"Undocumented worker" BS

Yes, it's time once again for one of those posts which will no-doubt be ridiculed for being "racially insensitive" and not PC. Seriously, though, we need to find a better term to describe people who are in the country illegally, working or not, with or without the intention to "immigrate" permanently (and by that, I mean establish roots in the US). This article talks about settlements for workplace injuries for illegal workers, which is not by itself offensive (although getting a $2.5 million payout seems pretty ridiculous); however, referring to people in the country illegally as simply "undocumented workers" is stupid and potentially inflammatory.

Why is it dumb? Well, it's kinda like claiming I'm the uninnaguated President of the United States. The description of "undocumented" is intentionally misleading: the implication is that other than some simple paperwork, they would be normal workers. The term "illegal alien" is more technically accurate, but many people in the US illegally do legitimate work which many people tacitly approve of, so that might be too harsh a term. The "illegal" term also doesn't indicate the level of criminal activity, and "alien" sounds weird to many people; I could see the argument for toning down the language when referring to people who are basically trying to do the same thing the people who originally immigrated to the US were striving for: a chance to work for your own prosperity.

Seriously, though, we need a better term to use in the mainstream media (not that they would, but hypothetically). I'm not sure what the right term would be, but maybe we could start with "foreign trespasser", and refine from there; "undocumented" is just BS.

Comments

  1. CJJune 17, 2009 at 8:27 PM

    "Undocumented worker" correctly describes the undesirable condition in which someone works here illegally and everyone involved agrees to look the other way and ignore the law. IMHO we should get rid of "undocumented workers". There should be a national debate in which we work out how we want to handle foreigners who wish to work here. I think we should be liberal about letting people in, so we would be granting permission to many of the people who are here illegally. But whatever we decide we should enforce, even if it's something I disagree with. The enforcement should be strict enough that it's not worthwhile for employers to employ people who are not authorized to work here. Simply looking the other way, and even creating words to indicate we're looking the other way, erodes respect for the law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. NickJune 18, 2009 at 10:34 PM

    I totally agree CJ, even about the liberal about letting people in part. I think there's certainly a place, particularly in a country founded on the premise that the pursuit of happiness (as opposed to the handout of happiness from the nanny state) is a fundamental right which should be protected by the government, for people who just want to have a chance to work hard to achieve prosperity. It's nice to see that at least some people on both sides of the political spectrum can agree on some issues. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pamela ZydelJune 22, 2009 at 9:00 PM

    Nick: I like that term, "foreign trespasser." It's not hostile, weird or ignorant. What complaint could the PC crowd find with it? And CJ makes a good point about allowing foreigners in to work. The living here illegally part still needs to be worked out though.

    Nice blog by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  4. NickJune 22, 2009 at 9:27 PM

    Thanks, Pamela. :)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I Hate Obama-speak

Every time Obama speaks, it aggravates me. It's not because of his method of speaking or speech itself: he's a great public speaker who's clear, eloquent, and polished. It's also not because he uses a teleprompter obsessively, is very good at not straying from whatever canned message or pitch has been written for him, and dodges answering any probing questions with real information: most politicians have perfected these arts, and they have become so ingrained in our political process that they are as expected as they are unhelpful in conveying actual information. It's obviously also not because he lies: most politicians lie, usually very well, and Obama can state even laughable, preposterous fallacies without even breaking stride, but again, that's expected, normal, and uniform in today's politicians. No, none of these things are the reason Obama's speeches really get to me. See, Obama comes across as a smart guy, and every once in a while you get a semi...
Read more

If there was going to be a public health care plan...

I realize a public health care plan is a bad idea, but it did get me thinking: if I were making the bill, and everyone else strongly wanted a public plan, is there a form of the plan which I would be agreeable to? I thought about it, and I think a public plan would be eminently workable, provided it has some simple immutable provisions. Now, I don't think the Democrats are going to put anything like this into their disaster of a plan, much less be capable of adhering to all the requirements, but I would venture to say that if they truly wanted bipartisan support, this would be one way to get it; I strongly suspect most Republicans would back a public plan with my simple provisions. Without further ado, the provisions: - All public employees will be covered by the same public plan with the same benefits, from every level of government from janitors to the President. This will ensure that the plan is good, provides reasonable coverage, and Congress has a strong incentive to get it ri...
Read more

Why the housing market decline is far from over

Image
This chart shows the recast dates for various loans over the next five years, based on the current rate of negative amortization (copied from CalculatedRisk ). I think it would be fair to assume that most of these are going to be defaults, as soon as (or slightly after) the recast time; almost everyone who can afford their house is either already in a fixed-rate mortgage (and thus not appearing on this chart). This virtual tidal-wave of defaults represents roughly $25,000,000,000 worth of housing inventory being added to the market, per month, for the next five years . For reference, the NAR's latest statistics indicate there are only about $66B in sales of existing homes, per month, total, in the whole US. That lines up pretty well with the latest estimations of total home sales which are foreclosures, which is around 45% (REO's are selling slightly better than non-REO's, cause they are more realistically priced). Most people agree that the housing market is not likely to...
Read more