they took censuses (meaning they recorded how much property each person had) and gathered taxes - they probably did control property law. In which case Jesus would’ve indeed been breaking the civil law. So yes, I have an idea.

You have no idea. If you did, you would cite the actual Roman law that was in place and give evidence that it was broken. You are grasping at straws (gleaning at straws? ).

LilyM:

Are you really telling us that Jesus taught that** it’s never ok to break a law - even an unjust one** like that which forbade JP2 from going to seminary and becoming a priest (which he broke with a crystal clear conscience by studying secretly and being ordained secretly)?

Since I already acknowledged two times that there are cases where civil laws can be abrogated, I’m not clear why you would make such a charge. However, I am more familiar with what the Church teaches about it. Can you cite the passage from scripture where Jesus taught that it is okay to break laws?

LilyM:

Yes it would be ignorant indeed to argue that. But I didn’t. Where did I ever say that ALL illegal aliens fell into this category or that ALL of them had no other options? Or indeed that ALL of them were right to come to the US? Show me the quote. I don’t think a single person on this thread has said any of those things.

Now whatever towns in Mexico might have worker shortages, clearly they can’t supply jobs for all or nearly all the jobless in Mexico, or they would do so and there would be no unemployment. Or are you assuming that supply of jobs equals demand for them? Besides which, you seem to be assuming that any worker can take any job - of course a worker can ONLY take a job that they’re qualified for. A teacher can’t waltz into a nurse’s job, nor a hairdresser into a job as a chef.

That’s the thing here in Australia too, and in areas of the US as well - it’s usually very particular skills that are in demand, and particular skills demand particular training, meaning not just any jobless person can apply.

Yeah…that’s it…probably all stockbroker jobs.

Again, I do business in Mexico, so I have been there several times. What is your experience in Mexico? What businesses have you interfaced with to gain your knowledge about the economic situation there?

The fact is that a few of you have argued that abject poverty with no options is the basis for breaking immigration laws. While that is true, I would argue that those conditions are actually rare among those who immigrate here. There are other options and/or their impoverishment is not as dire as people think. You seem to believe people have a right to break the law if they want to improve their lot in life. That, to me, is a low bar to set.

 

[rlg94086]

Actually it’s not a legal term or a descriptive term. It’s a common usage Government term and since you’re not speaking to a group of Government officials then it’s use here is entirely inappropriate. The term also is definately not descriptive.

Many enter the country illegally, but a large number of this group initially had valid visas, but did not return to their native countries when their visas expired. The broad use of this term to include not only those entering illegally, but anyone who is currently living here without legal documentation is not only an inaccurate description of the person but it criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering or residing in the United States without federal documents. These terms are commonly used pejoratively and any person of good will has no business using perjorative terms. .

Now, you are just being silly. Illegal aliens is a completely legal and accurate term. It applies equally to someone whose visa has run out. In fact, it doesn’t even give an indication of the legality or method of entry to a country. It refers to their legal status in the country. And I say “a country,” because it is not even an American-exclusive term. Please check out this link: jstor.org/pss/2546091
In the lower right portion of the page, it references the following article…

*Illegal Aliens Under Nigerian Law *by R. C. Chhangani, Jodphur (Raj.) India

Understand? This is an Indian author writing about illegal aliens in Nigeria. There is nothing perjorative about the term. Now, calling a whole group of people “illegals” without knowing their actual status (e.g. Mexican immigrants and Mexican nationals) would be perjorative and racist. I don’t do that. When I refer to illegal aliens, I am talking about illegal aliens regardless of where they come from.

In this thread, I have given reference to Mexicans and the economy of Mexico because a lot of illegal aliens are from Mexico, the term Mexicans is also accurate because illegal aliens from Mexico are still Mexican nationals, therefore Mexican. If they are a citizen they are Americans or Mexican-Americans, if you prefer. Personally, I’m not into hyphenations except in limited circumstances. I’m an American, my wife is an American, and my kids are American. That terms tells you actually nothing about our ancestory or race. That’s the way it should be IMO.

