U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has instructed its field operators to revert to using the term “alien” to classify illegal immigrants and discontinue the use of the term “undocumented.”
The directive was conveyed in an internal memo obtained by Just the News, which reveals that CBP will return to “legal, nonpolitical terminology” in accordance with official U.S. law.
The memo, issued by the Executive Assistant Commissioner of Field Operations, was sent to all CBP field offices on Tuesday.
Celebrate Trump’s Historic 2024 Victory with the Exclusive Trump 47th President Collection!
It marked the agency’s decision to roll back previous guidance on immigration terminology, following the return of former President Donald Trump to the political spotlight this week.
This shift in language comes in stark contrast to a similar directive issued by former President Joe Biden’s administration shortly after he took office in January 2021.
In his first months in office, President Biden instructed federal agencies to adopt “more inclusive” language surrounding immigration, mandating that terms like “undocumented noncitizen” or “undocumented individual” replace the more traditional “illegal alien.”
The new CBP memo directly counters the Biden-Harris administration’s terminology.
It officially rescinds all prior guidance related to “non-regulatory” immigration terms, including those introduced by Biden’s team.
CBP personnel are now required to classify individuals encountered or referenced based on their nationalities and legal status as recognized by U.S. law and regulation.
This directive specifically states that the term “alien” should be used in place of “noncitizen” in all official documents, including distributed policy and subject case files.
“All prior guidance related to non-regulatory terminology is rescinded. For example, CBP personnel in distributed policy and subject case files should resume use of the term ‘alien’ in lieu of ‘noncitizen,’” the memo reads.
“All Office of Field Operations personnel are required to classify any individuals, encountered or referenced based on their nationalities and status, as recognized by U.S. law and regulation.”
The shift in language follows a similar move by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which also directed its personnel to use the term “alien” for foreign nationals.
This change in policy, first reported by Axios, reinforces a broader trend in federal immigration enforcement under the current administration to reintroduce more traditional terminology.
The decision to resume using “alien” comes as part of an effort to ensure consistency with longstanding legal language, particularly in regard to U.S. immigration law.
Under both Republican and Democrat administrations in the past, the term “alien” was routinely used to describe individuals who were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
The Biden-Harris administration’s move to abandon the term in favor of “undocumented” faced criticism from some conservatives who argued that it was an attempt to soften the language surrounding illegal immigration.
The current CBP policy change reflects an ongoing debate over how best to address the complex issue of immigration in the U.S., with terminology playing a significant role in shaping public perception and legal practice.
With the reintroduction of the term “alien,” the federal government is signaling a return to what it considers neutral, legally defined language in immigration enforcement.
As of now, it remains to be seen how this shift in terminology will impact ongoing debates over U.S. immigration policy and its enforcement.
However, the directive serves as a clear statement on the preferred language for those involved in the enforcement of immigration law and signals the potential for further policy shifts as the current administration continues to deal with the ongoing border crisis.
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.
Read the full article here
