Drop the I-Word...

A campaign that goes beyond political correctness.

(The following information was retrieved from: www.colorlines.com/droptheiword/)

Frequently Asked Questions

I’VE DROPPED THE I-WORD, WHAT TERM IS APPROPRIATE TO USE?

The campaign’s focus is on eradicating the dehumanizing i-word (“illegals”) from common usage, especially in media discourse. As for what word to use instead, there is no perfect solution because no one term will be able to describe the status of all of the people caught up in the broken immigration and detention systems. In media (and with any public discourse) we recommend using other terms that are accurate, more precisely describe the situation and that do not dehumanize people and compromise professional journalistic standards. Some neutral examples include: foreign nationals, undocumented immigrant, unauthorized immigrant, immigrant without papers and immigrant seeking status. People can also be described by their nationality. The Colorlines style guide can be found in this toolkit as an example for further reference. We can all stop unintentionally fueling racial profiling and violence directed toward immigrants, when we drop the i-word.

We recognize that organizations including some of our campaign partners that defend and protect the dignity and human rights of immigrants and immigrants themselves use a variety of affirming terms and we support whatever identities and descriptions they claim.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE I-WORD?

1. IT’S DEHUMANIZING: Illegals is a damaging word that divides and dehumanizes communities and is used to discriminate against immigrants and people of color. The I-Word is shorthand for “illegal alien,” “illegal immigrant” and other harmful racially charged terms. We are all human beings, but many in government and the media have chosen to continually use the term “illegals.” This sends the message that it’s normal to think about immigrants as sub-human and undeserving. This term and other related labels imply that their very being is second-class. The more we are exposed to the i-words and think its ok to use them, the more normal it becomes to think of some people as having a lower status and not deserving basic rights. This is what we mean by “dehumanizing.”

2. ITS USE IMPACTS US NOW AND IN THE FUTURE: Use of the i-word affects attitudes toward immigrants and non-immigrants alike, most often toward people of African, Asian, Central American and Mexican descent. The discriminatory message is not explicit, but hidden, or racially coded. In addition, the i-word is used to pit communities of color against one another. For example, blaming undocumented people for a lack of jobs in the African American community promotes prejudice and neglects to take into account historical realities about the lack of investment in local economies and public school systems. The use of the I-Word also impacts the way children and young people feel about themselves and their place in the world. It promotes hate in children that internalize the message that it’s okay to dehumanize people.

3. IT’S MISLEADING LEGALLY AND GRAMMATICALLY INNACURATE: The i-word is used as a sweeping generalization to label people who are out of status due to a variety of circumstances. For example, many people:

• • Are brought to the country against their will.
• • Are brought by employers and often exploited for cheap labor.
• • Fall out of status and overstay their VISAS for a variety of reasons.
• • Risk being killed in their country of origin.
• • Are refugees due to bad economic policies such as NAFTA.
• • Are affected by natural disasters and/or other reasons beyond their control.
• • Are forced by economics and/or politics to risk everything simply to provide for their families.

This language scapegoats individual immigrants for problems that are largely systemic. The system itself pushes certain people into categories that are impossible to get out of. There exists a backlog of people who must wait years to get processed, even when they are eligible to get papers through a relative. In this broken system, there can be families with mixed status that get torn apart because family unification is not a priority of the system.

The i-word also ignores the fact that our laws are unjustly applied. Immigrants without documents are regularly hired as cheap, exploited labor with a limited ability to protect their own rights. No one else who benefits from the set up, including the employers who recruit and hire these migrants, is labeled this way. Reason.org illustrates this well with a chart of “Our Nation’s Broken Immigration and Naturalization System.”

4. IT’S PART OF ANTI-IMMIGRANT STRATEGY: We have to look at the framework from which the term emerges and how it has thrived. The term has been made popular in the media by a web of people and organizations that have been successful in halting reasoned and informed debate about immigration. Several of the organizations involved in furthering anti-immigrant language were originally funded by John Tanton, the founding father of America's modern anti-immigration movement. Tanton serves on the board of the anti-immigrant organization with the largest membership, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which he founded 23 years ago. Other Tanton organizations include Center for Immigration Studies and Numbers USA. These organizations promote and encourage fear and division instead of facts and understanding.

People can pick up and express damaging words and racist attitudes unintentionally, especially when supported by a system or institution where that type of language becomes normalized. With some media organizations, using the i-word has become the norm, helping to create a racially-charged public conversation and fuel a chain of stereotyping, discrimination and violence toward immigrants and people of color. While some media organizations and journalists continue to use the i-word, many have already dropped it.