The New Republic

Why is calling undocumented immigrants "illegals" crass? If you don't have a document that makes your immigration status legal, you are illegal. Both my parents were legal immigrants--with documents. They came through Ellis Island. I have copies of their original documents. Most people who enter someone else's country illegally are going to engage in a whole host of illegal activities once they get there, even if they have "legal" day jobs. My favorite "illegal's" crime is stealing the Social Security number a baby gets at birth in a hospital. Then there is dope dealing, car-jacking, team shoplifting, car theft...the list goes on. Most illegals are criminals from start to finish. I agree with Obama's emphasis on deportation. Throw the bums out!

- magboy47.

November 4, 2011 at 12:02pm

"Most illegals are criminals from start to finish." I'm sorry, I'm going to need to see a source on that. I'm honestly curious what the number is (and how it's defined), because it could be higher than liberals think AND lower than conservatives think. I think that the relative elasticity of supply indicates that they're probably reasonably law-abiding (ie, I think the evidence shows that illegal immigrants go home when the economy tanks or Arizonans get feisty -- correct me if I'm wrong). If they were just here to deal dope and steal cars (ie, do things that are already illegal and recession-proof), they could continue doing so, no? It's the people with shady papers (and pliant bosses) who have the most to lose. Of course, there's another argument -- do stricter laws actually improve things, or just push more people deeper into deeper criminailty? The War on Drugs is a case study in unintended consequences, and I could see immigration proceeding along similar lines.

- mik_smith

November 7, 2011 at 12:46am

mik_smith, There are long-established networks of illegals in America and other countries, composed of people from many different nations. One of the things illegals do when they first get to America is contact a network to find "pliant bosses," as you phrase it. But they also use networks to gain entry into the criminal world. They are criminals by the very act of crossing the border illegally. Most of them are not going to be conscientious about engaging in honorable work once they get here. Many illegals who want to work in America start by stealing somebody's Social Security number. After that it is hard for them to resist an offer by somebody in a network to make some easy money. Very few immigrants, legal or illegal, who come to America remain alone once they get here. They either have family or networks of people from their own culture to assist them in making a living, legal or illegal. Many illegals try to be honest once they get to America, but I can't imagine them being in the majority. One of the things that Mexican drug cartels are doing is flooding America with illegals who do their bidding. My favorite example of that is the illegals who guard marijuana fields in the wilds of southern California. They shoot at interlopers, who are sometimes only hikers, with assault weapons. They are in someone else's country illegally, and they're guarding turf there with assault weapons! That is the definition of cojones.

- magboy47.

November 7, 2011 at 2:15am

magboy74, Throughout America's history, the vast, the overwhelming majority of immigrants -- papered or unpapered -- have been hard-working and law-abiding (except for the paper question). That's why they come here. True down through the centuries of all immigrant groups, Irish (my tribe), Italian, Mexican, Chinese, Germans, Scots, Poles, Russian, Somalian, and Vietnamese. I suppose next you will be accusing "illegal aliens"of causing the Colts winless season, the tasteless McRib, and the Wall Street crash. Dan

- dbuck1

November 7, 2011 at 8:32am

I don't know about their propensity to be involved in illegal activities here, but I agree that there is nothing wrong with referring to illegal immigrants as illegals. The word refers to their immigration status, and is accurate in that respect. 'Undocumented' is a euphemism that tries to dodge the fact that its referents have broken the law of the land.

- Curran1

November 7, 2011 at 9:18am

Magboy - Question - if someone (white) immigrated before 1855, and didn't get a landing card from Ellis Island (or their port of entry), were they by default an "illegal"? Were all of the Europeans who settled where in the 17th - mid 19th century illegals? After all, early on, the current occupiers of the land weren't too happy about their arrival, they just lacked the effective means to resist the invasion. This is not to say that someone here today without authorisation isn't an "illegal". Personally, being a "legal alien", I don't see the term as highly pejorative. However the correlation between illegal and crime is much less clear. Hispanics (whether legal or illegal) do not have the dubious honor of having the greatest percentage of their numbers in prisons; that belongs to a different US-born minority. However, all of this ignores a larger point. Until we make it sufficiently painful for employers to employee illegals, and/or address at least the amenable sources of dislocation south of our borders (read: US drug laws and habits) people are going to come when there are jobs available. Short of executing people, the trip is already effectively as difficult, arduous and risky as we can make it, yet people still attempt it and some of them die trying. So perhaps we'd be better of focusing on the cure rather than the symptom?

