Retired Immigration Judges Censored for Using ‘Illegal Alien’


Political correctness, also known as doublespeak, has raised its ugly head to violate the freedom of speech of a group of retired immigration judges and DOJ immigration attorneys.

Members of the group are often asked to write their opinions on various aspects of current immigration enforcement policies. In writing their opinions, these men and women often become frustrated with DHS’s failure to enforce America’s current immigration laws as they are written. They are also concerned over the lack of border security and the promotion of amnesty instead of enforcing the laws.

They often express their concerns in articles published by Immigration Reform Law Institute blog site. IRLI is an immigration advocate group. Their articles were also being published by a legal news source that was subscription only for top lawyers, federal agencies and the US federal judicial system. The group had always believed that the news source was trusted organization, but that has obviously changed.

The news source recently formed an immigration lawyer editorial board that appears to be more concerned about spreading Obama’s political correctness than they are about accuracy. A recent submission to the new editorial board was returned to the group with the notice that they will not publish anything using the term ‘illegal alien.’ Instead, they insist on using ‘undocumented immigrant.’

The group of retired immigration judges and attorneys notified the editorial board that ‘undocumented immigrant’ is ‘factually and legally inaccurate and deceptive in nature.’

According to co-authors Elizabeth A. Hacker and Mahlon F. Hanson:

“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…’”

“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.”

“In fact, a Lexis search for the term ‘illegal alien’ in the ‘US Courts of Appeals Cases’ database produces an alert that the ‘search (‘illegal alien’) has been interrupted because it will return more than 3000 results.’ The same result is obtained when a similar search is performed in the ‘US District Court Cases’ database. The same search in the ‘State Court Cases’ database produces 1,942 cases. It is therefore evident that the legal consensus is that the legal term of art ‘illegal alien’ is the precise and appropriate term when referring to an individual who is in the United States contrary to law.”

“Our protest resulted in no legal or factual rebuttal. Instead, the editors simply reiterated that they would not allow us to use the term. The editors did replace the term ‘undocumented immigrant’ in the red-line edition of our article with the term ‘unauthorized alien.’ This alternative term, however, is equally lacking in factual or legal integrity.”

Hacker and Hanson went to describe how they felt about the censorship of the editorial board, saying:

“We find the attempts to censor our work to conform and promote the editorial board’s political ideologies as much more oppressive, derogatory, and inflammatory to the American ideals of freedom of thought, expression, and open debate than use of the only factually and legally accurate reference for those aliens who have no legal status or entitlement to remain in the United States. (The authors did try to comply with the demands of the ‘new’ editorial board, however, they stopped short of eliminating the proper terminology relating to aliens illegally present in the United States.)”

“The demand of the editorial board to substitute the term ‘undocumented immigrant’ for the factually and legally correct term ‘illegal alien’ is a classic example of the type of doublespeak/newspeak that has come to populate the field of debate.”

“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 use of ‘politically correct’ terminology to change the fundamental character of the underlying concept or item has its origins in novels such as ‘1984’ and ‘Animal Farm.’”

“How could we forget Squealer’s use of propaganda to convince the others that truth was false and lies were truth. While Orwell may have first described the use of doublespeak and newspeak to alter the truth, there is much in the immigration debate that has taken this to a new level.”

“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 can only surmise that this may be the intent of the editorial board of this well-known legal resource.”

I find it interesting that the argument that’s always used to justify the use of ‘undocumented immigrant’ is that ‘illegal alien’ is offensive to the poor illegals. Well, a murderer doesn’t like to be called a murderer, a rapist doesn’t like to be called a rapist, a pedophile doesn’t like to be called a pedophile, but the liberal doublespeak world of political correctness has no problem calling these criminals what they really are, so why not call an illegal alien an illegal alien?

Don’t forget that those doing the censoring are the same ones that insist on using the terms ‘social justice’ and ‘redistribution of wealth’ for ‘socialism.’ They figure if they can hide the truth by using inaccurate terms that they can better sell their socialist agenda to unknowing Americans.

There is another reason so much effort has been made to outlaw ‘illegal alien.’ The reason is simple. Obama sees them as 12 million to 20 million potential Democratic voters. As such he has to use doublespeak to make them not look like the criminals they are so that Americans will be more willing to turn the nation over to them. Consequently, Obama and his blind followers are doing everything in their power to brainwash the American people and if it means violating our First Amendment rights of free speech so be it. The US Constitution has never stopped Obama’s illegal ways and I seriously doubt he’ll ever start abiding by the Constitution.

 

 

 

Previous Rand Paul Slams Donald Trump for Using Government to Steal Private Property
Next Obama Blames Others for His Failure in Syria

Comment