Immigration Debate Terminology

Back in my bomb-throwing, obnoxious youth (OK, a few years ago), I often described people who want to greatly reduce, suspend, or end immigration to the U.S. as "nativists." But many readers protested, as the term can connote racism, so I stopped using it.

I also have tried to avoid using the term "anti-immigration" to describe such people because, if you do, you will inevitably receive a mass of e-mail explaining that they aren't anti-immigration at all; they just oppose illegal immigration. So, since then, such as in my Sunday column, I've used the term "restrictionist," thinking that would mollify the, um, restrictionists.

No such luck.

Today, I get this happy little missive in my inbox:

Your use of the word "restrictionist" as applied in the piece, License issue a rocky road for Arnold (11/17) would be as appropriate as calling the architects of the water locks of the Panama Canal "ocean segregationists."

Not controlling the flow of water that would occur if not for those locks instead of a sea-level canal would be
disastrous on a global scale. And similarly, uncontrolled flow of people into our nation is proving disastrous in more ways than we can count.

Even if you don't care for my analogy you should know, without being reminded, that you'd be hard pressed to find an opponent of the uncontrolled flood of aliens across our borders that would also oppose controlled and orderly immigration. Indeed, the latter is precisely what the enormous majority of us want.

I think you ought to be ashamed of having been either as ignorant or unabashedly dishonest as to misapply that word as you did. I find it as offensive personally as I'd wager you'd find me calling you "propagandist."

Sincerely,
[Name Withheld]

Sigh. Where to begin?

"Restrictionist," it seems to me, is a fairly neutral way to describe people who want greater restrictions on our immigration policies. It doesn't connote any sense of judgment, nor does it try to guess at anyone's intentions. Indeed, many prominent -- excuse the term -- restrictionists, such as Mark Krikorian from the Center for Immigration Studies and Rich Lowry of National Review have also used the term to describe themselves.

Quite frankly, I think "restrictionist" is rather kind. Our reader says that restrictionists (there's that word again!) merely support "controlled and orderly immigration." Wow, me too! Likewise, I haven't met a single supporter of comprehensive immigration reform who doesn't want that. But there's the rub: Whenever someone proposes a plan for reducing illegal immigration by increasing the controlled, legal kind, the restrictionists never seem to like that, either.

Sometimes it really does seem like "anti-immigration" would be more apt, but I resist using the term to avoid needless controversy. Still, you can't please everyone. And in this age, where people prefer to be victims than to actually make a case for anything, it gets ever harder to make any comment whatsoever without offending someone. I could start calling restrictionists "great patriots and champions of civilization," and don't doubt that some restrictionist, somewhere, would still write in to complain about it.

(For the record, restrictionists aren't the only ones with a penchant for word games. To cite just one example from the other side, there's that excruciatingly stupid euphemism ... "undocumented workers." Can't anyone use plain language to describe reality any more?)