Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson launched into a heated tirade against a reporter Friday for using the legally accurate term “illegal aliens,” branding the phrase “racist” and “nasty” in what can only be described as a masterclass in progressive linguistic gymnastics.
The facts are straightforward. A reporter asked Johnson about a report on city spending related to illegal aliens that he was required to file with the White House. This is not controversial language. It is the precise terminology used in federal immigration law, specifically 8 U.S.C. Section 1365, which mandates reporting on “illegal aliens.” The reporter was using the correct legal term.
Johnson’s response was immediate and theatrical. He rejected the term outright, claiming it sounded like something from science fiction, then pivoted to an absurd comparison involving slavery. “The legal term for my people were slaves. You want me to use that term too?” he asked, as if the two situations bore any resemblance to one another.
This is intellectually dishonest on multiple levels. First, the term “illegal alien” describes a legal status, not a racial or ethnic group. A person from Canada who overstays their visa is just as much an illegal alien as someone from Mexico or Guatemala. The law does not discriminate based on race. Second, comparing immigration enforcement to slavery is not just historically illiterate, it is morally offensive to the actual victims of slavery.
Johnson insisted on using “undocumented individuals” instead, the preferred euphemism of the progressive left. But let us be clear about what is happening here. This is not about human dignity. This is about controlling language to control the debate. If you can force people to stop saying “illegal,” you can pretend that illegal immigration is not actually illegal.
Representative Pramila Jayapal then joined the linguistic crusade, claiming that “undocumented presence in the United States is not a criminal offense” because immigration violations fall under civil law. This is technically true but deliberately misleading. Civil violations still carry legal consequences, including deportation. The distinction between civil and criminal law does not make illegal immigration legal.
What makes this episode particularly galling is Johnson’s selective concern for accurate language. He demands reporters abandon legally precise terminology while simultaneously pushing a $16.7 billion budget that he claims will “challenge the ultra-wealthy to pay their fair share.” This is progressive code for raising taxes, but Johnson apparently has no problem with euphemistic language when it serves his political agenda.
Chicago faces real problems. The city has struggled with violent crime, fiscal mismanagement, and the strain of sanctuary policies that prioritize illegal immigrants over citizens. Johnson’s administration has spent millions on housing and services for illegal aliens while Chicago residents face crumbling infrastructure and failing schools.
Rather than address these substantive issues, Johnson chose to police a reporter’s vocabulary. This is what happens when ideology trumps reality. The mayor would rather engage in performative outrage over accurate terminology than confront the consequences of his own policies.
The term “illegal alien” is not racist. It is not nasty. It is the law. If Johnson finds federal immigration statutes offensive, perhaps he should direct his anger at Congress, not at reporters doing their jobs. Until the law changes, illegal aliens remain illegal aliens, regardless of how many progressive politicians clutch their pearls over the phrase.
Related: Lara Trump Dismisses Swalwell’s Pledge to Demolish White House Ballroom as Ridiculous Posturing