- Nari224

November 7, 2011 at 9:41am

Thank you TNR editors for one damning with faint praise post about Gov. Perry. Watch his entire 25-minute speech at NH Cornerstone annual dinner, which is what I did after I saw the 8-minute "edit": http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7386800n&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cbsnews%2Ffeed+(CBSNews.com) Maybe Gov. Perry should not mimic Ron Paul, but I agree with the people who were in attendance: "...“I was there,” New Hampshire House speaker Bill O'Brien, R-Mont Vernon, told reporters at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College. “Not only did he give a very effective and appropriate speech, but one that was enthusiastically received by all the folks who attended that dinner. ...” Primary Status: NH House Speaker, other conservatives leaders defend Perry's much-maligned Manchester speech By JOHN DiSTASO Senior Political Reporter Published Nov 3, 2011 at 3:00 am http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111103/NEWS0605/110609989/-1/news06 BTW, Democrats should remember that New Hampshire is a swing state, and insulting New Hampshire over this one speech has been noted by ALL of New Hampshire.

- K2K

November 7, 2011 at 11:06am

nari224, Immigrants in the 19th Century who didn't get documents were not illegals by definition, because documents were not required then. Documents began to be required in the 20th Century, simply because of the large influx of immigrants (like my parents) who were coming to America. Documents were originally required to keep certain "undesirables" out of America, but now they're required simply to keep the number of immigrants down. It comes down to the fact that more people, including people born in America, are applying for fewer and fewer jobs. And the more competition there is, the more people engage in crime just to survive (that's true of people born in America, too). I'll give you an example. I lived in the inner city in Detroit for 10 years as a working-class person. I moved there in 1964, when the economy was still good and there were lots of jobs in the auto factories. Slowly, as Americans started buying foreign cars, jobs left Detroit. But the people in the inner city were still there, and their population was increasing. Just to make a living, people engaged in more crime. Eventually Detroit became America's Most Dangerous City (they won the honor again this year). Illegal immigrants who stay in America today are competing for fewer and fewer paperless jobs, as authorities crack down on "pliant bosses." It's only natural that many of them would turn to crime, if they want to stay in the U.S. Folks are not so hard-working and honorable, when it comes to simple survival. I witnessed that first-hand in the inner city.

- magboy47.

November 7, 2011 at 11:46am

"Most of them are not going to be conscientious about engaging in honorable work once they get here. Many illegals who want to work in America start by stealing somebody's Social Security number. After that it is hard for them to resist an offer by somebody in a network to make some easy money." Oh nonsense, need I remind you that the derogatory term for Italians "Wop" simply meant (W)ith (O)ut (P)apers. I guess you have a novel interpretation then how the Mafia started out. You don't need to steal someones social security number, I know of many Mexican Americans who come back to Mexico and give theirs out, they get to collect the tax refund and do no work, and most cases these are their own relatives or freinds they give it to. And many, many places don't ask for social security numbers, ever hear of hiring under the table? And why do you hate capitalism so much for? Are you a commie or something? Whatever happened to the free movement of goods and labor? Or is if it that labor is brown, flush them down? K2K, I have to admit I have a bit of a soft spot for Perry, yeah he is a bit of a clown but he is an authentic one, what you see is what you get. I would rather have him over Romney any day, Romney would likely be an absolute disaster flip flopping all over the place. In a 1952 America Romney could have been fine, I just can't see how he can operate politically. Romney has no credibility with the Republican base and none with Democrats, how can someone so politically compromised sell the most necessary ingredient of Democracy, which is compromise?

- blackton

November 7, 2011 at 11:54am

In Touch of Evil, Charlton Heston's Detective Vargas says "Susie, one of the longest borders on earth is right here between your country and mine. An open border. Fourteen hundred miles without a single machine gun in place." That was true when the movie was made, though sadly, it's not true any more. But, what is still true is that Mexican immigrants - documented, undocumented or illegal - do a hell of a lot of legal work in the US. Unless you're a hermit, their work benefits you - you patronize businesses that hire them, you may even hire one yourself to mow your lawn or care for kids or clean your house. They're working in hospitals, they're nailing shingles to roofs in 100 degree heat, they're picking vegetables or plucking chickens. And serving in the armed forces. And some of their kids are so bright, disciplined and hardworking that they qualify for admission in Texas's flagship schools. If immigrants were hurting the US, they'd be long gone. The fact that they are still here, in the millions, shows that they are needed. Let's drop the charade and legalize them. No more "illegal" immigrants - Hooray! (Or put another way, if immigrants are good enough for the job creators to whom we owe all allegiance, then who are we to say they don't belong here?) T

- GeoffG

November 7, 2011 at 12:30pm

"And why do you hate capitalism so much for? Are you a commie or something? Whatever happened to the free movement of goods and labor? Or is if it that labor is brown, flush them down?" blackton, Your leap to accuse me of hating capitalism is bizarre. I never said anything about the market. And illegality impedes free movement of goods and labor. The market is fixed by it, the same way that illegality fixed the monopolistic banking industry and collapsed the American economy. By your reasoning you have to support Third World child labor, which involves the "free movement of goods and labor." Are you a Right wingnut or something?

