What is Garcia's view of the Supreme Court's choice of terms in the ruling he mentions?
This question refers to the Supreme Court's decision in the 2012 case Arizona v. United States. The case is largely remembered because the Court struck down some parts of a vey harsh Arizona law that critics charged amounted to legalized racial profiling. In an opinion piece for CNN, however, immigration activist and attorney Charles Garcia wrote that the decision included another important aspect, one often overlooked. Garcia noted that the Court did not use the phrase "illegal immigrant" to describe those people affected by the Arizona law. Garcia approves of this word choice, arguing that to characterize someone as "illegal" is inherently demonizing them. He connects it to a widespread and growing anti-immigrant sentiment, and argues that it is a racialized phrase. Moreover, it was legally wrong. So-called "illegal" immigrants did not commit a crime by entering the country. If they are in the country without proper documentation, then they can be deported, but that is a civil, not a criminal matter. The fact that immigrants, and not actual criminals, are characterized as "illegals" is telling for Garcia. He praises the Supreme Court for pointedly refusing to use this language, and criticizes the news media, including the Associated Press, for continuing to characterize human beings as "illegal."
check Approved by eNotes Editorial