I disagree. They are an immigrant to the country and they entered illegally, therefore they are an illegal immigrant. I fail to see how that's an inaccurate description.
Switching from illegal to undocumented can be attributed to the effort to downplay such people's involvement in what is essentially a crime. I have read the reasoning behind such a change, that illegal criminalizes the person and not their actions. Which seems to be what you are saying. But the term does in fact name their actions, immigrating illegally, and not just the person. The person committed an illegal act, it is not unwarranted to name them as such. It is simply an attempt to separate the person from the action, which you cannot since the person committed the action.
As for your example. I would agree that in some instances such a person could be described as an illegal driver. Not for a minor offense, but if they committed an act that the law then barred them from operating a motor vehicle then they would indeed be an illegal driver if they later drive. Much like an immigrant is barred from entering the country outside of legal means.
To reverse your logic, bank robbers can just be described as undocumented withdrawers. But somehow that doesn't seem to make sense.
I'm personally okay with the full term "illegal immigrants" - which is not to say that the situation isn't more complicated and nuanced than most other crimes, but I tend to be suspicious of euphemisms like "undocumented".
However, the far right tends to shorten it to "illegals", which I find unacceptably pejorative.
How many bank robbers have you heard called illegal withdrawers?
The rational for this difference is sound, but I don't see this happening because the public decided undocumented was a better word then illegal for the direct object. More likely the language would adapt and allow the "incorrect" usage, for the same reason we're losing our irregular verbs.
We don't refer to bank robbers as illegal withdrawers, but we do refer to them as felons -- a person who has committed a felony. We attach the action to the person because shouldn't a person be defined by their actions?
People can have many titles. A felon can also be a father, a loving husband, a liar, etc. But why should a person who has immigrated illegally not have the title of "illegal immigrant" among their list?
By labeling them "bank robbers" you are criminalizing the person and not the action. That is inherently unfair and you should apologize to these affected people for your insensitive remarks.
The reasoning is sound and a quick look around at the groups who have been pushing the change in language, for right or wrong, shows that many of them use that very reasoning. To downplay the issue.
The funny thing about all this is I had a similar thread happening today about the proper use of the description "illegal firearm".
Switching from illegal to undocumented can be attributed to the effort to downplay such people's involvement in what is essentially a crime. I have read the reasoning behind such a change, that illegal criminalizes the person and not their actions. Which seems to be what you are saying. But the term does in fact name their actions, immigrating illegally, and not just the person. The person committed an illegal act, it is not unwarranted to name them as such. It is simply an attempt to separate the person from the action, which you cannot since the person committed the action.
As for your example. I would agree that in some instances such a person could be described as an illegal driver. Not for a minor offense, but if they committed an act that the law then barred them from operating a motor vehicle then they would indeed be an illegal driver if they later drive. Much like an immigrant is barred from entering the country outside of legal means.
To reverse your logic, bank robbers can just be described as undocumented withdrawers. But somehow that doesn't seem to make sense.