The term is pejorative -- but it is a precise descriptor much in the same way 'suicide bomber' is a precise descriptor. To drop the term is to favor decency at the expense of truth, a la fox news ('suicide bomber' -> 'homicide bomber').

If 'illegal immigrant' is off the table, then by what term ought the phenomenon of non-legal immigration be referred?

truthout can do better than this.

How about some policy analysis instead of PC analysis?

Strictly speaking...

When Christians "take sacrament" they are eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ.

If "undocumented workers" are "illegals" - then it's entirely appropriate to refer to "christians" as "spiritual cannibals".

Changing illegal to a PC term won't solve much.

And illegal immigration is by definition criminal so there is obviously criminality.

The issue is how do we handle the illegal immigrants who get here not what to call them. Until the law is changed they are illegal immigrants no matter what you want to call them

I'm all for openness and assimilation, but the author of this article should be embarassed. Either they are incredibly stupid, or worse they assume the readers are.

It's 'illegal' because it's 'breaking a law.' Here, there actually is no more appropriate word.

Excellent argument. I never use the word "illegal" but use the word undocumented. I don't see the article is about PC at all. The word "illegal" has connotations that the Right use such as "it's a crime" that confuse the Arizona situation. Actually, before the Arizona law a person without documents was picked up for a hearing; if they couldn't produce documents they were deported. Being without papers wasn't a crime. Now a person without documents is criminalized. There's a big difference. "Illegal" is a loaded term.

"Goodbye to my Juan, goodbye Rosalita
Adios mis amigos, Jesus y Maria
You won't have a name when you ride the big airplane
All they will call you will be deportees"

Forget the sophomoric lectures about language and thought. Look at policies.

This makes sense to me. Seems it's actually the term "illegal immigrant" rather than the word "illegal" that the author has a problem with. The analogy with "homosexual" is useful. I suppose that term was/is technically accurate, but reductive. If we're going to legalistic about it, then the legal description is "out of status."

Language is indeed power. The term homosexual at least makes sense etymologically (= same sex), and the only negative connotation is one assigned to it by people with a negative outlook. Lesbian also makes sense (cf. Isle of Lesbos, Sappho, etc.) - but what justification is there for the use of gay in its common frame of reference?I have never agreed that this is a kinder, less offensive term.

We do not have open borders with Mexico. It is illegal for me to sneak into Mexico and live there. If I did this, it would be a felony. This would make me an illegal immigrant. Full stop.

Illegal IS the wrong word. Criminal is much more descriptive. So what about the immigrants who did the right thing and came here legally? Screw them? Welcome to America, now pay for your brethren who don't give a $hit about laws.
You are a moron! Now show me your papers!

Part 2.

Back to immigration .. people should enter legally. And the corporations and government have basically screwed everyone in this.

They will need to pass an immigration reform bill, though, because you can't deport 12-20 million people without having an entire breakdown of democracy, civil rights, and a rise of fascism even moreso than we already have it.

Let's remember that "we" ARE a nation of immigrants, whether ours came in the last generation, the last two generations, the last 8, over on the Mayflower, or across the continents when they were previously joined.

Our recognition of that shared heritage can help us all pull together and get through this as one people triumphantly.

Perhaps it would be good if they changed the rules on dual citizenship. So if people become Americans, they have to give up all allegiance to any other countries, like Calderon's Mexico.

That, I think, might address some people's concerns, as well.

Defend the borders. Apprehend on sight. Deport those here already. Enough is enough.

I guess this is a response to "What part of illegal don't you understand?", which I have thought a bit lame as an overly obvious argument for over 20 years.

I think both sides on this issue could use listening to the words of this song ...

youtube.com/watch?v=o4fWN6VvgKQ

Why don't some talented singers and musicians take it up again, and do a great version?

Kind of like what Pearl Jam did with Bob Dylan's "Masters of War." More relevant than ever.

I agree, the term used by Mexicans for illegal aliens is better --- illegales

I don't see why if we are going to do this why we should limit it to illegal immigrants only. If we are going to determine that accurately describing a person by what they are as a result of what they have done is somehow denigrating shouldn't we apply it equally to all crimes. Just think, we could elevate peoples opinion of all criminals just by using a different descriptive connotation. Below I have made a short example list for everyone's consideration.

bank robber- an undocumented monetary withdrawal artist

burglar- an unauthorized home entry specialist

armed robber- a tool carrying money removal technician

murderer- a life shortening planning engineer

kidnapper- a non-consensual trip planner

@04:09, "Let's open our prisons, because nothing is illegal."

Though you say this sardonically, it's actually not a bad idea, considering the fact that U.S. imprisons more people proportionately to its population than any other country on earth.

When you consider the fact that large numbers are in there for "victimless" and non-violent offenses, one might get the absurdity of pouring billions into prisons, rather than health care, public education, colleges and universities.

For juveniles, alone, we spend $80,000. year keeping just one in jail.

Don't you think that person could be rehabilitated and outside the prison system, for less, rather than even more criminalized for more?

Mind you, I'm not talking about letting killers, rapists, and pedophiles run free. By all means, lock them up, for a change .. instead ...

See the film, Papillon. I just saw this film after many, many years with fresh appreciation. Because the entire tale is told from the perspective of the person being imprisoned. At least, in the film.

It would be hard indeed in the U.S. today to see a film brave enough to do that.

