When describing the 12 million people that have illegally immigrated into the U.S. the best term to use is the word “migrant”. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if people opposed this, this shouldn’t be a controversial claim. The rest of the world uses the term migrant to describe people that immigrate into the country illegally. The BBC uses the word migrant. So does Prensa Libre, Guatemala’s main newspaper. The list goes on and on.
Immigration is actually a U.S.-centric term. An immigrant is someone who migrates into your country, an emigrant describes someone who migrates out of your country, but the accurate term to describe this population from a global perspective is migrant. It flies in the face of the U.S. citizen ego, but most migrants come to the U.S. with the intention of returning, and many do. Migration describes their movements better than immigration does.
Princeton Professor and Director of the Mexican Migration Project, Douglass S. Massey, describes this trend in Mexicans in his essay “Seeing Mexican Immigration Clearly”.
In keeping with these realities, Mexicans are not desperate to settle north of the border. Most migrants are not fleeing poverty so much as seeking social mobility. They typically have a job and income in Mexico and are seeking to finance some economic goal at home?acquiring a home, purchasing land, capitalizing a business, investing in education, smoothing consumption. Left to themselves, the vast majority of migrants will return once they have met their economic goals. From 1965 to 1985, 85% of undocumented entries from Mexico were offset by departures and the net increase in the undocumented population was small. The build-up of enforcement resources at the border has not decreased the entry of migrants so much as discouraged their return home. Since the late 1980s the rate of undocumented out-migration has been halved. Undocumented population growth in the United States stems not from rising in-migration, but from falling out-migration.
While I still expect opposition to using the term migrant, I will now turn towards the use of the word illegal. I favor the views of Cuban Journalist Mirta Ojito. She expressed them in an op-ed in the Miami Herald, “No Human Being is ‘Illegal'”.
“Illegal immigrant” is a term that no self-respecting journalist ought to ever use. Not because it is politically incorrect, or inhumane — though an argument can be made for both — but because it is imprecise.
I discussed this term further with Mirta Ojito in an email interview and she wrote:
I think that whenever possible reporters should explain the circumstances in which the person came to the U.S. For example, “such and such, who crossed the border illegally.” Or, “such and such who overstayed his visa and is in the country illegally.” … What I’m trying to avoid is to label a person as illegal, to label the action, by all means but not the person. It is the action that is illegal.
It is correct to label the action as illegal, but it is incorrect, even hurtful, to label a person as illegal. I’m not going to discuss immigration law in this lesson, but it is important to remember that crossing the border, or overstaying your visa, is a civil penalty, not a criminal one. Driving over the speed limit is a civil penalty, as well, but everyone that drives 66 miles per hour on the freeway is not “an illegal”.
Finally, we arrive at the term alien. Alien is actually the correct legal term in the U.S. for someone who is born in or is a resident of another country. The same arguments that I made against using the word immigrant apply to alien, but there is an additional problem with the word alien. Even though it is a legal term, it is impossible to deny that the word “alien” has negative connotations. For example, the word “alien” is often used to describe hostile invaders from outer space.
Certain advocates suggest the word “alien” is the equivalent of a racial slur. While I do not share this viewpoint, I do believe peoples have the right to determine their own identities. I do not know of a migrant in the United States that likes to be called an alien.
This is the last time that I am going to entertain a debate about the terms used to describe migrants. If people have a problem with my reasoning above, I will respond to criticisms in the comments section of this post, when I have the time. From this point forward I will consider comments that rehash the same arguments as hostile and tangential to the issue I am discussing.
I think your point cuts things a little to fine for my taste. You’re right that we should label the act and not the person, but in other contexts, we’re not fastidious about this. We call criminals “criminals,” not “persons who happen to have committed such-and-so a crime.” We call speeders or unsafe drivers all kinds of expletives instead of calling them “people who happen to have violated the rules of the road.” While I think your point is well-intentioned, it tries to force us to use language in an unnatural way. And anyway, what do you suppose the persuasive effect of what you are proposing would be? Saying that someone “crossed the border illegally,” or is “undocumented” or “out of status” or any of the other euphemisms I have heard used will not, in my view, change the dynamics of the immigration debate, and such circumlocutions may, as you anticipate, simply raise the hackles of people on the lookout for politically correct jargon.
