[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

"Gestapo" Müller - Hunting Hitler's Secret Police Chief

How Michelle Obama Could Become Democrats' Nominee after Biden's Terrible Debate, with Steve Bannon

Was This Lethal Spitfire Ace Killed by His Own Tactics?

Welsh Police Pay Home Visit To Man For Displaying Reform UK Political Sign

Liz Harrington Drops a BOMBSHELL on How Georgia Was Stolen

Trudeau govt to make all bathrooms in Parliament buildings GENDER NEUTRAL

French official admits censorship is needed for government to control public opinion

Bill Maher Predicts Trump Victory: The Left Is Aggressively Anti-Common Sense

Google is suppressing Blaze Media. Heres how you can help.

Large-scale prisons being secretly erected in all 50 states will they be used to house illegals or force Americans into concentration camps?

Hezbollah is ready to confront Israels military, with Jon Elmer

Balloons Land in Southern Lebanon, Warning Locals the Land Belongs to Jews

German Politician Hit With Hate Crime Investigation For Demanding Migrant Criminals Be Deported

DNC Caught Funneling Millions to Law Firms Involved in Unprecedented Lawfare Campaign Against Trump

Here Are The 20 Biggest Whoppers Biden Told During His Debate With Trump

NYC to ban cellphones in public schools.

New York Times Columnists Turn On Biden After Disastrous Debate Performance

8 Armed Men With Venezuelan Accents Violently Rob Denver Jewelry Store

Uvalde Police School Chief Indicted, Arrested Over Response To 2022 Shooting

Greetings from the Horse

Tonight confirmed every Democrats worst fear.

Five Women Soon To Die In 1928

How Trump Can Lose The Debate

Tucker Carlson Savagely Dismantles ‘Dumb’ and ‘Stupid’ Far-Left Reporter at Australian Freedom Conference

James Clapper, Mr. October Surprise: How Obama's Intel Czar Rigged 2016 And 2020 Debates Against Trump

Biden Campaign Balks Wont Commit to Drug Test

S-500 Prometheus: Designed To Kill Stealth Jets, ICBMs

The US military chases shiny new things and the ranks suffer

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Now in the Med, USS Theodore Roosevelt Heads to the Middle East

Lefties losing it: Rita Panahi mocks Democrat judge acting like a ‘confused simpleton’


Immigration
See other Immigration Articles

Title: "Undocumented Immigrant" Is a Made-Up Term That Ignores the Law
Source: The Heritage Foundation
URL Source: https://www.heritage.org/immigratio ... rant-made-term-ignores-the-law
Published: Jul 30, 2018
Author: Hans A. von Spakovsky
Post Date: 2019-05-20 15:18:02 by GreyLmist
Ping List: *Illegal Immigration*     Subscribe to *Illegal Immigration*
Keywords: Illegal Aliens, Immigration Law
Views: 158
Comments: 5

Intro Summary:

Using terms like “undocumented immigrant” is intended to blur and extinguish the line between legal and illegal immigration.

1. “Undocumented immigrant” is a politically correct, made-up term used to obscure the fact that such aliens have violated U.S. immigration law.

2. The Supreme Court, which has decided numerous cases involving federal immigration law, also uses the correct, precise legal term of “illegal alien.”

3. The Justice Department has a constitutional duty to enforce the immigration laws passed by Congress against illegal aliens.


Article:

The news media is reporting that an internal email at the Justice Department has reminded its lawyers that the legally correct term they should be using in their briefs is “illegal alien,” not the euphemism “undocumented immigrant.”

The Justice Department leadership is correct. Illegal alien is the correct legal term that should be used.

“Undocumented immigrant” is a politically correct, made-up term adopted by pro-illegal alien advocacy groups and liberal media outlets to obscure the fact that such aliens have violated U.S. immigration law and are in the country illegally.

Precision in the law is a vital principle, since the exact words used in statutes, regulations, contracts, guidance documents, and policy statements can significantly affect how they are applied and interpreted.

If we are going to discuss and debate the issue of immigration and what our public policy should be, we should at least use accurate, precise terms, and talk about, for example, legal aliens vs. illegal aliens.

Government lawyers in particular have an obligation to use the correct language of the federal statutes they are sworn to uphold and enforce.

Federal immigration law uses the term “illegal alien.” For example, 8 U.S.C. §1365 is a provision that deals with a reimbursement program the federal government has for states that are incarcerating illegal aliens. Its very title refers to “illegal aliens,” and that term is used in the statute itself, which defines an illegal alien as anyone “who is in the United States unlawfully.”

“Alien”—rather than “immigrant”—is the correct legal term, since “alien” is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101 (a)(3) as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.”

The Supreme Court, which has decided numerous cases involving federal immigration law, also uses the correct, precise legal term of “illegal alien.”

In 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen pointed this out in his decision granting an injunction against the implementation of President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, the so-called DAPA program.

As Hanen said in a footnote:

The Court also understands that there is a certain segment of the population that finds the phrase ‘illegal alien’ offensive. The court uses this term because it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law. See Arizona v. U.S., 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012).

Hanen was, of course, correct in his assessment. The Supreme Court used the term “illegal alien” not only in that case, but in numerous prior decisions, some of which are cited in Arizona v. U.S.

Under federal law, any individual in this country who is not a citizen is an alien. And any alien who is here without [lawful] permission is here illegally. End of story.

