WASHINGTON—During opening statements for the first House Judiciary Committee hearing addressing comprehensive immigration reform, the top ranking Democrat on the committee urged his fellow members and the witnesses present to avoid using the phrase “illegal immigrant” during the daylong proceedings.
“I hope no one uses the term ‘illegal immigrants’ here today,” said Committee Ranking Member John Conyers of Michigan. “Our citizens are not illeg—the people in this country are not illegal. They are out of status. They’re new Americans that are immigrants, and I think we can forge a path to citizenship that will be able to pass muster.”
Not only is this blatant pandering to a coveted “minority group”, it’s also yet another example of the types of deliberate word games Democrats like to play via the redefinition of what something means. So we shouldn’t call people who are here illegally “illegals.” What does that make people who ARE here legally? “More legal”? Illegals should now be called “out of status” immigrants, according to Conyers. Should legals be called “in status”? Are there levels of “legality”? When does it stop?
Quite frankly I’m not sure what’s worse: Self-important politically correct politicos and mainstream media types referring to illegal immigrants as “undocumented” or calling them “out of status.” Are there any other substitute terms I missed?
This is ridiculous beyond belief, and I say this as someone who many fellow conservatives would probably view as a “RINO” on the illegal immigration issue. I just get so sick of the left redefining words, and shifting the debate away from what it’s supposed to be about (which is what they do so often with abortion by making it about the “mother’s health” instead of the baby). If we’re going to have this debate on illegal immigration – and it’s pretty clear we are – let’s at least be honest and upfront both about what’s going on in America and across the border, and in the wording we use when describing it.