I actually wondered how long it would be before somebody took offense to that word.
And on the subject of political correctness and 'watching our language', there is the discussion about whether the term ''illegal immigrant'' is dehumanizing, and an ethnic slur.
''When you label someone an "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" or just plain "illegal," you are effectively saying the individual, as opposed to the actions the person has taken, is unlawful. The terms imply the very existence of an unauthorized migrant in America is criminal.
In this country, there is still a presumption of innocence that requires a jury to convict someone of a crime.
By becoming judge, jury and executioner, you dehumanize the individual and generate animosity toward them.''
This is all parsing, and playing word games.
This is not anything new, this whining about the term ''illegal'' as applied to trespassers in our country. Other Hispanic ''activists'' repeat the phrase that 'no human being is illegal.' It's all a distraction from the fact that the people so described are in fact committing unlawful acts by their very presence in this country, just as I would be doing so if I sneak across the border to Canada, or obtain false documents to get into any country of which I am not a citizen or legal resident.
This debate with the PC speech police will not solve anything; they are not interested in any kind of real honest discussion or debate.
But apart from whether the term 'illegal' or 'illegal immigrant' is a slur, I've wondered whether the term is unhelpful to our side. Why? Because of the very emphasis on the ''illegal'' aspect. After all these years of discussion on this issue of mass immigration, far too many 'immigration patriots' fall back on the very politically correct tactic of saying ''I have nothing against legal immigration; it's just the illegal kind that I object to.'' This inane statement is usually followed by something like this: ''If they just play by the rules, and get in line, they can come here.'' Or this: ''It's not fair to the legal immigrants if these illegals jump ahead of them.'' In other words, our thoughts should be for the rights of immigrants, before we even think about whether all this immigration, legal or otherwise, is desirable or good for us, for our folk.
All of these rote phrases are born from a desire to avoid charges of 'racism', xenophobia, or bigotry. If you recite the magic formula about legal vs. illegal immigration, you will "get out of jail free", apparently.
The fact is, legal immigrants seem to differ little qualitatively from illegal ones. The vast majority come from Third World countries, just as do the border-jumpers. Most are equally unskilled and lacking in English language fluency, if they can speak our language at all. Most have the equivalent of less than a high school education. Many of the 'legal' ones come as family members of those who have established themselves here.
So the 'legal/illegal' distinction is a pointless diversion. We need, at the very least, a moratorium, not amnesty (by whatever name they call it). There is no need, on our part, for more immigrants, unless we reverted to our pre-1965 criteria. Even then, I would say we are full up.
In the meantime, if we can't speak the truth and point out that certain people are here in violation of our laws, then what can we call these unauthorized 'visitors'? We've been told that 'wetback' is hate speech, although Mexicans can say 'mojado', which means the same thing. We mustn't say 'border jumpers' although that is a blunt description of what they actually do.
Perhaps we should say 'infiltrators' as some have suggested, following the terminology of the Israelis.
As for the widely-used term 'wigger', what else can we say to describe those peculiar individuals who are confused about their own identity? If the main criterion for the acceptability of these terms is whether they 'offend' some individual somewhere, then our choice of words is getting narrower.
If we continue along this track, will we even be able to allude to That Social Construct That Is Not To Be Named? Doing so is proof that we are in need of re-education, I mean, ''Sensitivity Training' or 'Diversity education'.