<
p>
Also, I question your substantive point about the relationship between immigration violations and criminal law. As far as I know, you’re right to say that overstaying a visa is not criminal. And I disclaim any expertise in immigration law. But a quick search turned up the following statute:
<
p>
<
p>
18 U.S.C. 1325
<
p>
Just my two cents.
<
p>
TedF
It is well grounded.
<
p>
First of all I use these words not because they are political jargon but because I believe they reflect the global reality of migration.
<
p>
I also hear what you are saying regarding the criminality of illegal migration. Illegal migration can become criminal after certain criteria are met. In general, though, migrants in the U.S. are in violation of civil law.
<
p>
That is why there was such heavy protests in 2006 when Tom Tancredo proposed “criminalizing” migrants.
i’m glad you raised the point that american ego often can’t fathom the possibility that many migrants are not flocking here to stay. it points to a general snobbishness in our culture that is so well represented by “america is #1!” type bumper stickers.
<
p>
i’ve had a bee in my bonnet over the hurricane dean news coverage for related reasons. for example, what american would ever describe a small town in the u.s. of a. as a “tiny indigenous village“? yet we feel free to demote non-americans living in their own towns down to some level of people-critter, as if they belong among the deer and ferns in a natural history museum diorama. so i’m not surprised we have trouble agreeing on terminology concerning terrestrial aliens. the very conversation you raise challenges some deeply held (perhaps unconsciously) cultural assumptions.
How is this pejoritive? Doesn’t it just refer to Mayan villages?
<
p>
This locution is already awkward for PC reasons, as “Indian” is off limits. If it were in the US, it would be “Native American.” Do you prefer “Native Mexican”? Maybe “Mayan” would be better. I’m not trying to snipe, though I admit that at first I wanted to. I just don’t understand how this is offensive.
<
p>
As for “immigration.” This one warrants an eye-roll. Why should it be considered unseemly for media to cover a problem from the perspective of the place where the problem is? It is no problem at all for the US if every sngle person in Central America decides to emigrate to Australia; Australians may have some trouble coping with that degree of immigration. Migrants? Please. When, in my twenties, I moved from time zone to time zone seemingly every year, I was a migrant (maybe a transient).
<
p>
The problem isn’t migration, and it isn’t even immigration, it is only illegal immigration.
<
p>
why use the word “indigenous” at all? can you think of a time that the american press used that word to describe an american village? it is one step away from referring to the village inhabitants as “natives”. we still used ogga booga imagery for people living in non-Euroamerican places.
was the PC acceptable way of referring to Indians, such as the Mayans who seem to live in the village.
When a category 5 storm is bearing down, why bother to distinguish between Mexicans whose ancestors have been there 500 years, and Mexicans whose ancestors have been there thousands of years?
to distinguish the affected areas from Cancun and other touristy resort areas.
<
p>
If a tornado strikes somewhere on a reservation in the Dakotas tomorrow, I expect that part of the coverage would note that the flattened village was populated by Sioux. Indeed, I would prefer that such a village would be described as being filled with “indigenous” people, as this, as compared to “Native American” at least has the benefit of being precise.
is if the press mentioned whether distrust of authority and/or ethnic tensions and/or cultural practices caused many people to refuse evacuation. now that would have been useful. but no. we just hear about tourists (i’ll call them “migrant revelers”;) and the indigenous. i guess there are no Mexicans at all in the Yucatan. whoda thought?
you make it sound like the indigenous stay on their dirt farms, and only tourists inhabit the resorts. who do you suppose chops the cilantro in the kitchens of club med? migrant minnesotans? this makes me chuckle, cmd!
