Key Highlights
Under President Trump, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Policy Manual reintroduced the term “alien” after Biden administration officials removed it. The policy change returns the term “alien” to USCIS documents despite its minimal impact on immigration procedures but this decision sparks renewed conversations about immigration vocabulary together with its societal effects on both public opinion and government policy. Disagreements persist about this term's validity because its detractors consider it outdated and dehumanising, yet proponents insist it continues to maintain legal precision and foundation according to U.S. immigration legislation. The decision to bring back this naming convention demonstrates fundamental differences in principles between those who debate immigration policy within the United States.
A Historical Context of the Term "Alien"
Let us analyse the historical context of this term:
Origins in U.S. Immigration Law
American immigration policy has used the term "alien" as its foundation since the establishment of the nation. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 established this terminology when they permitted presidential powers to remove dangerous foreigners from the country. Throughout history, "alien" gained legal recognition through official statutes to identify any person without national citizenship of America.
According to legal definitions an alien refers to all individuals who lack U.S. citizenship or nationality. Throughout the centuries, the word "alien" has moved past its original legal definition to develop new meanings that are associated with it beyond its traditional interpretation. The initial purpose of "alien" served as a neutral term until society attached negative connotations to it by using it as an exclusionary label for immigrants.
Also Read: US Extends Green Card Validity for Renewal Applicants: Key Updates
World War II and Shifting Connotations
The World War II era employed the word as part of the Alien Enemies Act while creating more heated legal conflicts. During World War II, officials employed this term to send, detain, and migrate people who belonged to warring countries against America, thus resulting in the forced incarceration of Japanese and European immigrants. The incarceration policies demonstrated how legal expressions enabled discriminatory actions to emerge in situations of wartime crisis.
During World War I, through the internment of Japanese Americans, the language used by officials displayed its power to create official policies. Policymakers used the declaration of "enemy alien" status to establish legal reasons that allowed for violating individuals' constitutional rights. During this time, the public started viewing aliens through scared eyes because of escalating beliefs that made them suspect.
Modern Criticism
Critics of the "alien" term have increased their opposition throughout recent decades because they believe it upholds discriminatory stereotypes and preserves the immigrant as someone who's different from regular Americans. Advocacy groups request society-wide vocabulary that displays immigrants' value to modern society instead of highlighting their differences from Americans.
A major criticism of this term asserts its inability to properly represent the diverse range of immigrant characteristics and life stories. This term solely focuses on legal standing while discarding cultural and social backgrounds and economic activities that Americans perform. The advocates who want to replace "alien" with different terminology view this change as fundamental for improving fairness and compassion within immigration policies.
Biden's Inclusive Language Reform
In 2021, President Biden started to update immigration terminology by exchanging the term "alien" with the term "noncitizen" in USCIS guidance documents. The transition constituted one element of a federal-level initiative to implement neutral terminology across all organisational departments. Broad immigrant advocacy organisations reacted favourably to this change since it represented significant progress in developing humanised immigration policies.
Why Biden Made This Change?
The Biden administration demonstrated an increased understanding of how verbal choices influenced public opinion regarding immigrants when it made this decision. The immigration policy adjustment substituted "alien" with "noncitizen" to establish a more inclusive framework for talking about immigration because public officials wanted to create positive discourse about immigrants. This alteration matched Biden's goals of changing immigration policies to reverse some of Trump's strict immigration guidelines.
Impact on Immigrant Communities
This new terminology brought positive changes that indicated the advancement of acceptance for immigrant communities in federal institutions. Immigrant rights organisations praised Biden's protection decision since it displayed human dignity toward immigrants in a way that departed radically from previous administrative discourse, which presented immigrants as security risks or economic drains.
Trump Administration's Reversal
The USCIS, under the Trump administration, introduced a plan to resume the utilization of "alien" throughout their official policy manual. USCIS implemented this terminology change without changing immigration laws yet this symbolises their new stance toward elevated immigration restrictions.
Symbolic Significance
Trump's immigration policy stands undeniably hardline regarding foreign nationals because he chose to restore "alien" terminology in federal documents. Fan supporters maintain that aliens retain their valid definition in federal legal history, dating back centuries.
Sticking to traditional legal frameworks and established methods of law enforcement marks the administrative basis behind Trump's decision. The supporters of Trump see this policy change as an active rejection of what they classify as cumbersome political correctness during Biden's presidency.
Criticism from Advocacy Groups
Advocates consider this change to be detrimental because it disputes efforts to develop a gentler immigration structure. The critics maintain that the recurring use of such terminology harms immigrant communities while letting stereotypes persist and forcing more obstacles onto new immigrants.
The return of such language in official statements about immigration makes advocacy groups concerned about deepening cultural strife, which perpetuates stereotypes against immigrants. According to numerous critics, the gamble habit of using these words signifies an ideological preference for segregation while disregarding inclusive values.
The Broader Debate Over Immigration Terminology
There is a broader debate over Immigration terminology:
Arguments for Retaining "Alien"
Proponents of retaining "alien" emphasise its long-standing use in legal contexts. They argue that changing established terminology could create confusion within legal frameworks and complicate enforcement practices.
From their perspective, terms like "noncitizen" may lack clarity or specificity compared to "alien," which has been consistently defined in federal statutes for centuries. Supporters also contend that efforts to modernise language risk politicising legal terminology unnecessarily.
Arguments Against "Alien"
Critics counter that language evolves alongside societal values. Terms like "alien," they argue, no longer reflect contemporary attitudes toward immigrants and instead reinforce divisive rhetoric. By adopting more inclusive language, policymakers can help shift public perception toward greater acceptance of immigrant communities.
Advocates for change believe that words carry weight beyond their legal definitions—they shape how people think about complex issues like immigration. For them, replacing "alien" with more neutral alternatives is essential for fostering empathy and understanding.
Also Read: US Visa Interview Waiver Rules Tighten: What You Need to Know?
Impact on Public Perception
Legal terminology plays a crucial role in shaping how society views immigrants. Words like "alien" carry connotations that extend beyond their legal definitions, influencing public discourse and policy debates. The decision to reinstate such language highlights the ongoing tension between tradition and progress in U.S. immigration policy.
Public perception is often shaped by media coverage and political rhetoric surrounding immigration issues. When policymakers use terms like "alien," they risk reinforcing stereotypes about immigrants as outsiders or threats rather than integral members of society.
Conclusion
The Trump administration's return of "alien" terminology in USCIS policy manuals exposes fundamental differences between public opinions about immigration policy and linguistic approach in the United States. Some advocate that this decision represents a return to traditional legal precision from the past, yet others maintain that this represents a loss for immigration discourse humanisation through language reform. Societal opinions about immigrants hinge directly on verbal choice alongside their position in the legal framework.
To remain updated about the latest happenings in the immigration world, you must contact TerraTern right away!
Why Trust TerraTern