 

[Jennifer123]

It just boils my blood to think of the priviledged, entitled, self-righteous, pompous mentality that on the one hand preaches and teaches “give me your poor, your huddled masses…” and on the other can’t wait to push that shiny, red buttion that will eliminate those same “poor huddled masses”.

This is my final comment on this thread, good riddens.

This is a prime example of the mentality that often surrounds this issue (and this thread).

It seems that if you wish to have people consider the real problems that illegal immigration cause this country and the immigrants themselves, you are given no charity, you are automatically a racist xenophoic bigot who also is not a “true Christian”.

It is all about an emotional appeal meant to shame people into submission.

I am not ashamed. We have to be rational and factual. Illegal immigration, on the whole, is not beneficial to this country. While I don’t have any answers for fixing the problem, I do understand that our current system is broken and is not just for anyone. Illegal immigrants have to become legal. Give unto Cesar. I believe they should be required not only by conscience but law to equitably become citizens. It may be unjust (I am not convinced) but that is the only fair and equatable solution.

The taxpayers ultimately foot the bill people. The middle class is getting decimated. We can not be effective and charitable as a society if everyone, illegal immigrants included, are part of the working poor. The US is the most generous nation on Earth, but that will cease to be if we do not get a handle on this situation.

This too is my last post until the emotional shaming stops and real factual discussion begins.

 

[ljahns]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but we seem to be confusing immigration with border security. They are certainly linked but in essence are two separate issues. I admit I’m not conversant with the current laws for border security and immigration, however, from a “common person” standpoint I see the issues in the following manner:

Border security in today’s international climate is paramount. This issue is not just about keeping illegal immigrants out, but to keep terrorists out also. Just to give an example, “Operation El Paso” included sheriffs from four Texas counties and one county in New Mexico, police departments, Texas National Guard, US Border Patrol, FBI and the DEA. It not only reduced crime (especially drug trafficking) in those areas up to 70% , it reduced the number of illegal immigrants gaining entry into this country by the same amount. This type of cooperative effort, using existing laws, will keep us safer.

I think everyone can agree that our immigration laws are flawed. Unfortunately, it has become a polarizing issue. Questions that need to be asked and answered I think are the following:

What should our immigration policy be? How many people should we allow in every year? What requirements do they need to fulfill before entry and while they reside in this country before they become citizens? How many guest workers should we allow in? How many student visas should we allow? How should we treat marriages between US citizens to citizens of other countries whether they married in the US or in another country? How should we treat children born in the US by non-citizens? How do we treat those who are here illegally now? And the all important how should we enforce the laws we enact or change?

I think all of these questions are present in our current laws. What needs to be done, in my incredibly humble opinion, is to look at each current law and determine if it is still applicable in its current form or if it needs to be “re-done” or scraped entirely.

The main things to keep in mind, again in my humble opinion, when examining these legal issues is:
America comes first (we are instructed by Christ to share our table. However, there is only so much room at the table America provides. In other words our resources are not without limits)
Concessions will need to be made between conflicting views on this issue. Simple logistics if nothing else will require this.
These being both faith and secular issues, we as people of faith, must keep in our minds and in the minds of our legislatures the ethics and moral justice issues involved.

“You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor” Lev 19:15

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Illegal aliens is a completely legal and accurate term. It applies equally to someone whose visa has run out. In fact, it doesn’t even give an indication of the legality or method of entry to a country. It refers to their legal status in the country.

Talk about silly! Just because journalists commoly use a term does not mean that is the proper term or not offensive or perjorative. Just look at some political cartoons a few posts ago that were published in a newspaper. Since you’re only repeating yourself I’ll do likewise and repeat that just because a term is commonly used in a goverment capacity does not make it proper to use when discussing in open formats such as this.

