At the heart of the immigration debate lies a controversial term: “illegal immigrant.” Some believe that the word 'illegal' justifies the term’s use; comments from social media argue that “‘[why] is this so hard for the freaking liberals to understand… Illegal the opposite from legal… means there breaking the law to be simple and clear” (Stribley). But, is this issue really that 'simple and clear?' Although the use of “illegal immigrant” seems straightforward and logical, the connotations attached to this term construct the prejudicial power it carries.
Originally used by the British in the 1940s to “refer to Jews who entered or attempted to enter Palestine without official permission” (“illegal immigrant,” Oxford), this term’s use has grown almost seven-thousand percent in recent years as shown in Google NGram Viewer (Google). This increase is thought to have been facilitated by the recommendation to use “illegal immigrant” by the Associated Press Stylebook, the “decisive authority on word use at virtually all mainstream daily newspapers… television, radio and electronic news media,” in 2004 (Garcia). A formal definition through Merriam Webster defines “illegal immigrant” to be “a foreign person who is living in a country without having official permission to live there” (“illegal immigrant,” Merriam). The combination of the roots of “illegal,” in and legalize (“illegal,” OED), and the roots of “immigrate,” in and migrate (“immigrate,” OED), literally becomes “moving in, not pertaining to the law.” This term’s current meaning, which is used to describe individuals present in the U.S. without proper authorization (Navarrette), is very similar to its formal definition and what is derived from its etymology. While the denotations may seem simple, the connotations through history and politics form the weight behind this term.
While the stance on the topic varies across political party lines, the connotations of “illegal immigrant” stay relatively consistent. Right-wing groups are generally less sympathetic towards “illegal immigrants,” and gain power and support for restrictive immigration policy through the connotations of this term. Jose Antonio Vargas from Define American, an immigration coverage advocacy group, states that conservatives have “‘created this entire linguistic parallel reality that is framed by the language they use’” (Nakamura). This empowered group uses this term to demean and dehumanize “illegal immigrants” by “saying the individual, as opposed to the actions the person has taken, is unlawful” (Garcia). United States Illegal Alien Crime Report, a website dedicated to reporting the crimes of illegal immigrants, has its news categorized under terrorism, assault, murder, cop killings, drug crimes, rape, children, DUIs, and identity theft. Generally, the article headline, in all capitalized letters, begins with the subject’s identity as an “illegal” or a “previously deported” person, then goes on to describe their crime, for example, “PREVIOUSLY DEPORTED ILLEGAL ALIEN KIDNAPPED, RAPED 15-YEAR-OLD GIRL.” Each article is joined with a warped and unflattering image of the “illegal immigrant,” usually a Latino male (United). While this website is a biased source, a litany of articles in mainstream media, especially right-wing sources such as Fox News, follow this format. This way, politics, and media invoke the fact that the subject is an “illegal immigrant” committing a crime to portray that they are dangerous criminals.
Throughout American history, different groups have taken turns being “illegal immigrants.” The first group was Asian immigrants being barred from entry through the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1917 (Little). These people encountered hostility and harsh stereotypes that described them as “exotic, dangerous, and competitors for jobs and wages” (Wu). In the 1920s, this stereotype found a new target: the people crossing the U.S.-Mexican border. Until the early 20th century, unauthorized immigrants could not be prosecuted for a federal crime, though they could be deported. In 1929, Senator Coleman Livingston Bleasea, a white supremacist, proposed a law criminalizing those who did not enter through an official entry point: Section 1325. At these entry points, “‘U.S. authorities subjected Mexican immigrants... to kerosene baths and humiliating delousing procedures because they believed Mexican immigrants carried disease and filth on their bodies’” (Little). In the first ten years of the law’s passage, the government prosecuted 44,000 of these Mexican immigrants in addition to the millions that “nativists rounded up and deported in the Great Depression’s ‘repatriation drives’ out of a belief that Mexicans were a drain on the economy” (Little). The idea that “illegal immigrants” are dirty and “job-stealers” adds a connotation to this term that is still prevalent today.
Conservative exacerbation of the “border crisis” aids in the misconception that all these “illegal immigrants” are coming from Mexico and sneaking across the southern border in the middle of the night. In fact, “almost half enter the U.S. with a valid tourist or work visa and overstay their allotted time” (Garcia). Pew Research reports that in 2017, only forty-seven percent of undocumented immigrants were from Mexico, while the other percentages were from other countries (Krogstad). A study conducted by the University of Chicago reveals that criteria such as national origin help shape perceptions of illegality. The results show that “Mexicans… were significantly more suspect than immigrants from Europe or Asia—despite the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of undocumented European and Asian immigrants in the country” (Gale). Michael H. LeRoy, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, describes a hypothetical situation similar to this study where “[in] one case, a woman named Paulina flies into the United States, overstays her visa and accrues ‘an unlawful presence.’ In another instance, a man named Jose climbs a fence in Arizona and makes an ‘improper entry.’ ‘Culturally, many people accept Paulina’s accrued unlawful presence more readily than Jose’s improper entry because of their ethnicity’” (Slowik). This racial stereotyping further contributes to the wrongful generalization of who “illegal immigrants” are.
Such connotations of “illegal immigrant” call upon the use of a separate term with less baggage. Holocaust survivor and activist Elie Wiesel states that “no human being is illegal” (Stribley). While there is yet to be agreement on a single replacement term, following Wiesel’s statement, the word “illegal” is not found in any of the current substitutes. In 2013, the Associated Press Stylebook no longer sanctioned the terms “illegal immigrant” or “illegal” in immigration reporting, furthermore, stating that “‘illegal’ should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally” (Colford). In place of “illegal immigrant,” Define American suggests “[using] the term ‘undocumented Americans’ for the over 11 million people living in the U.S. without a path to legalization,” and other terms include: “newest Americans, newcomers, undocumented citizens, unauthorized immigrants, families who have moved from one place to another, and people who weren’t born in the United States” (Define American). On this organization's website, those interested can sign petitions urging media outlets to stop using “illegal immigrants” and avoid inaccurate terminology. Instead of attempting to rewrite the negative connotations of “illegal immigrant,” groups have instead attempted to adopt a new term.
Although some continue using “illegal immigrants” to dehumanize this group, others push for the elimination and replacement of this term. This term suffers from extreme politicization: right-wing politics exploit the stereotypes and crimes of this community to gain political support, while the left tries to avoid this term altogether. The use of this term engenders images that provide power to nativist and politically conservative America through negative bias towards the target, generally Mexican-Americans. Whether the term can be successfully replaced by one that is not so heavily weighted has yet to be seen.