Somebody give the Democratic majority in the Colorado General Assembly a copy of the Bill of Rights, large print if available, and underline the First Amendment with a sharpie.
For the second time this year, they have forgotten they cannot prohibit speech or coerce it from their peers, constituents, or anyone else.
This week, Democrats handed Republicans a memo with words they could no longer use when debating immigration policy (e.g., illegal, alien, invader(s), interloper, squatter) and a list of acceptable replacements (e.g., migrant, applicant, undocumented immigrant, immigrant without authorization). Several members have been castigated for saying that which shall not be said.
While ‘invader(s)’, ‘interloper’, and ‘squatter’ overtly convey disapprobation, ‘alien’ has acquired a negative connotation over the past few decades. I’m old enough to remember Sting’s jaunty refrain “Oh, I’m an alien, I’m a legal alien. I’m an Englishman in New York” in his 1987 hit song. The term is still used in legal documents as is the word ‘illegal.’ Although it means ‘without authorization’ or ‘undocumented,’ it lacks euphemistic charm.
Illegal immigration is not merely a paperwork error but a trespass of law. The majority’s acceptable replacement words, meanwhile, are positive or neutral in order to frame the issue and Democrat’s preferred policies in the best light.
Rather than censure dissent by censoring language, Democrats should use their freedom of speech to explain that most recent immigrants applied for asylum and are here legally awaiting adjudication. Only Congress can reform the asylum program to hinder economic migrants entering under the aegis of the law.
Democrats should share the data showing that immigrants are less likely to commit crime than naturally born citizens and that their presence benefits communities economically and culturally. Costs associated with housing, medical care, and education can be mitigated and Democrat’s legislation attempts to do that.
Opponents of these policies are free to discuss the disproportionate costs borne by lower-income communities, schools, and hospitals, how costs impact government budgets and services for regular programs, the abuse of the asylum program, concerns about incentivizing more border crossings, and the fact that criminals do cross illegally into the U.S. and then commit heinous crimes including rape and murder.
Republicans can argue using whatever words they please, even words others find offensive, with prudence as their only guide (should they choose to listen). Their word choice reflects what they believe to be true.
Related Articles
New Colorado law prohibits use of sex assault victims’ clothing or hairstyle as proof of consent
Building owners sue Colorado, Denver over new green-energy rules that would force move away from natural gas
Lawmakers seek to make it easier for migrants to get driver’s licenses
Colorado debt collectors would have to disclose who the debtor owes under proposed bill
Colorado “assault” weapons ban faces likely key vote in Senate from father of mass shooting victim
This week’s banned words memo was not the first time Democrats have tried to seize the commanding heights of language. Earlier this session, they trampled the First Amendment rights of their peers and those testifying against a bill to ease name changes for convicted felons who have changed their gender. Dissenters were forbidden to ‘misgender’ (refer to someone by their biological sex) or to ‘deadname’ (refer to a person’s former name).
Forcing someone who believes sex is biologically determined and immutable to use words they consider inaccurate is a clear violation of free speech. It would be no different if a Republican majority forbade peers or constituents to use preferred pronouns consistent with their view that sex and gender are mutable characteristics. Those repudiated for exercising their rights have sued in federal court. They are likely to prevail given favorable rulings in similar free speech cases.
Government officials cannot coerce or curtail speech. They cannot offer the false choice — utter our words or be silent. If Democrats persist in policing language, minority members should sue. In the meantime, they should exploit the memo’s loophole. As written, the only verboten plural noun is ‘invaders.’
Krista L. Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.