FYI: I went to the US Immigration Glossary of Immigration Terms and the term “illegal alien” is not even listed.

The term cripple may be an accurate enough desciption of a person’s situation, but to refer to a person as a cripple is perjorative.

The person who is being dehumanized by the term is the one who defines whether a given term is perjorative, not the person who denies their vocabulary is perjorative.

four minority journalism groups – NAHJ, Asian American Journalists Association, Native American Journalists Association and National Association of Black Journalists – issued the following statement on this term: “Except in direct quotations, do not use the phrase illegal alien or the word alien, in copy or in headlines, to refer to citizens of a foreign country who have come to the U.S. with no documents to show that they are legally entitled to visit, work or live here. Such terms are considered pejorative not only by those to whom they are applied but by many people of the same ethnic and national backgrounds who are in the U.S. legally.”

Undocumented immigrant and Undocumented worker are more descriptive of a person’s situation than illegal alien, without de-personalizing a person, and not perjorative or offensive. Again, *no person of good will *has any business using terms that are considered denigrating or perjorative.

 

[HollyDolly]

Yes,US companies have exploited these people the illegals who come here.Their corporate greed is reprehensible.
Not sure of the statistics,but most clothing is made in third world conutries.Why,because the companies don’t want to pay american workers decent wages.
Mexico won’t do anything to stem the flow of their own people,or others coming up from South or Central Amrica.
It’s easier to allow the US to take care of their citizens,to feed house ,cloth and employ them ,than to put social reforms in place to help their own.The money they send home to Mexico generates millions or billions of dollars for the government.Why stop this illegal immigration?And the government is thoroughly corrput.Any news reporters or honest officals in mexico who try to tackle corruption usually get killed.

I work part time for TJMAXX and full time for a local school district.
At TJMAxx,when the stores don’t make their goals of so many dollars in sales, then the company cuts payroll.So if someone calls out,my store doesn’t call anyone to come in to work to replace them,unless they have, to due to payroll money.This is Corporate talking.Yet,these same stupid bigwigs get upset when they visit let’s say my store 810.Well why is the store messy? Well it’s messy because you cut payroll,so we don’t schedule a lot of people to work tonight.Because we were short handed,we couldn’t get it all pretty for you. Then because we are short people, our employees have to work to 11:00 or 11:30 Pm to clean up.And because they had to stay later, that leads to over time because they were scheduled to work only till 10:30
So you corporate meatheads didn’t save any money after all.
Would they give up their million dollar bonuses and take even a small cut in pay because times are tough,HECK NO!

That’s why grandpa joined the American federation of Labor,AFOL,
and he later served as secretary and president of the meat cutters union back in the 1930s and 40s in Milwaukee.
Unions came about to help the workers and protect them from exploitation.

The Us government won’t hold the feet of the mexican Government to the fire due to all the corporate money spread around Washington by lobbyists.Companies that hire them need to be shut down or penalized till they stop hiring them.Not that I want to see their families out on the streets,but something has to be done.Maybe a good old global depression will stop it.then the US won’t seem like the land of milk and honey.
Not Until the US puts the squeeze to Mexico will this stop.
And of course since most of these people are Catholics, this fuels the fears of many protestants that by so many illegals coming here mainly from Mexico and the Americas,that the Catholic Church is using them to take over the US.
Which I have seen on some anti catholic sites.
The Church needs to do more in mexico and elsewhere to help these people in their homelands.

 

[runandsew]

I am just a little curious.

How many people in these forums, if the economy of their own country collapsed and there were no jobs, would not consider going to a neighboring country even illegally if that country had lots of money and jobs in comparision and because of circumstanced, you were not allowed to legally enter that country to work.

Would you obey the laws and stay in poverty in your own country and maybe look for food in a garbage dump rather that break another countrys laws?

