This week Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor issued an order to pander to thin-skinned activists and establish a tyranny of language by the disgruntled few. According to her directive, illegal aliens can no longer be called illegal aliens. They must instead be given sensitive, positive connotation names that do not highlight their criminal status. Terms that were deemed offensive include “illegals,”
“illegal aliens,” “illegal immigrants,” “immigration crisis,” “invaders” and “anchor babies.” These terms will be censored from all Arizona legal documents and replaced with politically correct jargon such as “foreign nationals” and “unauthorized workers.” McGregor has indeed committed herself to the task of policing the speech of the laws of the land in Arizona.
McGregor’s action was in response to a prior demand from the Hispanic Bar Association to eliminate “derogatory” terms against those “without lawful immigration status.” So, they’re saying we should not call criminals “criminals.” Why stop there? Let’s be sensitive to thieves and robbers. Call them instead persons who possess property “without lawful ownership privilege.” Excuse me, but if someone breaks the law I think it is ok, in fact, justified, to be derogatory towards them. In a stable, free society one must have the rule of law. Any breaking of the law or disrespect for it thus harms society as a whole. The United States has a reasonable immigration policy which these people have decided is not worth their trouble, so they deserve to receive derogatory terms. One should not use a derogatory term against someone for anything but their actions, but it is well-fit to use one against someone because of their actions. If this were not the case, then Osama Bin Laden would not be a terrorist, but a “person with political differences.” The Hispanic Bar Association goes too far here. I know that Arizona has an open borders streak in its culture (Senator John McCain has long been an advocate of guest worker programs and other amnesty-like initiatives), but I expected more from their state. An upstanding official like the State Supreme Court Chief Justice can’t be expected to pander to every sensitivity concern that comes their way. Read the rest of this entry »