Why does “indigenous” necessarily imply “primitive”? Again, just because you infer it, does not mean that it is implied.
<
p>
There is more to Mexico than white American tourists and brown people. There are, just as there are in the US, people who are attempting to maintain their pre-Columbian cultural identity. While these people are, both in Mexico and the US, disproportionately poor, noting their existence when they happen to be bearing the brunt of a hurricane does not imply all of the awful things you ascribe to the term herein.
why not use the more specific and vastly more informative term “Mayan”? in the terms of your SD example above: most first nations/native american people i’ve met refer to themselves by clan and “tribe”. they never show any preference for the term “indigenous”. more important to their identity is their cultural affiliation. just like the rest of us.
Using the term “Mayan” would have been more accurate.
<
p>
Actually, the only Native American (Oglala Sioux) with whom I have ever been acquainted preferred the term (if not Sioux) “Indian.” I guess there is no accounting for taste.
<
p>
I suspect the answer to your question, though, is that media have had it drilled into them that “indigenous” is the appropriate value-neutral, PC term.
Why would the phrase “indigenous peoples” be considered a pejorative?
<
p>
As I parse and understand the phrase, all it means is peoples whose ancestors have occupied a territory for a long period of time. That is all it means. It says nothing about primitiveness (“aborigine” does have something of that implication, but that’s another problem; all that means is “from the beginning.”) It says nothing about how backward they are. All that “indigenous peoples” refers to is their ancestral heritage in the region.
<
p>
I seriously do not understand the controversy.
<
p>
For Laural, yes it is interesting that Mayans still exist, and that they still occupy the Yucatan. That is irrelevant to the discussion that has been raised above regarding Hurricane Dean. So please simmer down. I read most of your comments, but I do believe that you are orthogonal in the H. Dean issue: was the Mexican government successful in protecting the “indigenous population” from the effects of the storm? That is the real issue, isn’t it? Whether or not the “indigenous population” is referred to as “indigenous population.” “Mayans,” Incans, or even “aborigines.”
<
p>
As an aside, the American government was not even successful in rescuing residents of New Orleans from the effects of Katrina. If Mexico was half as successful, that should be considered a feather in their cap.
Social, economic, and government networks provide a sparser safety net for Mexicans of Native or mixed descent. That’s why it’s important.
sadly, the news accounts never mentioned that as a potential worry. not the ones i read, anyway.
is the correct term, I feel. And I’ve lived in Guatemala for 18 years. I have a problem with the words villages and natives, though.
in Guatemala but not in, say, Britain and Gall? Do you ever hear of Brits or Galicians spoken of as indigenous Celts? Can you answer my question as to why the distinction should be drawn at all when talking about Mexicans facing a hurricane? Can you answer my question as to how long a lineage must have reproduced itself in a certain territory to qualify as “indigenous”? Few people are of pure pedigree. What percentage of a person’s blood must be from older stock to qualify the individual as “indigenous”? If an indigenous peasant from a stick hut in a dirt-path village moves to Mexico city and becomes a successful businessperson, will you ever hear them referred to in our media as “indigenous” again? Could that be because they have been promoted to, in our eyes, a higher stratum of social worth because they’re playing our economic game?
<
p>
I have no problem at all with the word “indigenous” per se. Maple trees and turkeys, for example, are indigenous to North America. As far as I know, humans are indigenous to Africa, and have migrated from there to current locations. My problem is when the term is selectively used on non-whites living in countries we look down our snobbish noses at. Such word usage is a subtle way of affirming our feeling of superiority, and it should challenged. Assumed cultural superiority has caused a lot of people a lot of heartache over the millennia.
I generally understand “indigenous peoples” to mean people in lands that were once colonies, and are ethnically/culturally more related to the colonized than the colonizers. In addition, tyhe term only makes sense if those lands are now largely populated by those ethnically similar to the colonizers, and those who are similar to the colonized have maintained their cultural identity. This pretty much limits the utility of the term to the the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, and Hawaii. Over time, if those people’s cultural identity becomes extinct, the term no longer has applicability.