As far as prisons are concerned, we should be on the road to abolishing them, not increasingly adding to them.

What they should maybe do is use the immigration bill as leverage with the Mexican government to provide better health care, for example, for its own citizens. Among other demonstrations of what they are doing within that country.

Also -- pathways to citizenship that include a complete renunciation of Mexican citizenship.

Really sever the ties, and take the Mexican nationalism out of this equation. For starters.

They also need to take the health care equation out of this. I'd also like to see Medicare opened up in the U.S. for all Americans, and all "Mexican government involved" corrupt health programs -- and that Americans sometimes find themselves in -- expelled. Just let everyone get their health care at private doctors of their choice. Visiting workers, such a migrant farm workers, could be issued something separate, but with private doctors. Visa workers here from Mexico to help with those corrupt and inefficient programs should be employed in Mexico in their new and improved health care system. i.e. Opening up their own Medicare type public health program. With their elitists like Calderon and his wife learning to share more.

There are plenty of people who should just go back. They are not stateless or coming from a nation toppling into civil war.

I don't appreciate a guy like Calderon coming in and talking about "discrimination" when it's legal in Mexico for private restaurants to discriminate and not serve on the basis of race and/or class.

He's so FOS it's sickening.

I disagree. We need to use the term "ILLEGAL" more often in reference to the people who truly deserve it. Here's a partial list:

George Bush, Sr.
George Bush, Jr.
Dick Cheney
Karl Rove
The corporate executives of BP
George Tenet
Monsanto
Paul Wolfowitz
Don Rumsfeld
Condoleezza Rice
Halliburton
Blackwater
Dick Cheney

Open the prison doors, and put the corporate criminals in, including Scalia. No habeas corpus for these traitors to the law of this land! Those who destroyed habeas corpus shall reap what they sowed.

Let the "drug offenders", the falsely accused, and the unconstitutionally-held (i.e., excessive sentences, victims of crooked trials, etc.) out. Put the real criminals in.

Let the Robin Hood Revolution begin. It's time to take from the unjustly rich and give to the People.

Actually we are not illegal aliens. To be an illegal alien you need to be in a territory or on a land mass that is controlled by someone else without their permission. The people that were here before us haven't controlled the land mass known as the U.S. for a very long time. They lost control for various reasons but the bottom line is they lost control and therefore now have no say in who does and doesn't get to reside here. And there may come a day when we don't control the area known as the United States either. Especially if we continue to cede control by letting whoever wants to come here and live without permission. Even if permission is granted we may not maintain control. Texas for example was once a part of Mexico. Mexico asked for immigrants to come and populate what was a pretty empty territory. The immigrants that moved there became dissatisfied with Mexican rule and rebelled. Mexico was unable to put down the rebellion, lost the territory, and for a while Texas was actually its own nation. You may not like that we took part of the territory that we control by force but that is a part of human history, like it or not. History is full of stories of the conquerors and the conquered, the Mongols, and the Romans to name a couple. And as human history goes we as conquerors have been rather benign when compared to others in history. After the Mexican American war Mexico ceded territory to us in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. We won that war and could have just demanded that Mexico cede us that territory without compensation but we didn't do that. We paid Mexico 15 million dollars for I believe northern California, and the New Mexico territories which if I am correct included Arizona. Usually the conqueror does not compensate the conquered for territories they gain in battle. Manhattan island was purchased from the Indians. The original 13 colonies were won by rebellion. The Louisiana territory and Alaska were both purchased. Our record is probably the worst where the American Indians were concerned. But the bottom line is still that we were the conquerors, they became the conquered and we have no obligation to return territory to those we conquered and move out simply because they once occupied it.

Hey, Anonymous on 5/25 at 21:30! I'm with you! These guys are wasting MY taxpayer dollars, breathing MY oxygen . . . but, before we lock 'em up? Seize their assets and clean up the Gulf of Mexico with 'em!

(1) "But the bottom line is still that we were the conquerors, they became the conquered and we have no obligation to return territory to those we conquered and move out simply because they once occupied it."

I would instead say that the point, by this point in time, is moot. There are tens of millions of people now in these areas, and in both countries, with immigrants from many other lands, and none of these people had anything to do with what happened back then.

Though I agree that the argument you are addressing is a ridiculous one.

Besides, Mexico is a country settled with similar brutality by the European Spaniards.

And all the "mixing" that is referred to as happening in Mexico -- has not in fact happened to that extent, considering the degree of racism and discrimination that exists, even legally there, today.

Indeed, there's probably more mixing of heritage in the U.S., making their argument in that respect even more silly.

Wow, you people might want to actually read what entails becoming an American citizen before you troll this site with your b.s.

Impoverished, Latino laborers, since the turn of the century, have virtually NO CHANCE of even receiving a visa, much less a green card. While you sit on your high-horse over here, collecting unemployment & blaming undocumented immigrants for the fact that you don't have a job, you might want to consider a couple of things.

YOU DID NOT EARN THE RIGHT TO BE HERE----It was bestowed upon you by an accident of birth. Not everyone is so fortunate.

.....and about the "illegal" b.s. that you people keep spouting---if you've ever driven 5 miles over the speed limit, or jaywalked, or let your dog off his leash--than you, my high-and-mighty friends, are "illegal", too.

Stop blaming an oppressed people that has, is and always will do your crap work for you.....work that, as spoiled Americans, you couldn't even accomplish on YOUR BEST DAY!!!!