I just can't relate to people who think undocumented workers should be referred to as illegal immigrants, that not doing so is some kind of liberal thought police thing.
The choice (yes, it's a choice) to use that type of language in public discussions is a sneaky way to embed your conclusion into your premises. Forget about whether it's racist or incendiary; it's bad discourse. That can be the case even for a factual statement.
Because you have to be able to ask why. Why are the people who sneak across the borders without government approval automatically bad guys? Are you actually prepared to defend our current set of immigration restrictions that make doing so illegal?
Embedding approval of the current state of affairs into your language just shows a lack of critical thought about it. (Which, in case you didn't catch it, is polite speak for 'it makes you look dumb'.)
You should be able to consider a counterfactual. Apply the reversal test, and use a thought experiment: In a world where undocumented workers are legal, what would be the argument to make their presence in our borders illegal?
Substitute 'illegal immigrants' for 'undocumented workers' in that sentence and it suddenly sounds incoherent. Because how can something defined as 'illegal' be 'legal' at the same time?
Obviously the choice of language preferred by those who favor deportation of undocumented workers, serves the purpose of forestalling any such thought experiments. It muddies the linguistic waters just enough to avoid questioning the bottom line conclusion they have already decided they want to reach.
Why would one choose to avoid thinking about it in neutral terms? The most logical reason, apart from simple status quo bias, supported by human behavior throughout history, is that there is a type of tribalistic bias involved, such as racism or xenophobia.
Thinking about the problems undocumented workers can cause, independently of an embedded assumption that they are just inherently a problem (which is what 'illegal' communicates), suggests a host of possible solutions which might just be cheaper and more human(e) than deportation and border protection.
- If it's the fact that they use our public services without paying taxes, why not just give them all work visas and social security numbers so they can pay taxes?
- If the problem is that they don't speak English, why not make English proficiency (or a course of study leading to proficiency) a condition for work visas?
- If it's the fact that it's unjust for line-jumpers to get ahead of the people who immigrate legally, why not make the legal immigration process easier, so the difficulty level they experience is closer to the same?
- If it's the fact that they are doing something illegal, why not change the law so that it's legal?
- If it's the fact that some of them are criminals, why not make committing a crime a precondition for deportation? (Oh, you say existing within our borders without completing an onerous immigration process is a crime? I see what you did there.)
The kind of people who choose their presidential candidate with the goal of affirming existing laws instead of solving problems, I just simply don't feel I have much in common with. At least, I hope I don't.
And while I don't think Johnson or Clinton is a perfect candidate, at least on this issue, Trump seems downright terrible.