<
p>
As for the affirmation of our feeling of superiority that you believe that the use of the term implies, I just don’t see it. The coverage indicated that those most affected by Hurricane Dean were Mayans. Similarly, the coverage of Katrina noted that those most affacted by the flooding were “people of color.”
<
p>
So what? Both of these things are true. In other words, the evil meaning you ascribe to the term is not implied, but inferred. Neither you nor I nor the writer can control what some reader might infer. Attempting to do so results in beige language that is drained of meaning– a cure worse than the disease, IMO.
I think you’re arguing about a subject that you’re not to familiar with. The reason indigenous is preferred in Guatemala is because the word “indian” in spanish is like a swear word. Guatemalans of Mayan decent are proud of their indigenous decent and I don’t understand your need to feel outrage for them over this term. The same goes for indigenous people in Southern Mexico I believe.
Frankly, it doesn’t matter what term Guatemalans or Mexicans or Zulus or Italians prefer. What matters is the value judgment that terms like “indigenous” quietly impart to the target readers of American news: Americans. I am outraged at the American media and the populace who consumes it without thinking.
Based on her postings thus far, I consider kyledeb to be an accomplished practioner of culturally sensitive (nee PC) language.
<
p>
And the only one herein who has made the value judgment to which you refer is you.
has lived abroad for 18 years and consequently is out of touch with American discourse? i am not attacking klyedeb – i agree with much of what s/he has said. i ask that rhetorical question as a means of pointing out how ridiculous your last comment was. if you can’t muster a logical rebuttal, just do us both a favor and agree to disagree and walk away honorably.
Logical rebuttal? To your assertion that you feel that reporting factual information is racist, and your insinuation that anyone who does not share your outrage to be similarly racist?
<
p>
There can be no pleasing those who seek out things about which to be outraged.
<
p>
Have a nice afternoon.
i never invoked that word. interesting that you should.
I congratulate you on your self awareness.
<
p>
Have a good one!
I don’t mean to undercut your viewpoints, I just don’t find your outrage over the word indigenous to be relevant. I’m not out of touch with “American” or U.S. discourse. Despite the ego of U.S. citizens, U.S. discourse is exported all around the world so a Guatemalan knows a lot more about the U.S. than the U.S. knows about Guatemala. Not to mention that I’m a dual U.S. / Guatemalan citizen.
<
p>
In my experience Native Americans in the U.S. like the term Native these days, although different tribes prefer different terms.
<
p>
If we are talking about people in Southern Mexico or Guatemala, which is what we started this conversation with, people prefer the term indigenous.
<
p>
Not only that but there are a great many people in the U.S. as well that are extremely proud of the word indigenous. I’ve seen people to take it to mean that they are of the land and that it gives them a special bond and a special dignity about being here in the Americas.
<
p>
I’ve already mentioned how the word “Indian” is offensive in Spanish.
<
p>
The word Mayan is not correct either because not everyone is derived directly from the Mayan empire. Some fought against it. Not to mention that it is thousand of years later.
<
p>
If you want to be accurate and to start making value judgments why don’t you get accurate yourself and identify them by their ethnicities, like Kakchiquel or Quiche. In Chiapas I believe people usually identify as Tzeltal, Tzotzil, or Chol.
This is probably the funniest thing I’ve read all day. I don’t know if you meant it as a compliment, but thanks. No offense taken, but it is he.
I assume that your issue with the term “native” is more with the sense of landing on a Gilligan-style island and finding a fellow in a loincloth and a bone through his nose. I don’t disagree that this is how it sounds when used in the above-context. I dislike it as a term to describe indiginous peoples because it is too broad: there are other Mexicans born in Mexico, but who are surely not Mayan. “Indiginous” is a pleasantly precise term.
