Names That Lie
I was talking with a group of colleagues the other day about the current controversy in Texas over congressional districts. Someone used the politically incorrect term “illegal immigrants,” and she was immediately corrected and instructed to use the term “undocumented workers” instead. This got me thinking about this term. Isn’t calling someone who is living in Texas illegally an “undocumented worker” like calling a shoplifter a “customer without a receipt”? In other words, isn’t it obviously and fundamentally a dishonest way of describing such a person? (This is not to mention that the person who is here illegally may not even be working.) What does it say about a cause, when people must use a fundamentally dishonest term in order to advance it? What does it say about the people who are willing to use such a term? Do I do this myself, without even realizing it? The word “fetus” is most likely another example of this dishonest use of words, but that is a post for another day.
I’m somewhat confused as to why it would be a “lie” (I would define a lie as something that is necessarily intentional deception.)to call someone an “undocumented worker.” If the person is undocumented and a worker, then it seems quite truthful. If one makes the claim that truth would only permit such a person to be called an illegal immigrant, then it seems that one has forced language to objectify that human being. In other words, there might be no denying that the person is illegally in the country; however, being only an “illegal immigrant” is reductive in nature. As an undocumented worker it is clear that the person is illegal; however, it also gives room for the person to be more whole. I think the “people first” movememt was on target in trying to avoid simple labels that reduce a person to one thing — “illegal immigrant,” “disabled,” “right-wing conservative.” I think it is much better to realize that these kinds of reductions don’t acknowledge that these are people first with multiple dimensions. So, a person with a disability is much more truthful than “disabled.” Calling a shoplifter a “customer without a receipt” seems odd as there are many customers without receipts who are not shoplifters at all. So, that does seem misguided. To compare this to calling someone an undocumented worker is rather nonsensical, as the term “undocumented worker” is a category that includes “illegal immigrant,” whereas “customer without a receipt” does not necessarily include the category of shoplifter. I think the real issue is that language is used politically to pursuade. By calling someone an “illegal immigrant” there is the political intent to keep the focus on the reduction of the person. If we acknowledge that the person is an “undocumented worker” we have to acknowledge that these persons are being used to do “our” work — making up hotel room beds, building houses, picking strawberries, and — very often — making our lives and their lives better. Finally, the lie is actually more in the term “illegal immigrant.” This is primarily true because many of these individuals are here only to work. They would love to be in their own country and will likely be back in their own country if they could support their families in that way. When I was living in Mexico I met many people who had returned and had no intention of immigrating to the U.S. permanently. It really was all about being able to find work. Thus the more truthful term, “undocumented worker.”