Sonia Sotomayor made history last week as the first Supreme Court Justice to use the phrase “undocumented immigrant” with her debut decision in the case Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, No. 08-678. And immigration advocates everywhere are touting Justice Sotomayor’s choice as a step in the right direction.
University of California law professor Kevin Johnson explains the significance of semantics on his blog:
The choice of terminology – aliens, illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants, people – matters in the discourse over immigration … by employing a more neutral term, Justice Sotomayor has added significantly to the Supreme Court’s dialogue on immigration, which is likely to be with us for the foreseeable future.
Our friends at CQ Politics, however, are concerned by this precedent-setting deviation from the past (as noted by The New York Times). One CQ blogger (we won’t mention any names, but sounds like ‘Bill Pascoe’) writes:
The only logical reason to replace one word that’s been used on many prior occasions for another that’s never been used before is because one believes the first word is inaccurate. Does Sotomayor not believe it is illegal for non-citizens of the United States to be in the United States in violation of current U.S. immigration law? And if she does, how can she be expected ever to rule properly on an immigration case that makes its way to the Supreme Court?
What Bill’s missing is that, if anything, Sotomayor’s choice of words will only re-energize the conversation, which has long been weighed down by stigma and inflammatory dialogue. In actuality, most undocumented immigrants do not come to the U.S. by crossing a border illegally; most enter legally – with student, tourist, or business visas – and remain after their visas expire. Within a flawed immigration system, it is essential to use language for clarification – and allow it to evolve with the times – rather than maintain the status quo for its own sake, even if it stigmatizes and dehumanizes an entire group of people.
Subscribe 
One Comment
Actually, I didn’t “miss” at all the notion that Sotomayor’s choice of words will “re-energize the conversation.” I simply didn’t address that aspect.
And I know that the majority of illegal immigrants in the United States are illegal because they’ve chosen to remain after their visas have expired.
But that doesn’t make their status any less illegal than those who crossed the border illegally. In both cases, they are residing in the United States in violation of immigration law — and, hence, it is appropriate to refer to them as “illegal immigrants.”
I don’t choose the maintain the status quo for its own sake; I choose to maintain the status quo because, as a conservative, I believe that if it not NECESSARY to change, then it is necessary NOT to change.