 

[RachelsAlumni]

I don’t know why there would be any need to bring up speeding and comparing it to illegal immigration, because according to this principle you can disregard the civil authorities, but would you also disregard the civil authorities on speeding?

If you want to try and show how a criminal misdemeanor law that disallows going 10 mph over the posted speed limit is contrary:

• to the demands of the moral order,
• to the fundamental rights of persons,
• or the teachings of the Gospel,
• to those of an upright conscience

go for it.

I have shown several instances where our current immigration law is contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons, the teachings of the Gospel, to those of an upright conscience.

We’re mostly all in agreement* that we need to reform our immigration laws. We’re mostly all in agreement that our immigration laws do not serve the common good. I doubt that you will find many who feel the same way about the need to reform our speeding laws.

So if we mostly all know* that our current immigration laws don’t serve the common good, but our speeding laws do then why is it that so many people are SOOOOOO OFFENDED when a person violates the laws that need to be reformed yet take no issue whatsoever over those who violate the laws that most consider just?

** I say mostly all because there are some groups who have lobbied successfully in Congress not to reform our immigration laws to make them more humane, but only enforce the laws we now have or in the case of John Tanton’s groups (FAIR, WITAN, U.S. English, NumbersUSA, Center for Immigration Studies, U.S. Inc.,ProEnglish, Social Contract Press, American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities ) increase restrictions.*

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Just throwing these out there

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/ItalianPopulationMascott1888.jpg
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~el6/presentations/Irish_Americans_S2_WS2003/foto/Image7.gif

Are you implying that the United States has always been a xenophobic society!?

 

[Olivermax]

Here is my take on the illegal immigrants. I find it portentous that the number of illegal immigrants coming into America each year approximately equal the number of native Americans who are “terminated” by doctors each year in America. About 1.2 million. It is like God is saying to us "You kill the Americans I send to you through the womb; I will send foreigners to take their places.

It is part of God’s retribution for abortion. Illegal immigration was a non-issue until the 70s, until abortion was thrust upon us by the “men who would be god” on the Supreme Court.

 

[tassitus]

…

FYI: I went to the US Immigration Glossary of Immigration Terms and the term “illegal alien” is not even listed.

Undocumented immigrant and Undocumented worker are more descriptive of a person’s situation than illegal alien, without de-personalizing a person, and not perjorative or offensive…

Well, I find this very interesting, and for sake of argument, will respectfully disagree.

Assume someone who *formerly *would have referred to an individual as an “illegal alien” now wants to refer to such individual as an “undocumented immigrant” as you suggest.

Assume that person, as you did, went to the US Immigration Glossary of Immigration Terms to check out this definition before putting his foot in his mouth. Well, guess what?

The term “immigrant”, as in “undocumented immigrant”, is defined as: “See Permanent Resident Alien”.

So, doing so, that person would find:

Permanent Resident Alien = Any person who is not a citizen of the United States and who lives in the U.S. under lawfully recognized and legally recorded permanent residence as an immigrant. It is also called Permanent Resident Alien, Resident Alien Permit Holder, and Green Card Holder.

Hmmmm. Not really “more descriptive of a person’s situation” in our situation, is it?

And “undocumented worker” would only seem to apply to those working, and not to all . . .

Not to all . . .

?

We’ve certainly lost some precision here. How about “undocumented nonimmigrant”?

Just my Thursday afternoon opinion - never mind it.

 

[LilyM]

Again, I do business in Mexico, so I have been there several times. What is your experience in Mexico? What businesses have you interfaced with to gain your knowledge about the economic situation there?

The fact is that a few of you have argued that abject poverty with no options is the basis for breaking immigration laws. While that is true, I would argue that those conditions are actually rare among those who immigrate here. There are other options and/or their impoverishment is not as dire as people think. You seem to believe people have a right to break the law if they want to improve their lot in life. That, to me, is a low bar to set.

