The UCLA student government unanimously passed a resolution Tuesday calling for the end of the use of the phrase “illegal immigrant,” claiming it violates human rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
According to Campus Reform, the resolution came in response to
illegal aliens illegal immigrants undocumented students who had “expressed their concerns and fear with the recent appointment of Janet Napolitano, former US Secretary of Homeland Security,” as the new University of California president. [UCLA students are apparently freaked out by the fact that Napolitano headed the Department of Homeland Security.]
The resolution states, in part:
“The racially derogatory I-word endangers basic human rights including the presumption of innocence and the right to due process guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.”
Far be it from me to play devil’s advocate, but if an “immigrant” is in this country “illegally,” is that immigrant not an “illegal immigrant”? Furthermore, how – exactly – does calling an illegal immigrant an illegal immigrant violate said illegal immigrant’s “basic human rights”?
Additionally, the UCLA student government voted to ban the use of the following terms and replace them as indicated:
- Alcoholic: anti-sobriety activist
- Bald: comb-free
- Murderer – life termination specialist
- Cannibal: intra-species diner
- Dead: living-impaired
- Fat people: people of mass
- Homeless: residentially-flexible
- People with a large noses: nasally-gifted
- Lazy: motivationally-dispossessed
- Pervert: person engaged in nontraditional espionage
- Ugly: under-attractive
- White: melanin-impoverished
Incidentally, “crazy-ass cracka” was left as is.