In George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece 1984, language is not just a tool for communication—it is a weapon for control. Through concepts like “Newspeak” and “doublethink,” Orwell illustrated how those in power manipulate words to obscure reality, invert meanings, and suppress dissent. (en.wikipedia.org)
Newspeak, the regime’s engineered language, eliminates nuance to make heretical thoughts impossible, while doublethink allows people to hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously. In his essay “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell expanded on this, arguing that vague, euphemistic political speech hides ugly truths, making “lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” (en.wikipedia.org)
Fast-forward to today’s U.S. immigration debate, and Orwell’s warnings feel eerily prescient. Sanctuary cities, as I have argued in previous parts of this series, represent the root flaw in our broken system—creating law-free zones that attract illegal crossings, strain resources, and enable exploitation. But how have these policies persisted despite their harms? Enter doublespeak: the deliberate rewording of immigration realities to frame law-breaking as compassion, victims as villains, and enforcement as hatred. This linguistic sleight-of-hand, wielded by media, politicians, and activists across the spectrum, manipulates public opinion, stifles debate, and perpetuates a crisis that hurts Americans and migrants alike. In this installment, I’ll dissect key examples of immigration doublespeak, show how it whitewashes crime, ignores victims, and even discuss how the right is also accused of doublespeak —ultimately arguing that reclaiming honest language is essential to fixing our borders.
The Mechanics of Doublespeak in Immigration Discourse
At its core, doublespeak in immigration softens harsh realities to make the indefensible palatable. Consider the shift from “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” to “undocumented immigrant” or simply “undocumented.” The former terms, once standard in legal and media contexts, emphasize the violation of law—crossing borders without authorization is, by definition, illegal. But “undocumented” implies a mere paperwork glitch, like forgetting your driver’s license, rather than a deliberate act of evasion. (blogs.lse.ac.uk)
This euphemism obscures the truth: Millions enter unlawfully, often with the aid of cartels, risking lives and fueling black markets. By stripping away “illegal,” advocates reframe law-breakers as administrative oversights, manipulating empathy to downplay accountability. Similarly, “sanctuary cities” themselves embody doublespeak. The word “sanctuary” evokes safety, refuge, and moral high ground—like a church sheltering the persecuted. These policies mean non-enforcement: Local authorities refuse to cooperate with ICE, releasing deportable criminals back into communities. (journals.ku.edu)
What sounds like compassion often results in tragedy, as seen in cases where released offenders reoffend. “Welcoming cities,” another rebrand, hides the staggering costs—billions in taxpayer dollars for housing, healthcare, and education—while ignoring wage depression for low-skilled workers and overburdened infrastructure. Then there’s “Dreamers,” the romanticized label for DACA recipients. Coined to evoke aspirational youth chasing the American Dream, it glosses over the fact that DACA shields those brought here illegally as children from deportation. While many are sympathetic figures, the term sentimentalizes a policy that incentivizes child smuggling and chain migration, ignoring broader systemic failures. (journals.ku.edu)
Orwell would recognize this as language that “gives an appearance of solidity to pure wind,” turning complex policy debates into emotional appeals that shut down scrutiny.
Politicians and Media: Framing Illegality as Nobility
Politicians and media outlets amplify this doublespeak, framing illegal immigration as a “noble pursuit” while sidelining victims. Former President Barack Obama exemplified this in speeches like his 2014 address on immigration reform, where he described migrants as “striving to build a better life,” portraying border crossers as heroic figures akin to America’s founders. (theatlantic.com)
Such rhetoric ignores the dark underbelly: Cartels exploit migrants, charging exorbitant fees and subjecting them to violence, rape, and trafficking. By romanticizing the journey, Obama and others obscure how lax policies enrich criminals and endanger lives. Media plays a complicit role. Outlets like The Atlantic have critiqued right-wing framing but often employ doublespeak themselves, labeling enforcement efforts as “draconian” or “xenophobic” while downplaying illegal entries as “irregular migration.” (theatlantic.com)
This manipulates public opinion by associating border security with “hate.” For instance, calls for walls or deportations are branded “anti-immigrant,” conflating legal and illegal immigration to paint critics as bigots. The result? Polls show shifting attitudes, with many Americans viewing enforcement as morally suspect, even as crime and costs rise in sanctuary havens. This linguistic manipulation echoes Orwell’s critique: Political language “consists largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.” (en.wikipedia.org)
By avoiding terms like “invasion” or “crisis” unless it suits the narrative, proponents create a fog where facts dissolve. Victims—American families hit by crimes from released illegals, or migrants dying in deserts—are sidelined, their stories buried under feel-good phrasing.