- magboy47.

November 7, 2011 at 1:39pm

Except for those reading this whose ancestors were "Indians" [original aboriginal settlers of North America], most inhabitants today are hardly "legals" except in the sense that "might makes right" and "winners right the history books and make the movies." Our ancestors grabbed the land and shoved the inhabitants away. Perhaps the people who were dragged here as slaves should get a free pass (though that is not a reason to vote for Herman Cain). However, the day when NO ONE wants to sneak into our country illegally--which may also be the day that Americans are trying to sneak into China, India, and Brazil--may be the day we really need to be very afraid. Well, there's always outer space. Will you need a "green card" to settle on Mars?

- skahn

November 7, 2011 at 1:43pm

Calling someone who broke the law to get into this country, and then subsequently broke the law again to get a job an "undocumented immigrant" makes a mockery of the notion of rule of law. It makes it sound like someone lost their homework. Should we treat people who succeed at breaking our laws inhumanely? Of course not. But neither should we reward people for doing so by ignoring their ongoing violation of our laws. And that goes for both sides of the transaction - those who hire illegals should be fined, and if they insist on continuing to violate the law, fined severely enough they lose all incentive to cheat. The illegals themselves should be given a path to an honorable guest worker program - when our economy actually needs more workers - and sent home otherwise.

- IowaBeauty

November 7, 2011 at 4:45pm

"Except for those reading this whose ancestors were "Indians" [original aboriginal settlers of North America], most inhabitants today are hardly "legals" except in the sense that "might makes right" and "winners right the history books and make the movies." Being a legal resident can only mean one thing - that you came into the country in which you now reside in a way consistent with the laws of that country. I certainly did (having been born here, the Constitution makes me a unambiguously a US citizen). I can't be sure, but I have no reason to doubt that all of my ancestors did as well - most came before any documentation or permission to come here was required, those that came later were allowed in through the prevailing legal process. Of course, they came to farm land that had been stolen one way or another from the indigenous population. I cannot be "illegal" for actions taken by ancestors over whom I had no control, when current laws make me legal. In this I am with Perry - we should not punish children of immigrants, legal or otherwise, for their parents' actions. We're at fault for not controlling our borders and our employers, the adults who violate the law to come here are responsible for their actions, but the kids - they are our responsibility notwithstanding all of that.

- IowaBeauty

November 7, 2011 at 4:57pm

Read the editorial again and you'll see that the editors have no trouble with the phrase "illegal immigration"; it's the practice of referring to the people themselves as "illegals" -- not even "illegal immigrants," but simply "illegals," is if their very existence were somehow a trespass and the only recourse is to get rid of them as quickly as possible. It's a subtle message, perhaps, but one that's underscored by the direct punishment of the children of the lawbreakers, something that doesn't happen in America for other offenses. Nor are people who break other laws referred to in this way -- they might be criminals or ex-cons or even murderers, but the focus is on their actual deeds rather than their status as human beings. Finally, it's less controversial for a violent criminal who has served a prison sentence to rejoin society than for an otherwise honest illegal immigrant to become a legal one, and with the reaction against the Dream Act, we even see resistance to the idea that an illegal immigrant's *children* might be able to become productive and "legal." So, in short, that's why the term "illegals" is crass, and I say this as someone who believes, on the whole, that immigration laws should be enforced.

- frippo

November 7, 2011 at 7:07pm

1) I don't think Perry was drunk. Maybe on muscle relaxers. Seriously, he was just having a good time. 2) Does anyone else find Romney's ad completely revolting? The gall of that millionaire asshole ("I'm unemployed too, heh heh") demonizing people for trying to send their kids to college. Hey Mitt, your 5 sons still defending freedom by working on your campaign? 3) I love the modern GOP. Presidential candidates have to apologize for humane, rational, or charitable positions they held in the past. "I regret my earlier positions that the earth was round and revolved around the sun and that the elderly shouldn't be set adrift on ice floes." But executions, that gets cheers.

- dubyadoubte

November 7, 2011 at 7:59pm