I was listening to Fresh Air on KANW while in my car today. I listen to Fresh Air just about every day; Terry Gross is a very good interviewer, and while sometimes the subjects can be dry, other times her interviews are classics.
But the best part of today's show was not an interview (with all apologies to Gross) - it was a segment of Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist and professor at Stanford. Nunberg talked about the use of the word "alien" as it applies to illegal immigration.
This piqued my interest, because I recently was involved in a debate at The Ramblings of Another Guy (actually friendlier than most) with someone else in the blogosphere about the usage of the word "alien" - I said that the word was disrespectful. Nunberg discusses the problems with using "alien".
[A]lien still suggests strangeness and difference -- people who are "not of our sort." That's partly due to the science-fiction writers who picked the word up in the 1930's to refer to extraterrestrial beings.[1] It's revealing that alien is far more likely to be used to describe Mexicans and Central Americans than Europeans. The tens of thousands of Irish and Poles who are in the country illegally are almost always referred to as "immigrants," not "aliens." And anti-immigrationists almost never use aliens to describe foreigners who are in the country legally -- on news broadcasts, "illegal aliens" outnumbers "legal aliens" by about 100 to 1. Whatever its legal meaning, when it comes to the crunch, alien means "brown people who snuck in."
So there is also a bit of a racial intonation when you use "alien" - so what to use? I use "illegal immigrant." But that is not perfect either. Back to Nunberg:
Nowadays, those connotations have led the majority of the mainstream media to steer clear of the word aliens -- "illegal immigrants" tends to be the phrase of choice. But illegal has something more than a technical meaning, too. True, dictionaries define the word simply as "not according to law." But there are disparaging connotations to the negative prefix in illegal, which is actually just a variant of the prefix in-. Inhuman doesn't mean the same thing as "not human," and you don't become irreligious simply by not going to church. And you hear the same negative tone in words like insincere, inflexible, and illegitimate. So it isn't surprising that we reserve illegal for conveying strong disapproval. We may talk about illegal drugs, but we don't describe the Porsche 959 as an illegal car, even though it can't legally be driven in the US.
Then too, we don't usually describe law-breakers as being illegal in themselves. Jack Abramoff may have done illegal lobbying, but nobody has called him an illegal lobbyist. And whatever laws Bernie Ebbers and Martha Stewart may have broken, they weren't illegal CEO's.
So illegal immigrant isn't neutral either. But there is no easy solution in such moral dilemmas. Like everything else that deals with morality, there are not two sides to a story, but dozens of positions, and the gray areas are so large, they are practically the entire debate.
There is no single right answer - possibly no right answer at all.
Aliens, illegals, even undocumented -- over the past hundred years, it has been in the nature of the language of immigration to suppress the human side of the story. Yet language can't wholly obscure those realities. As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote in 1965 about the European experience with immigration, "We called for a labor force, but it was human beings that came."[4] Read More »