Image 01 Image 03

DeSantis Schools Reporter on the Vast Difference Between ‘Undocumented Immigrants’ and ‘Illegal Aliens’

DeSantis Schools Reporter on the Vast Difference Between ‘Undocumented Immigrants’ and ‘Illegal Aliens’

Chuck Schumer in July 2009: “When we use phrases like ‘undocumented workers,’ we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combatting illegal immigration.”

https://youtu.be/aE3rwy83Lx4

At a Friday press conference, a reporter from Jacksonville asked Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) if there was a plan in place to help industries that rely on “undocumented immigrants” for labor after President Donald Trump’s mass deportations are carried out.

The governor visibly bristled at the term “undocumented immigrants” and proceeded to straighten the reporter out in his inimitable way.

Interrupting the reporter in mid-question, DeSantis said, “Well, you know … so the federal government has made clear that the statutory term—it’s not undoc—they’re illegal aliens. That’s the statutory term. That’s what it is. And I think it’s to try to water down.

He continued, “I mean, like, undocumented, it’s like if I get in my car and I forget my wallet. Okay, I don’t have my document on me like my driver’s license. But, I mean, I still have a right to drive. I just made a mistake. This is intentional to come in illegally. It’s not just a question of missing a document. It’s a question of, you know, you violated the law that was very clear and knowingly and with the help of the cartels in many cases.”

The reporter replied, “I’ll rephrase that. So, Florida is home to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who are—illegal aliens, if you want to call it, who are working in areas of agriculture, farming, construction, hospitality. I’m just wondering, once we start to see, you know, the significant roundups of these people, is there a plan in place to help those industries, to prevent those industries from experiencing true hardship, financial hardship?”

“So, here’s what I’d say,” the governor replied. “They made the same arguments in [20]23 when we did our immigration [inaudible] We did e-verify. … Any of those industries, when they hire new people, they’ve got to verify their immigration status. Otherwise, they can’t work.

DeSantis was right to take the reporter to task over his words. And there was even a time that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) would have agreed with him.

In a July 2009 speech about immigration at Georgetown University, Schumer told his audience, “When we use phrases like ‘undocumented workers,’ we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combatting illegal immigration, which the American people overwhelmingly oppose. … I think it is illegal and wrong.”

Fifteen years later, the American people still overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration. But Schumer and the rest of his party have completely reversed their position on the issue. They now refer to illegal aliens as undocumented immigrants.

Language—the words we choose, what we call things—matters more than it may appear. That’s because control of language is often the first step toward indoctrination.

One of the earliest instances of the U.S. government attempting to control our language (at least that I can recall) came during the Obama administration. Then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano suggested replacing the term “Islamic terrorism” with “man-caused disasters,” arguing the former was discriminatory. While “man-caused disasters” never really caught on, the effort had been a success: the modifier, “Islamic,” quietly disappeared, and terrorist acts were simply referred to as “terrorism.”

Around the same time, “global warming” was replaced with “climate change,” because the best and the brightest recognized that the planet wasn’t heating up quite as dramatically as Al Gore had predicted it would. They quickly realized that by calling it “climate change” instead, they could stir public concern and, in turn, use the issue to consolidate political power.

Over the years, Democrats introduced novel terms like “inclusivity” and “equity,” subtly reshaping cultural narratives. Slowly, a new “woke” ideology took root in America, reshaping the perspectives of half the nation.

The Biden administration took things even further by advancing the second frontier of indoctrination: censorship.

The bottom line is simple: words matter. It’s time to reclaim control of the national vocabulary.

Another four years of Democratic rule, and America would have resembled Oceania from Orwell’s 1984.


Elizabeth writes commentary for The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a member of the Editorial Board at The Sixteenth Council, a London think tank. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


 
 0 
 
 9
OwenKellogg-Engineer | January 25, 2025 at 2:16 pm

A new phrase is already being trotted out: “Unauthorized Citizens”. It’s like whack-a-mole with them.


     
     0 
     
     3
    henrybowman in reply to OwenKellogg-Engineer. | January 25, 2025 at 5:28 pm

    Next step: “Unregisterable Citizens.” Then roll out the usual gang of “civil rights” grafters to “demand an end to Jaime Crow.”


     
     0 
     
     3
    TargaGTS in reply to OwenKellogg-Engineer. | January 26, 2025 at 8:17 am

    Rapist = Unauthorized Boyfriend
    Bank Robber = Unauthorized Customer
    Shoplifter = Unauthorized Shopper
    Car Jacker = Unauthorized Chauffer
    Terrorist Bomber = Unauthorized Civil Engineer
    Hijacker = Unauthorized Pilot

    Because progressives started calling criminals ‘justice-impacted individuals’ about three-years, there’s at least a 50% every one of those above phrases could be adopted, no matter how crazy they seem to normal people.


