Luz Rivas remembers seeing the word on her mother’s residence card as a child: “Alien”.
In the government’s stark words, it signaled that her mother was not yet a US citizen, but to her young daughter, the word had a more personal meaning. Even though they were going through the naturalization process, it meant the family was not one of them.
“I want other immigrant children like me not to feel the same way my family did when we saw the word ‘alien’,” said Rivas, now a member of the California Parliament.
Democratic lawmakers attempted to retire the term and this year – since the law was signed – drafted legislation replacing the use of “foreigner” in state law with other terms such as “non-national” or “immigrant” . Their efforts were inspired by a similar postponement earlier this year by the Biden government.
Immigrants and immigrant rights groups say the term, especially when combined with “illegal”, is dehumanizing and can adversely affect immigration policy.
The word became a hotspot in several states earlier this year as the number of migrants on the US-Mexico border increased and sparked violent backlash from Republican governors and lawmakers against the policies of the Biden administration.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, lawmakers in at least seven states are considering abolishing the use of “alien” and “illegal” in state law this year, replacing them with descriptions like “undocumented” and “non-citizen”.
Only two states, California and Colorado, actually made the change.
“I want all Californians who contribute to our society, the small business owners, who work hard, to feel like they are part of the Californian communities,” said Rivas of the reason for her legislation.
Julie Gonzales, Senator of the United States, who co-sponsored the new Colorado law, said during a Legislative Committee hearing that words like “illegal” are “dehumanizing and derogatory” when referring to immigrants. Gonzales said the legislation was aimed at removing the only place in the Colorado statute that used “illegal aliens” to describe people living illegally in the US.
“That language was offensive to a lot of people,” she said. “And some of the reasons for this are really rooted in this idea that a person can certainly commit an illegal act, but no one is illegal themselves.”
The use of “alien” to describe someone who is not a US citizen has a long history, dating back to the nation’s first naturalization law, passed during the George Washington presidency. Fearing war with France, Congress also passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, which aimed to suppress political subversion.
The change in longstanding government terminology related to immigration is not generally accepted as necessary or desirable.
Sage Naumann, Republican spokesman for the Colorado Senate, said the democratically controlled legislature should spend its time on matters that are deeper to residents, such as taking steps to fight inflation, fight crime, and improve education .
Naumann said he doubts “the average Coloradan – or American – cares what semi-controversial words are buried in their state statutes”.
The Biden government also suffered some setback after its policy change.
In April, US Customs and Border Protection ordered employees not to use the word “alien” in internal documents and public communications and to use “non-citizen” or “migrant” instead. “Illegal alien” was also out to be replaced with descriptions like “undocumented non-citizen”.
“We enforce the laws of our country while upholding the dignity of everyone with whom we interact,” wrote Troy Miller, acting commissioner, to the staff of the largest US law enforcement agency, which also includes the Border Patrol. “The words we use are important and will serve to impart that dignity to those in our custody.”
Border patrol chief Rodney Scott protested and wrote to others in the agency that the edict contravened language in criminal law – although Miller made an exception for legal documents – and plunged the agency into a partisan debate. Scott, a Trump-era appointee, refused to sign the mandate, believing his openness on this and other issues contributed to his being ousted from his position in June.
“Changing the law is fine, but by then you really politicize the mission,” Scott said in an interview.
Analysis by The Associated Press (which does not refer to people as “aliens” except in direct quotations) found that more than a dozen states still use the terms “alien” or “illegal” in laws relating to immigrants. Among them is Texas, where a legislative attempt to switch terminology was pushed this year from the bipartisan committee but failed to get a full Texas House hearing.
State Rep. Art Fierro, a Democrat, said he expected a “setback” when he originally proposed the change. However, after discussions in the committee, he said that to his surprise, the change was viewed by both parties as an effort to use “more dignified, more respectful” terms. He said he proposed the change because he believed the original terms belittled those who want to work through the immigration process.
Fierro said he plans to come up with another bill to replace the terms during the state’s next regular legislature in 2023.
“We’re just trying to be human,” he said.
Rosalidia Dardon knows from her own experience why the language is so important around immigration.
After escaping the violence in El Salvador, she spent about 16 months in a California detention center before arriving at a Texas refugee home in 2016, with status expired.
Dardon, 54, blames the ankle monitor she had to wear and the description of immigrants using terms such as “illegal” for a denial-after-denial job search.
A certain moment remains frozen in their memory.
“I’m not giving you a job because you’re a criminal,” Dardon told the AP in Spanish, repeating what a Texas hiring manager said to her.
“I would ask myself and God why I got an ankle monitor if my only sin is going to a country that is not my own,” said Dardon, whose immigration lawsuit is pending. “Without Latinos, this country would spiral downwards. Therefore we should be treated better. “
[ad_1]