<
p>
I assume that your issue with the term “village” is that, in this context, it can call to mind the image of a few primitive thatch-and-reed huts huddled around a well– the perceived link with primitive-ness.
<
p>
I can’t think of a better way to describe a settlement that is larger than a dwelling but smaller than a town, though. “Settlement” has the same issue.
<
p>
Although I might be being unfair to you, I suspect that you would prefer some term that doesn’t really connote size– “populated areas”, say, and therefore doesn’t distinguish between a “village” which might be primitive and a “town”, which sounds more modern.
<
p>
Part of the reason I get so frustrated with PC-ification of language is that it almost always seeks to drain meaning from words in this way. Is it a sparsely popluated area, or a densely populated area (a village or a town)? In another context, is the “visually impaired” person merely myopic or blind? Is the “differently abled” person an accomplished cellist, or a paraplegic?
is that I’ve seen the terms used innacurately. Villages are used to describe what are more like cities and towns in places like Guatemala. I don’t know if you have a specific example but I don’t see a problem with avoiding the terms like villagers. In the case of hurricane dean I would speak of indigenous people in remote areas.
<
p>
You’re right all of this can get very frustrating but at the heart of all of this language analysis is something very good. It’s about being conscious of the social constructs we are enforcing or taking away from and trying to alter them. It’s difficult sometimes but it’s important.
I suppose if a reporter used the term “village” to describe a geographic area with 30,000 residents, I would take that reporter to task for shoddy reporting. It is a shame that such misuse has poisoned an otherwise useful word for you, regardless of whether such misuse was sinsister or not.
<
p>
That said, I wouldn’t grumble about “remote areas” because it at least it accurately describes a concept.
<
p>
All that said, it appears that the village in question might indeed be something more than a village, though the impression conveyed by that website might be skewed because it is promoting real estate development and tourism.
<
p>
Again, I would tend to take the reporter to task for using the term “village” to describe that which is not a village. But I understand your point.
I can assure you that my German mother-in-law uses the term virtually daily to refer to our little Dorf just west of Munich populated by about 25 thousand people. There are no huts with thatched roofs here. The buildings are built out of clay bricks that are the size of American cinder blocks (note for JoeTS: it’s referred to as the Siegel System). And that includes the interior walls.
<
p>
Actually
<
p>
Part of the reason I get so frustrated with PC-ification of language is that it almost always seeks to drain meaning from words in this way.
<
p>
I totally agree with you. And I’m going to revert to the German lexicon.
<
p>
Siedlung–settlement–small town, may have a government of its own, but might not have; it might be a section of one of the following
<
p>
Dorf–town/village
<
p>
Stadt–city (the differentiation between Dorf and Stadt isn’t exactly clear)
<
p>
Grossstadt–big city, over 100K population
<
p>
Ballungsgebiet–heavily populated area
<
p>
Is there a clearly deliniated division among them? Most certainly not. So why be concerned about the use of the word “village” in an American news report?
<
p>
As a further aside regarding Laurel’s complaint that the American news report used “indigenous peoples” instead of Mayans, I would suggest to her that it is probable that few Americans would know what “Mayan” refers to. You do, and I do, too, but it would be presumptuous to believe that most Americans would. Indigenous people? Americans might have a clue. Mayans? Probaly not.
some terms are loaded. “village” is a fine word. however, americans rarely use it to describe their own little gatherings of homes. thus, it is a term largely reserved for other people, usually in countries we call undeveloped or 3rd world. this is why in the united states “village” can have many simultaneous layers of meaning.
<
p>
bravo for germans if they use the same terminology on themselves as others! however, their acceptance of local use of the term “village” does not erase the american double standard in the use of such terms.
<
p>
raj and centralmassdad, being aware of the usage and meanings of words is somehow an effort to drain color from the language? that is absurd. tell it to shakespeare. you’re snap enough to understand the importance of word selection if you want to.
Or at least they live in an urban area of Massachusetts.
