Retired immigration judges: We used ‘illegal alien’ and got axed

The Obama administration, a compliant media and the “political correctness” word police have taken control of the immigration debate with an agenda of deception, doublespeak and censorship.

As retired immigration judges and Department of Justice attorneys responsible for the proper enforcement of our immigration laws, we have often been asked for our opinion of the current state of our immigration enforcement policies.

These inquiries have motivated us to write commentaries expressing our concerns over the Department of Homeland Security’s failure to enforce our immigration laws as written, the promotion of amnesty and open border ideologies, and the implementation of immigration policies by executive action rather than under the rule of law.

These articles have been published on the blog of immigration enforcement advocate the Immigration Reform Law Institute and, until recently, by a subscription legal news source that characterizes itself as a trusted news source for top lawyers, business leaders, federal agencies and the entire U.S. federal judiciary.

Censorship of legal and factually correct terminology not only limits debate, but it forecloses the ability of those not intimately familiar with the debate to understand all sides.

We say “until recently” as we have now received word from their newly-constituted immigration lawyer editorial board that they will not publish our recent submission relating to sanctuary cities unless we delete from our commentary the term “illegal alien,” which they perceive to be derogatory and/or inflammatory. Their rationale is that the term “illegal” applies to actions, not individuals. The red-line copy that we received in return replaced the term “illegal alien” with the term “undocumented immigrant.”

We refused to comply with their editorial demand and explained to the editorial board that the term “undocumented immigrant” is factually and legally inaccurate and deceptive in nature.

We explained that the term is factually incorrect because many of the aliens illegally present in this country have documents. These documents may range from those unlawfully obtained, like social security cards or social security numbers, fraudulent drivers licenses, or other documents legally obtained such as "cedulas" ("Cedulas" is the term commonly used for matricular identification
or driver documents issued by the Mexican government to its citizens in the United States.) or licenses.

Also, the term “immigrant” only applies to a person who has either legally entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident or has been adjusted to that status while in the United States.

We also explained that the term is legally incorrect for several reasons.

First, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), our nation’s immigration law, does not use the term. Instead, the law expressly uses the term “illegal alien” when referring to a person who has either illegally entered the United States or violated the terms of their admission, such as overstaying a visa. For example, in Title V of The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which added provisions to the INA, there are five references to “illegal alien” alone while the term “undocumented” is not mentioned once.

We also drew the board’s attention to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s recent pronouncement in the Texas v. USA case challenging President Obama’s executive actions granting de facto amnesty to certain illegal aliens where the court likened the term “undocumented immigrant” to “near-gobbledygook.” The court stated in full:     

There is some confusion--not necessarily in this case but generally--regarding the proper term for non-citizens who are in the United States unlawfully. The leading legal lexicographer offers the following compelling explanation:

The usual and preferable term in [American English] is illegal alien. The other forms have arisen as needless euphemisms, and should be avoided as near-gobbledygook. The problem with undocumented is that it is intended to mean, by those who use it in this phrase, “not having the requisite documents to enter or stay in a country legally.” But the word strongly suggests “unaccounted for” to those unfamiliar with this quasi-legal jargon, and it may therefore obscure the meaning. More than one writer has argued in favor of undocumented alien . . . [to] avoid[ ] the implication that one’s unauthorized presence in the United States is a crime . . . . But that statement is only equivocally correct: although illegal aliens’ presence in the country is no crime, their entry into the country is. . . . Moreover, it is wrong to equate illegality with criminality, since many illegal acts are not criminal. Illegal alien is not an opprobrious epithet: it describes one present in a country in violation of the immigration laws (hence “illegal”).

BRYAN A. GARNER, GARNER’S DICTIONARY OF LEGAL USAGE 912 (Oxford 3d ed. 2011) (citations omitted).

We noted further to the board that the Supreme Court of the United States and every federal circuit court of appeals use the term “illegal alien” when referencing someone not lawfully present in the United States...

According to William Lutz, author of the 1996 book “The New Doublespeak,” doublespeak is “language which makes the bad seem good, the negative seem positive, the unpleasant seem unattractive, or at least tolerable.”

In the immigration debate, the principles of “Newspeak” and “Doublespeak” are being used to change the perception of aliens illegally present to the more liberally accepted term “undocumented immigrant.”

A variety of motivations underlie this effort, but regardless of intent, those who object to the use of the term “illegal alien” appear to believe that if they can convince the American public that illegal immigration is not really illegal, then amnesty no longer is amnesty, and enforcing immigration law is unnecessary...

The Associated Press has announced that it will no longer use the term “illegal alien” in its articles. Like the animals in Orwell’s classic, we suffer from a heavy dose of doublespeak which is designed to limit the ideals of freedom of expression, thought and the exchange of ideas...

The use of deceptive semantics alters the dialogue and is neither warranted nor acceptable in public debate.  

Judge Hacker was appointed as a United States Immigration Judge in July 1995 to re-establish an Immigration Court in Michigan, which was expanded under her tenure to include jurisdiction over immigration proceedings in Ohio and northern Kentucky. She has held numerous positions within the former Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) including naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and chief attorney for three immigration districts, including Los Angeles.

Judge Hanson was appointed as a United States Immigration Judge at the Miami Immigration Court in March 1995 and served in that capacity until July 2010. From May 1987 to June 1994, he served as Deputy Regional Counsel in St. Paul, Minnesota and then Deputy District Counsel in Miami, Florida from June 1994 to March 1995. From August 1983 to July 1986, he served as a judge with the Minnesota Workers Compensation Court of Appeals, and from July 1986 to May 1987 he served as Chief Judge.

Related articles

Uppity school kids are now dictating American law?, Fred Elbel, CAIRCO, April 1, 2016.

U.S. Appeals Court consistently uses the correct terminology 'illegal alien', Fred Elbel, CAIRCO, November 10, 2015.