On rhetoric [note: a BIG DEAL]

The words we use can strengthen or can dis-empower. Most often, the rhetoric of immigration from the U.S. media and federal government disempowers, alienates, and criminalizes those leaving Mexico and Central America for the US, to a severe and frightening degree.

The volunteers I’ve been working with are very deliberate in the way they speak about the border region. The following is a general list of terms I’ve heard through public media, federal reports, and discussions, and a response to each. (The list moves more-or-less from most disturbing phrases to terms that seem more accurate to refer to people who are crossing through the desert).

“Criminal alien” – Just writing this phrase is upsetting. The word ‘alien’ renders a person foreign, a non-person, in a category of sub- or other-than-human. Most sources that use ‘alien’ will avoid using the words ‘person’ or ‘people.’

‘Criminal’ has a whole mess of assumptions that go along with it, and often implies that the person(s) referred can and will cause harm to you or your property. In reality, most of the “criminal” records of people crossing refer to multiple deportations – once someone has been deported once, they are technically “criminal” under U.S. law. The act of re-entering the U.S. after one deportation is a felony.

“Illegal alien” – A human being, a person, cannot be illegal. You can commit an illegal act, but you yourself cannot be branded ‘illegal’ for your existence. The status of ‘illegal’ denies the validity of those peoples’ sufferings and their right to be heard. (Many, many people have discussed the use of ‘illegal’ in more depth and with more eloquence).

(alien – see above)

“Illegal immigrant” – (illegal – see above) ‘immigrant’ refers to someone who “comes to live permanently in a foreign country.”** Immigrant assumes the intent and the background of the person(s) referred to. The case may be that someone is coming to the U.S. to work for a finite period of time, and thus are not coming to live permanently (so, then, they are not an “immigrant”). Also, many people who are now being deported have lived in the U.S. for 10, 15, 20 years. Or they’ve lived in the U.S. since they were 2 years old and their parents never applied for/obtained citizenship for them. They may identify as U.S. American. They may have no memory of Mexico. Crossing the desert into the U.S. may be their returning home to their families and/or hometowns. Thus their journey is not to a foreign country, but back home. Also, the term immigrant is a few degrees away from “person” “people” etc., creates a distance between the audience and the person(s) discussed, and can function as a euphemism.

“Migrant” – refers to someone who moves regularly in order to find work.** This is a little more inclusive than ‘immigrant,’ as it doesn’t imply where home is to the individual and does not imply a certain duration of stay. However, it only refers to those seeking work and isn’t a comprehensive term for everyone moving through the border region or living in the U.S. without citizenship.

“Undocumented person” – simply refers to a one’s lack of citizenship in the U.S. It may be refer to traveling in the border region or to someone who has been living in the U.S. for years. It doesn’t imply their motives, the country/ies they identify with, or intentionally alienate them from a U.S. citizen with documents. What I find most useful about the term is that it translates to different social/political groups of people without need for much explanation and is not particularly offensive.

“Walkers” – Several people at the desert camp use this term to refer to people who are crossing through the SW desert. It’s intended to be a peaceful, non-assumptive term to refer to someone traveling through. However, it takes some explaining outside of organizations like this, and something about the word ‘walker’ seems exclusive or off to me.

“Travelers” – Similar use and intention of “walker.” The word “traveler” is meant to be more inclusive and break down the barrier/distinction between someone who is in the desert as an aid-worker, volunteer, or permanent resident and someone who is traveling north from Mexico. We can all be considered “travelers” in whatever literal or metaphorical context you’d like, and is a term that implies solidarity with those who are crossing north. It also doesn’t assume the citizenship status and intention of those in the desert.

“Economic refugees” – I wish this were more common. A majority of people crossing the border from Mexico into the U.S. are leaving homes where their families are starving, where jobs are unavailable, where their agricultural land has been bought by foreign corporations. Most people fleeing a scarcity of resource are impoverished by the aftershocks of NAFTA. “Economic refugees” doesn’t refer to all people who cross, but it recognizes that most people are traveling through the desert because their basic human needs are not being met to survive in their home country, and acknowledges the border dynamics as a humanitarian crisis.

“Asylum-seekers” – Asylum refers to fleeing persecution and/or violence, and those seeking asylum from Mex or Central America are already within the U.S. Similar to economic refugees; asylum-seekers acknowledges the increasing violence in Mexico and the people who are fleeing drug violence, gang violence, domestic violence, starvation, etc. It is rare (nearly impossible) for a citizen of Mexico or Central America to be granted asylum in the U.S.

Please do respond to this if you are upset by my interpretations or my logic is off/flawed/unclear. I hope this has been useful.

** from Word Reference Online English Dictionary