<
p>
Most towns in Massachusetts are divided into smaller areas, many of which have their own zipcodes. Although they do not have separate town governance, they often retain local identities. Those parts even show up on state road signs. From my area, examples include Onset in Wareham, Nantasket in Rockland, Myricks in Lakeville, and Elmwood in East Bridgewater. One big one is Hyannis, which is actually part of Barnstable.
<
p>
And here in Massachusetts, what is the name given to these smaller corners of towns?
<
p>
Villages.
Are the people there referred to as villagers. That’s the problem that I generally have.
I don’t refer to the residents of Onset as villagers. I call them residents of Onset.
<
p>
I can’t keep up with your objections to semiotic injustice. Sorry I tried.
<
p>
Is there ANYTHING that doesn’t outrage you? Seriously, what doesn’t send you into an apoplectic fit?
<
p>
Good Lord, if I didn’t know better I’d think you were just yanking our chains and trying to lampoon the PC movement.
<
p>
Oh, and by the way, my new term for illegal aliens is “criminal aliens” or “crimaliens” for short.
<
p>
just stating my feelings on the use of a term. I like to think about the language I use and the things I support with my use of language.
It is true that when dealing with the majority world people in the U.S. like to use words like village, or villagers. I don’t think the word indigenous was necessarily what the author was referring to, but I hope you can understand his qualm.
<
p>
It is also true that to say immigrant is to cover the issue from the U.S. but I believe we have to consider the global reality of migration.
I can’t believe you’re even trying to change the dialogue on this.
<
p>
If people come into the U.S. via illegal channels, they’re “Illegal Aliens” or “Illegal Immigrants.” We wouldn’t call them that if they weren’t doing something wrong.
Illegal Migrants
the term that the BBC uses. Again I believe it’s right to call the action, not the people illegal.
And don’t refer to the action, but to the person who does the action.
<
p>
Migrant– one who has migrated
<
p>
Immigrant– one who has immigrated
not criminal law. As I state above U.S. citizens aren’t obsessed with categorizing drivers that drive over the speed limit as illegal.
Following up on our exchange earlier in the thread: my understanding is that being in the United States illegally is not criminal, but that entering the United States illegally is. (Analogy: being high on drugs is not criminal, but using drugs to get high is, and you can’t be high unless you got high). Are we on the same page so far? Because if we are, then it seems to me that, barring the existence of a teleportation machine, anyone who is present in the United States illegally necessarily committed a crime at some time in the past, with the exception of those people who entered legally and did not leave the country when legally required.
<
p>
I make this point not because I think we ought, as a matter of policy, to begin mass deportations or mass prosecutions of illegal aliens (illegal migrants, if you like), but because I think your response to Mr. Weebles is not a fair statement about what the law is.
<
p>
TedF
I can only presume that you are not a native Amerikanisch speaker. The best term to use is the one that most closely describes what has happened. “Migrant” has many uses. Immigrant and emigrant describe direction, with some semblance of an intent to remain in the destination. (Contrast that with “tourist,” no intent to remain in the destination.)
<
p>
“Migrant” implies movement, but not necessarily direction, and not necessarily with any intention to remain for any length of time. Migrant agricultural workers, for example. BTW, there is a whole subculture of preachers, who are migrant preachers. They move from church to church Sunday to Sunday to perform. The three words, migrant, immigrant and emigrant, may be related (all include “migrant”) but they have different uses and connotations.
Perhaps your time in Germany has weaked your own skills as a ‘native Amerikanisch speaker’.
<
p>
That said – migrant has generally meant farm workers, moving to find work. Illegal immigrants often stay in one location for many years; there isn’t necessarily any movement in their whereabouts.
<
p>
These people are breaking the law – your artificial distinction between civil and criminal infractions is not the reason people are upset over the issue, so changing the rhetoric to be more Correct will not make them slap their foreheads and say, “Oh! Well, then, it’s all OK!”
That I link to above. Seeing Mexican immigration clearly. While there are migrants that stay in the U.S. the vast majority of them move back and forth.