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.
The Hispanic Bar Association’s open letter to Justice McGregor was uncovered by Judicial Watch and can be viewed here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/KFYI.McGregorLetter.pdf
Where is the personal responsibility here??? Judge McGregor and the Hispanic Bar Association have sent a message that it is not wrong to immigrate illegally. Okay, that may seem harsh considering the fact that the issue at hand only deals with what we call something. However, I feel that you need to take a closer look here if one is really to understand this. If one refuses to enforce a law, it is a blatant destruction of the rule of law. If one does not explicitly do this, but implicitly legitimizes breaking it, then this is still an assault on the rule of law, though I admit it is a lesser assault. The illegal immigration issue (yes, I said “illegal immigration,” go ahead and sue me) is not one of racism or civil rights. It is about following the law. There is a difference between the separating of legitimate and illegitimate members of a society and the separating of legitimate members of a society into social classes. The former is just. The latter is intolerable. I would like to welcome Mexican and Latino immigrants to this country with open arms. They just have to play by the rules. If those who choose to circumvent immigration laws are given a free pass to do so, this is unfair to all those who choose to come legitimately. Does one want to be a fair, hard-working, productive citizen? If so, then come here legally – you’ll get in! That’s what we are looking for. But I ask that you speak English. This is an English-speaking nation (even if the government does not explicitly acknowledge it) and if you want to be a part of it, you should speak English. I don’t like seeing official American documents in other languages (Spanish being one of them) and I want them gone! I am a firm believer in globalization, but I also believe local and national sovereignty is imperative to society, progress and peace among all peoples.
The term “politically correct” is flawed in most cases where it is used and it is a flawed time to make use of the terminology here. Calling something “correct” is not appropriate, because the new terminology is not any more “correct” than the old terminology. It is merely a case of political framing to favor one side on an issue. In this case, Justice McGregor decided to side with the Hispanic Bar Association and open borders advocates – oops, I forgot, that term is no longer allowed either. It is just the same as the Second Amendment issue where those who want to restrict lawful firearm ownership use the terms gun control activist (activist has a good connotation) and gun lobbyist (lobbyist has a bad connotation.) It’s time to end this madness!
