Labeling Theory[1] suggests that referring to people as criminals increases the chance of them committing crimes. When people's existence is referred to as criminal (or when they're referred to as criminals for having committed other crimes, many of which are not dangerous to society or others, such as using drugs) their social and economic prospects are harmed and according to this theory, they then become more likely to engage in other activities which (in addition to violating laws) are actually more detrimental to society.

So I think there's a strong argument that we should be much more conservative with the application of labels like "criminal" to people.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory#The_%22crimina...

The act of being in the country without a valid visa is not a crime, it is a civil infraction. Entering the country illegally (i.e. sneaking through the border) can be a crime, but around 50% of undocumented immigrants entered the country legally (e.g. entering on a student visa and not leaving when it expired). And very often, unless border patrol catches you on your way in, you aren't going to be prosecuted for illegal entry.

And the difference between a misdemeanor and a civil infraction is not a matter of splitting hairs. Here's some differences:

1. In a criminal case, you need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, the standard is simply a preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not. If there is a 51% you are here illegally and a 49% chance you aren't, you get deported.

2. In a criminal case if you can't afford a lawyer one may be appointed to you. In a civil case you have to either pay for a lawyer yourself or represent yourself. This has serious consequences for people. If a child ends up in immigration court and their families can't afford to hire an attorney, they have to represent themselves. Even if they are 4 years old: https://gothamist.com/news/4-year-old-migrant-girl-other-kid...

3. You might assume that immigration judges are just like any other judge and are part of the judicial branch, a so-called "Article III Court" (referring to Article III of the Constitution). But immigration judges are not Article III courts. They report to the head of the Department of Justice, who has hiring and firing powers over them. Meaning the prosecutor arguing for your deportation and the judge deciding your case both report to the US Attorney General

No my argument is stop using the word criminal because it makes the yokels think you're talking about some sicario or some jobless person living on the government doll.

You can tell this because when you poll americans what they think about deporting undocumented immigrants that belong to specific subgroups, their overwhelmingly against it. The kicker is that the subgroups listed cover nearly all undocumented immigrants.

> The survey also asked about whether other groups of immigrants in the country illegally should be deported. Relatively few Americans support deporting these immigrants if they have a job (15%), are parents of children born in the U.S. (14%), came to the U.S. as children (9%) or are married to a U.S. citizen (5%).

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/03/26/vi...

Smoking a joint can be misdemeanor. Many people don't think it should be criminal at all. It really depends on who passes and enforces said laws. Similar to smoking a joint, crossing a border illegally is a victimless infraction. Depending on who you ask, it's not a big deal and possibly even a positive for the US, or it's the end of America, when it's the POTUS posting on his social media account.