Current US policy is aimed at tightening borders, especially with regard to illegal or undocumented immigrants. Such actions also reflect the sentiments of residents, who often stigmatize visitors from other, often neighboring states. Paul Vitello (2006), in the article “Kiss me, I’m illegal,” discusses the various names suggested for labeling immigrants. In particular, it is emphasized that the name illegal immigrant implies immorality and violation of the law, which forms a certain image of such people in the minds of people. On the one hand, more humanistic proponents argue that the name for immigrants should reflect their human and civic nature. On the other hand, proponents of the criminalization of undocumented immigrants advocate for more flamboyant names as a felon. Another aspect that is discussed in the article is the proposal for the introduction of the term guest workers, which, however, can be extremely vague. Finally, Vitello (2006) quotes Professor Deborah Tannen, saying that “here may be no neutral language possible in the immigration debate.” Thus, the debate over the names of immigrants reflects deep tensions in society that need to be addressed.
Immigration problems are acute for any country, in particular for the United States. The situation described in the article seems completely natural to me. As Vitello (2006) notes: “every side, of course, claims that its choice of words is not only correct but a reflection of the literal truth.” This statement also applies to the choice of immigration policy, which reflects the priorities of the state and society. Tighter controls on illegal or undocumented immigrants may indicate an ongoing US commitment to strengthening state sovereignty and defending against potential terrorist attacks. Moreover, the fight against illegal and undocumented immigrants is aimed at improving the financial well-being of citizens.
The government is constantly trying to reform the immigration system to keep it in line with the current agenda. In my opinion, the term undocumented immigrant implies the subsequent possibility of legitimizing his or her status, although this word is discredited in the article (Vitello, 2006). A humanistic attitude towards people is the basic principle for building a developed and advanced state. However, in my opinion, temporary visas, as well as citizenship status, should be granted to people with useful professional skills who can benefit society. In this case, the term illegal immigration is best suited, as it stigmatizes unauthorized border crossing in the eyes of people. Providing shelter to all people in need can lead to undesirable consequences, as well as, in a broader sense, hinder the development of other states. If all people strive for a life in a more prosperous state, they simply will not have the motivation to do something worthwhile in their country.
Modern society has concerns about the number of immigrants and their role in society, which is reflected in current discussions. The debate over the term describing immigrants, in this case, is no more than a desire to meet the global agenda for inclusiveness. Vitello (2006) seeks to provide different viewpoints on the topic, illustrating the subjective nature of the polemic. Nevertheless, in the try to please every person in the world, the state can lose not only its sovereignty but also the trust of its inhabitants. The term illegal immigrants, in this case, reflects the negative connotation of this phenomenon. The offers to help such people are more similar to the legitimization of violations of the law than the reform. Thus, I do not think that opening doors for immigrants is a good policy direction, both nationally and globally. Each country should try, first of all, to improve the quality of life for its citizens. The temptation to flee to another state deprives inhabitants of other territories of the desire to fight for better living conditions in their homeland.
Reference
Vitello, P. (2006). Kiss me, I’m illegal. The New York Times. Web.