Read the Gospels - it condemns those who ‘saw me hungry and did not feed me’, not just those who ‘saw me absolutely starving with nowhere else to turn, and did not feed me’. Christ is in the poor, not just the absolutely starving, and how we treat them is how we treat Him.

Ok, so in the infinite knowledge you’ve gained of Mexico on all of a handful of visits, do tell us how many unemployed people there are currently in Mexico, what type of job qualifications those unemployed people have, and what percentage of the unemployed have what type of qualification, how many job vacancies are currently advertised/available and what percentage of those vacancies are for what type of jobs? Unless you can answer all these questions you’re talking out your arse as much as I.

 

[tassitus]

four minority journalism groups – NAHJ, Asian American Journalists Association, Native American Journalists Association and National Association of Black Journalists – issued the following statement on this term: “Except in direct quotations, do not use the phrase illegal alien or the word alien, in copy or in headlines, to refer to citizens of a foreign country who have come to the U.S. with no documents to show that they are legally entitled to visit, work or live here. Such terms are considered pejorative not only by those to whom they are applied but by many people of the same ethnic and national backgrounds who are in the U.S. legally.”

RachelsAlumni, can you post a link to where this quote was taken? It only tells us what terms NOT to use, while I am interested in what terms such groups might have suggested in their place.

Thanks.

 

[rlg94086]

FYI: I went to the US Immigration Glossary of Immigration Terms and the term “illegal alien” is not even listed.

FYI: “Undocumented worker” and “undocumented immigrant” aren’t listed either. And, that isn’t a government site, so who cares?

Here is a link to a recent government document from the US Citizen and Immigration Services website:
uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=4cdeba03384425202f1890fb5e1ec30d

The Commission concluded that the most promising option for verifying work authorization is a computerized registry based on the social security number; it unanimously recommended that such a system be tested not only for its effectiveness in deterring the employment of** illegal aliens**, but also for its protections against discrimination and infringements on civil liberties and privacy.

If ***you ***choose not to use the term “illegal alien,” then that is fine, but I’m not using it as a perjorative. I do agree with the NAHJ that the term “illegals” should not be used, but “illegal aliens” is a very accurate term. You’ve done nothing but quote journalist’s guidelines…you know the same journalists about whom you said “just because journalists commoly use a term does not mean that is the proper term.” I agree with you there.

RachelsAlumni:

The term cripple may be an accurate enough desciption of a person’s situation, but to refer to a person as a cripple is perjorative.

What term do you use? Some people find handicapped and disabled perjorative. What you don’t get is that the change to “undocumented workers” doesn’t change a thing. If it takes, then people will start referring to them as “undocumenteds” and it will become a perjorative term.

I read the NAHJ’s protest, and they have a bigger problem with “illegals,” and I agree with that, as I said. Their problem with the word “alien” cracks me up:

Alien
A word used by the U.S. government to describe a foreign-born person who is not a citizen by naturalization or parentage. People who enter the United States legally are called resident aliens and they carry alien registration cards also known as “green cards,” because they used to be green.

While Webster’s first definition of the term “alien” is in accordance with the government’s interpretation, the dictionary also includes other, darker, meanings for the word, such as “a non-terrestrial being," “strange,” “not belonging to one,” “adverse,” “hostile.” And the Encyclopedia Britannica points out that “in early times, the tendency was to look upon the alien as an enemy and to treat him as a criminal or an outlaw.” It is not surprising then that in 1798, in anticipation of a possible war with France, the U.S. Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which restricted “aliens” and curtailed press freedoms. By 1800 the laws had been repealed or had expired but they still cast a negative shadow over the word.
In modern times, with science-fiction growing in popularity, “alien” has come to mean a creature from outer space, and is considered pejorative by most immigrants.

So, they are concerned that we are confusing “illegal aliens” with little green men? I really find it hard to take them seriously. I’m sorry that people don’t understand the accurate use of the term alien. I don’t use it as a perjorative, any more than I would use handicapped or disabled as a perjorative.