Federal contractor urges DHS to abandon term ‘illegal immigrant,’ citing ‘racially charged’ connotations of ‘jihadist.’
Federal Contractor Urges Department of Homeland Security to Adopt Inclusive Language
A federal contractor, which has received substantial funding from the government, is pushing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to embrace “inclusive language.” The contractor suggests replacing terms like ”illegal immigrant” with ”undocumented noncitizen,” ”riot” with “protest,” and argues that terms such as “looter” and “jihadist” have become racially charged.
The report from the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit that operates the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center as a federally funded research and development center, criticizes the DHS for using language that is insulting, demeaning, and offensive. It claims that such language makes individuals feel uncomfortable, marginalized, disrespected, or unsafe.
The report, titled “Language, Labels, and the DHS Lexicon,” was drafted on behalf of the agency’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. It specifically focuses on immigration enforcement, counterterrorism efforts, and law enforcement, highlighting offensive language used in these areas. The report is based on interviews with 15 individuals under the jurisdiction of DHS.
In its 84 pages, the report recommends that DHS replace the term ”illegal immigrant” with “undocumented noncitizen” and substitute “assimilation” with “civic integration.” It even suggests using terms like ”entry without inspection” or “undocumented entry” instead of “unlawful entry.”
Opposition to Language Change
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green (R-TN) criticized the effort to change language, calling it a “deceitful and Orwellian strategy.” He believes that DHS should prioritize addressing the crisis at the Southwest border and rising crime instead of rewriting the dictionary.
Green further accuses Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of using taxpayer dollars to change language in an attempt to hide the consequences of his open-borders agenda. He sees this move as a ploy to divert attention from Mayorkas’ failure of leadership.
The push to soften language on illegal immigration comes at a time when there is a record-breaking surge in illegal border crossings. Since President Biden took office in 2021, an estimated 1.7 million illegal immigrant gotaways have been recorded.
However, the report goes beyond immigration and suggests modifying the use of terms like “male” and “female” by adding “nonbinary, cisgender,” and “transgender.” It also proposes replacing “riot” with “protest,” despite the two words having different meanings.
The report claims that certain terms, such as “looter,” “trespasser,” “rioter,” and “jihadist,” have become racially charged as they are predominantly applied to individuals of a particular race. It argues that the disparate application of these terms, rather than their definition, has caused them to become disrespectful or damaging.
The report calls on DHS to adopt inclusive language and provide training on the use of inclusive, person-centric language, particularly for minority and historically marginalized groups. It suggests that the current use of certain terms and language by DHS personnel is making the job of securing the homeland more difficult for its employees.
Despite the report’s alignment with left-wing ideology, the Rand Corporation analysis argues that using person-centric and inclusive language should not be dismissed as ”woke” or a political issue.
Contract and Criticism
The Rand Corporation confirms that it produced the report at the request of DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. The goal was to examine the department’s use of terminology, identify areas for improvement, and create an organizational culture that supports updated terminology.
Todd Bensman, a Senior National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, criticizes the proposed replacement terms, stating that they sound more demeaning than the ones they aim to replace. He believes it is better to simply describe individuals as present illegally in violation of the law.
The report is a result of a renewed contract with DHS, allowing the agency to order $495 million worth of studies and analysis over five years.
Chairman Green emphasizes the importance of shedding light on the actions of bureaucrats and informing the American people about their behind-the-scenes activities. He also suggests that Congress should closely examine the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties based on this report.
How does using racially charged language like “looter” and “jihadist” contribute to discrimination and marginalization?
As “looter” and ”jihadist,” have become racially charged and perpetuate stereotypes. It argues that using such language contributes to an environment of discrimination and marginalization.
The proponents of adopting inclusive language argue that language shapes our perception and treatment of individuals and communities. They believe that using terminology that is respectful and inclusive promotes a more equitable and just society. By replacing terms like “illegal immigrant” with “undocumented noncitizen,” they seek to humanize individuals and challenge the negative connotations associated with immigration.
However, there is opposition to this language change. Critics argue that altering terms is a tactic to manipulate public perception and downplay the severity of certain issues. Chairman Mark Green of the House Homeland Security Committee believes that the focus should be on addressing the border crisis and rising crime instead of engaging in linguistic modifications.
It is undeniable that the immigration system and border situation require attention and solutions. The surge in illegal border crossings demands effective policies and strategies to protect national security and ensure the well-being of all involved. While language plays a role in shaping our understanding, it cannot be the sole focus in addressing these complex issues.
Furthermore, the report’s recommendation to modify terms like “male” and ”female” and replace them with more expansive categories reflects an ongoing debate about gender identity and inclusivity. However, the extent to which these changes can be implemented and accepted by society remains a topic of discussion.
In conclusion, the call for the Department of Homeland Security to adopt inclusive language is centered around promoting respect, equality, and inclusivity. Critics argue that this effort distracts from more pressing issues, such as border security and rising crime rates. As with any language change, there will be debates and differing opinions. Ultimately, it is crucial to find the right balance between inclusive language and addressing urgent challenges in our society.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...