     
     0 
     
     3
    Elizabeth Stauffer in reply to OwenKellogg-Engineer. | January 26, 2025 at 1:15 pm

    Yes, and real women have a new name too: “Non-transgender women”


 
 0 
 
 5
scooterjay | January 25, 2025 at 2:21 pm

Why not call them what they are, indentured servants to Democrat “Massas”?

Oh no! Who will pick our Arugala?

Never knew his name was Juan Galtzoles.

We have always been at war with Oceana.


 
 4 
 
 1
gonzotx | January 25, 2025 at 3:31 pm

What happened to fuzzy, it’s her man


 
 5 
 
 0
rhhardin | January 25, 2025 at 3:55 pm

They mean the same thing. Like furze and gorse.


     
     0 
     
     1
    pst314 in reply to rhhardin. | January 25, 2025 at 6:15 pm

    One of the two is a euphemism designed to confuse and deceive. Is that what you want?


       
       2 
       
       2
      rhhardin in reply to pst314. | January 25, 2025 at 8:05 pm

      It’s like black, negro, and African American. They were successively meant get rid of the negative associations of the prior term, but each in turn took on the same negative connotations, so that today they all mean the same thing.


     
     0 
     
     2
    CommoChief in reply to rhhardin. | January 25, 2025 at 6:49 pm

    Sort of like murderer and ‘involuntary end of life coordinator’ are the same?


       
       0 
       
       0
      rhhardin in reply to CommoChief. | January 25, 2025 at 8:09 pm

      If you use end of life coordinator for murderers, they wind up meaning the same thing, i.e. the connotations as well as the denotations are the same. The people that they refer to define the word, rather than the intended reverse, the word defining the people that it refers to. The trick is very time limited, in other words, and quickly stops working.


         
         0 
         
         1
        Edward in reply to rhhardin. | January 26, 2025 at 12:11 pm

        The “time out” for various terms depends very much on the degree John and Jane Q. Public have any interaction with, or accurate information about, the person/people behind the term. And the degree to which the person is personally a problem for John and Jane.


 
 0 
 
 3
Tom Orrow | January 25, 2025 at 4:58 pm

…the modifier, “Islamic,” quietly disappeared, and terrorist acts were simply referred to as “terrorism.”

The standard phrase used by media conservatives is “radical Islamic terrorism,” which is redundant, since all terrorism is radical. I presume this phrase is used due to pressure from Muslims.


     
     0 
     
     1
    henrybowman in reply to Tom Orrow. | January 25, 2025 at 5:29 pm

    “What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims!” –Norm MacDonald

DeSantis is the real deal. Sen. Schumer is a real creep.


 
 0 
 
 5
guyjones | January 25, 2025 at 6:03 pm

Part of the MAGA renaissance/Enlightenment that is seeing “DEI,” “affirmative action,” “ESG” and other Dhimmi-crat euphemisms and policies deservedly tossed on the trash heap, should also bring about the end of most of leftists’ wretched, dishonest and corrosive euphemisms and propaganda lexicon; at least where the federal government is concerned. “Assault rifle;” “justice-involved youth” and “undocumented immigrant” — to name only a few.

Really
Where is fuzzy?

Did she leave the site or transfer onto another blog of the professors?

I kind of miss her calling me
The worst person in the world


 
 1 
 
 6
Milhouse | January 26, 2025 at 2:32 am

The problem with “undocumented” is that in most cases it isn’t true. Many illegal immigrants have multiple sets of documents, more than most legal people have. It’s just that none of these documents belong to them.


     
     0 
     
     2
    Edward in reply to Milhouse. | January 26, 2025 at 12:18 pm

    This was very true back after the Reagan Amnesty. Every two bit flea market in Texas had lots of documents for sale at very cheap prices. Lots of criminal cases of misuse of Social Security Account Numbers (causing people who actually had the numbers problems with IRS wanting to ding them for failing to include those earnings on their tax return), falsification of documents to qualify for welfare (and the Amnesty), etc. Hospital personnel were being paid $25.00 for matching name (preferably Hispanic) and SSAN. This matching made working so much easier and they could stay on that job longer as they passed the initial 6 month SSA check of name and number mismatches. IRS could take up to three years to catch up with unreported income.


 
 0 
 
 4
rustyshamrock | January 26, 2025 at 10:13 am

Calling an illegal immigrant an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “undocumented pharmacist”

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.