This game sounds like fun! Let me play:

Burgulary ring: Undocumented moving and storage.

Bigamy: Parallel marriage.

Vivisection: Organic surgery.

Differently compensated: Paid under the table, or a politician

Factually challenged: A liar, or a politician

Alimentarily impaired: Full of shit, or, well, you know...

Compare and contrast the way Mexico treats "undocumented immigrants" they catch, even if they're just on their way to the USofA: they're arrested, fined, and repatriated.

If they're lucky, that is. If they're caught by unscrupulous police, then they're robbed, raped, and sold to a coyote who will smuggle them into the USofA and made to pay back that cost as indentured servant. Or is that slavery?

It's a political ploy by the AP, control the language and you control the dialog.
Sure illegal immigrant is technically incorrect, but illegal immigration is techically correct.
The silly part is that most of the friends who are pointing it out to me prefer the greatly more technically incorrect term, undocumented worker. (odds are they have valid in another country documentation or fake docs for here, and not all are working)

The other PCism term is immigration reform, which is the PC way of saying effective amnesty.
Since the general population doesn't want amnesty, the proponents hide it in colorful PC language.

As for what is a more correct term. how about foreign invader?

Foreign: of, from, or pertaining to a different country.
Invader: 2. to occupy in large numbers; overrun
3. to trespass or encroach upon (privacy, etc)
4. to enter and spread throughout, esp harmfully
5. to become established in (a place to which they are not native)

The silly part is that most of the friends who are pointing it out to me prefer the greatly more technically incorrect term, undocumented worker.

What if they don't work?

"Illegal immigrant" sums it up nicely. They're immigrants who are here illegally.

"Undocumented worker" makes it sound like they just forgot their paperwork.

I used to think this 'undocumented' business was silly political correctness, and my reaction was also revulsion - my reasoning was, 'they're breaking the law, they're illegal'.

But then I started questioning what that means. Simply being present somewhere within a 3 million square mile jurisdiction, and associating on a mutually voluntary basis with locals, is really a victimless crime. It's a circular argument to say, 'what they're doing is wrong because it's illegal, and it's illegal because it's wrong' ... that is a logical fallacy, and an error in reasoning. If, say, smoking a bit of weed is a victimless crime, then using aggression against someone who smokes a bit of weed is wrong, and calling them "illegal" is dubious. Likewise for other victimless crimes, like prostitution. If simply existing within an extremely large jurisdiction in a peace-abiding manner is a victimless crime, then it's questionable as to whether there is really any moral basis on which to initiate force against innocent individuals.

If specific undocumented individuals are committing actual crimes - e.g. stealing, then by all means, use every bit of force to jail them or send them home. But using force against people who haven't harmed a hair on anyone's heads? Say, someone who is just working hard to try raise their kids? Calling such individuals "illegal" seems to be something one can only resort to as one can't really meaningfully identify an actual victim of their "crime", and it can't really be right to use force against them.

Do you have a right to not allow such people in your own local community, e.g. neighborhood? Yes, I think so - a small group of local property owners have freedom of association and may create conditions of use of their property. Does that right extend to every last square inch of a massive 3 million square mile territory? That surely cannot be.

So I've started calling them 'undocumented' too, simply because it is just a factually more accurate description of what they are.

"What if they don't work?"

My grandma doesn't work. That doesn't create a moral basis to use force to prohibit her from a 3 million square mile jurisdiction.

If they don't work AND are being an overt burden in some way - e.g. they are stealing - then yes, send them home. But then they are "illegal" because they are guilty of some actual crime, like stealing.

This just isn't true for all of them. Some are hard-working peace-abiding individuals. There is no moral basis to initiate force against innocent people.

Funnily enough, Hitler used the same arguments about the Jews - his argument was that they were all illegal immigrants, supposedly 'invading' Germany.

If specific undocumented individuals are committing actual crimes - e.g. stealing, then by all means, use every bit of force to jail them or send them home. But using force against people who haven't harmed a hair on anyone's heads? Say, someone who is just working hard to try raise their kids? Calling such individuals "illegal" seems to be something one can only resort to as one can't really meaningfully identify an actual victim of their "crime", and it can't really be right to use force against them. -- Lobster at April 10, 2013 4:51 PM

Their are two points that rip your argument asunder. If they are in the country illegally that means they have two choices.

Choice one is not having any valid legal ID issued by the state or federal government. That means that they can't work anywhere legally. If they are being paid under the table they are not paying any taxes at a federal, state or local level. But many times they will go to hospitals, law enforcement (especially sanctuary cities), send their children to public schools at a cost to the people who are legally paying taxes.

Choice two is to obtain a legally valid ID that will stand a medium level of scrutiny. (Valid SSN, name, DOB, etc.) The problem is that when the real person files for income tax return, they are hassled for not reporting income from Arizona. Their credit report sucks because the illegal used the SSN at a rent-to-own place in California and didn't pay off.

So calling it victimless means that the illegal is either using community services at no cost or screwing someone else up at a personal costs.

And I didn't even get to voting. Contemplate that.