There is an ongoing debate about the use of the word “illegal”. For most of its five-century history, the word has been used as an adjective to describe actions that violate a law. Only more recently has the term been used to refer to people, usually immigrants who supposedly do not have the necessary documents to be in a country and usually with a derogatory connotation.
I suggest that the word “illegal” only be used as an adjective to describe actions. This would bring clarity to our discussions. The reason should be obvious. I (and most people who read my blog) have driven over the speed limit. Such action is illegal because it violates the law. Those who commit such violations should be fined (or at least warned). But driving over the speed limit does not make me an “illegal”. Actions can be illegal, people are not.
There is a much more important reason. According to most religions and philosophies, every human has immense value. The three largest monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) agree that people are valuable because each person is made in God’s image. This is abundantly clear in Christianity, my chosen faith. Jesus taught that every action directed towards another person was, in reality, an action directed towards God. (Matthew 25:31-46) We wouldn’t dare call God an ”illegal”, so why do we use that word to put down people created by a loving God’s? Those who claim to be followers of Jesus should be “pro-life” in the truest sense, by cherishing every human being as “wondrously made” in God’s image.
There’s another reason why I don’t use “illegal” to refer to immigrants. I (and many of my readers) have some ancestors who immigrated to North America hundreds of years ago. Most became settlers, but they usually did not get permission (or something comparable) from the indigenous people who were stewarding this land. Immigration is a two-edged sword which frequently reveals our own hypocrisy. If we don’t want to be descendants and heirs of “illegals”, we should use the word more appropriately.
Lindy Scott 
I like the idea of this being in part a linguistic issue. I am in the process of reading 1984 and am familiarizing myself with Newspeak. In English we dabble in it as well by abbreviating everything. Someone who immigrated illegally was referred to as an illegal immigrant. Someone who parked overnight in a no parking zone was guilty of illegal parking and could well be called an illegal parker. By using both words you were qualifying the action of the person. Simply by taking the immigrant part off you are inferring that everything about that person is illegal. Our ancestors were illegal trespassers on Native American land. I believe there needs to be an end to illegal immigration in this country as much as I’s like there to be an end to abortion. But calling someone here illegally an illegal is about as helpful as calling someone who had had an abortion a murderer. The language does not match the infraction.
LikeLike
I agree with your response. A few days ago, the former president called some immigrants non human “animals” I have no illusion of changing his behavior or speech. Nevertheless, I do hope that followers of Jesus will rise up and defend the value of all people.
LikeLike
Excellent linguistic analysis and arguments.
LikeLike