But of course, the propaganda war in the public arena cares little for facts and actual statutory language.

Pro-illegal alien groups, politicians who push “sanctuary” policies and open borders, and protesters who want to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, want to persuade the American public that those here illegally are no different than those who followed the rules to come here lawfully.

Using terms like “undocumented immigrant” is intended to blur and extinguish the line between legal and illegal immigration.

Advocates for illegal aliens want to stifle debate by making the false claim that if you are against “undocumented immigrants”—aka illegal aliens—you must be a racist, a nativist, or someone who hates all immigrants.

That is false and shameful demagoguery of the worst kind. The United States is the most generous country in the world when it comes to legal immigration. We take in more than 1 million legal immigrants a year—more than any other country in the world.

But support for legal immigration doesn’t mean we must also support illegal immigration. In fact, we have an obligation to prevent illegal aliens from breaking our laws and entering our country surreptitiously.

The term “illegal alien” is neither dehumanizing, nor demeaning. It is the precise legal term for those whose status in this country is unlawful.

President Ronald Reagan once said that “a nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.”

The Justice Department has a constitutional duty to enforce the immigration laws passed by Congress against illegal aliens. Basic standards of professionalism and good advocacy require that its lawyers use the legally correct and accurate language of the statutes they enforce as applied by the Supreme Court.


This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal Subscribe to *Illegal Immigration*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0)

Cross-referencing Law Resource @ 4um Title: The Myth of the “Otherwise Law-Abiding” Illegal Alien

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2019-05-20   22:12:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: GreyLmist (#0)

BTW: it was the great, wonderful, we all bow Reagan that coined the term "undocumented immigrant" and it stuck. By using this it makes the slags look good

Darkwing  posted on  2019-05-21   8:15:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Darkwing (#2)

BTW: it was the great, wonderful, we all bow Reagan that coined the term "undocumented immigrant" and it stuck. By using this it makes the slags look good

As far as I could determine, the "undocumented immigrants" phrasing was part of the so-called Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which was legislation passed invalidly by Congress in violation of the Constitution's Uniform Rule of Naturalization clause. Bizarrely, their supposed intent was to "legalize" nearly 3 million illegal alien migrant-workers here by an "Amnesty" for them that was itself an Unconstitutional Congressional action. Reagan should have refused to sign it but didn't because he expected that Congress would better secure the border, which didn't happen after they got what they wanted from his signature. He even went a step further by issuing an Executive Order of "Amnesty" for the children of those illegal aliens who were also here (an "extra gift" that benefited an estimated 100,000 families) and still Congress neglected border security. That's reportedly why he regreted his part in the Amnesty fiasco to appease Congress for better border security, all of which was wrongful and unlawful.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2019-05-21   15:53:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: GreyLmist (#3)

As far as I could determine, the "undocumented immigrants" phrasing was part of the so-called Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which was legislation passed invalidly by Congress in violation of the Constitution's Uniform Rule of Naturalization clause. Bizarrely, their supposed intent was to "legalize" nearly 3 million illegal alien migrant-workers here by an "Amnesty" for them that was itself an Unconstitutional Congressional action. Reagan should have refused to sign it but didn't because he expected that Congress would better secure the border, which didn't happen after they got what they wanted from his signature. He even went a step further by issuing an Executive Order of "Amnesty" for the children of those illegal aliens who were also here (an "extra gift" that benefited an estimated 100,000 families) and still Congress neglected border security. That's reportedly why he regreted his part in the Amnesty fiasco to appease Congress for better border security, all of which was wrongful and unlawful.

As usual, GreyLmist, your precise investigations have shown the truth of the matter.

CONgresscritters are a bunch of wishy-washee types who go which ever way the wind blows. And if what they do seems to be unconstitutional in nature, then some one needs to challenge them and take it to the Supreme Court. But who has that kind of money these days?

Organizations like Judicial Watch have only been around since the late 90s. ;)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2019-05-21   16:16:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: BTP Holdings (#4)

CONgresscritters are a bunch of wishy-washee types who go which ever way the wind blows. And if what they do seems to be unconstitutional in nature, then some one needs to challenge them and take it to the Supreme Court. But who has that kind of money these days?

Organizations like Judicial Watch have only been around since the late 90s. ;)


Thanks for the sunny greeting, BTP, because it's been quite chilly here for this time of year. Indeed there are wishy-washy types in Congress who seem to go whichever way the wind does, usually to the Left. And the Communist satellite types that are swarming in America's government offices shouldn't be there at all. They are like Marxians from the defunct Soviet system; constantly warring against America's Constitution and continuity as a nation, which they mean to obliterate. I'm sure that wasn't what our Founders intended for us, nor that enemies of the Constitution should be "outvoted" in elections they could rig to "win" and might even try for years to vindictively steal if they lost, as they have since 2016 because: That's just a shortcut method to them for reaching their same goal of wrecking America. It would be a good thing if Judicial Watch could help us to shield our Republic from their government overthrow attempts and Anarcho-Political Party Charades. The Founders didn't say We the People needed to have enough money to gamble in courts that might be corrupted by a menace like Communism to rid our rightful government of it. Thankfully, they codified the 9th and 10th Amendments for us within the Constitution as helpful reminders that we don't ever have to officialize any Communist satellite types in our places of government because they can't even take a sincere oath to uphold it due to their conflicting and destructive Globalist agendas and such.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2019-05-23   12:23:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]