Key Contrasts: Humanitarian Crisis vs. Cartel Exploitation
A stark example of doublespeak is the term “humanitarian crisis” applied to the border. Politicians decry overcrowding and poor conditions at facilities, blaming enforcement for the “crisis.”. (aclu.org)
And of course, Obama’s Chief of Staff was famous for coining the saying – “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Yes, it appears that if so-called “peaceful protests” do not move the dial – then creating a crisis – a George Floyd mass riot or the death of protester attempting to use her 4000 lb. SUV to run over an ICE agent – seems to be the way Democrats and those pushing for unlimited immigration use to intimidate those Federal ICE agents who attempt to enforce immigration laws.
Yet the actual crisis stems from cartel exploitation: These criminal networks control crossings, extorting migrants and using them as pawns to overwhelm agents. “Humanitarian” framing shifts blame from policies that signal open doors to those trying to close them, inverting cause and effect. Contrast this with reality: Cartels profit billions from human smuggling, with 70% of migrants facing abuse en route. Women and children are particularly vulnerable to sex trafficking, yet doublespeak labels this a “migration flow” rather than organized crime. fairobserver.com
This obscures how sanctuary policies act as endpoints for these pipelines, protecting traffickers from deportation.
The Radical Right’s Co-Opting of Terms Unsuccessfully
Ironically, doublespeak is not confined to the left; the so-called racist right has been accused of it too, amplifying extremes. Terms like “replacement theory” or “invasion” exaggerate threats, mirroring left-wing hyperbole but from the opposite side. But as they say, it is not a conspiracy if it is true. If anything, the facts speak for themselves and it is anything but hyperbole.
All the Orwellian site “fairobserver.com” which is anything but a “fair observer”, ignores the reality that there are multiple international players – actively pursuing this very strategy of “fundamentally transforming” America through mass immigration. The definitive work on this subject is by Peter Sweizer, and the title sums it up well: The Invisible Coup – How American Elites are Using Immigration as a Weapon.
Mexico, China, and Islamist middle east countries all are using immigration to change the cultural and political dynamics in America. Most countries have 8 or less embassies. Mexico has over 50. Their network clearly is there to influence every state and co-ordinate with those pushing amnesty and illegal immigration from Mexico, Central and South America. And they have successfully bragged about turning California and Arizona from bright Red to bright Blue States through immigration – and the Democrat party has been all too accommodating to change voter rules, eliminate IDs, ignore violent immigrants to get the votes to maintain power. We have birthright citizenship and chain migration where there is an estimate that over a million Chinese immigrants will be able to vote in the next presidential election. And in the news, we have mass immigration of Somalis and the chaos surrounding the mass fraud and riots against ICE enforcement. If anything, Sweizer’s book only touches the tip of the threat to America. Figures like Donald Trump used “animals” for MS-13 gang members, but critics twisted it to claim he meant all immigrants, fueling division. (sustainlv.org) The media clearly is an activist one sympathizing with Democrats and all to willing to twist any comment Trump or Republicans say on immigration.
Manipulation’s Toll: Turning Enforcement into “Hate”
Ultimately, this doublespeak manipulates public opinion by equating enforcement with intolerance. By rewording crime as compassion, it turns law-abiding citizens into villains for demanding secure borders. Enforcement becomes “hate,” deportation “family separation,” and walls “racist barriers.” (mediamatters.org)
This stifles debate: Question DACA, and you are “anti-Dreamer”; support ICE, and you are “xenophobic.” The effect? Policies like sanctuary cities endure, despite evidence of harms—higher recidivism, drug influxes, and trafficking. (journals.ku.edu)
Orwell warned that decayed language leads to decayed thought. In immigration, doublespeak has decayed our discourse, allowing a broken system to fester. To fix it, we must reclaim plain speech: Call illegal acts illegal, sanctuaries non-enforcement zones, and crises what they are—cartel-fueled exploitations. Only then can we address the root: End sanctuaries, enforce laws, and protect all victims.
In upcoming parts, we will explore economic harms (Part 5) and beyond. Share if this resonates—let us cut through the fog. Summary: “Orwell warned us: ‘Undocumented’ is doublespeak for ‘illegal.’ How language whitewashes immigration crimes.
Sweizer, P: The Invisible Coup – How American Elites are Using Immigration as a Weapon. (January 2026)
Wikipedia: Doublespeak (Accessed January 2026). en.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia: Politics and the English Language (Accessed January 2026). en.wikipedia.org
The Atlantic: What Happened to Aung San Suu Kyi? (September 2019). theatlantic.com
Fair Observer: Fair Observer Monthly (October 2025). fairobserver.com
Fair Observer: Make Sense of 2024 (July 2025).
Fair Observer: Search for Tanzania (Accessed January 2026). fairobserver.com
ACLU: Trump Administration Is Illegally Forcing Asylum Seekers Out (February 2019).
aclu.org
Media Matters: 2021 Guide to Debunking Right-Wing Claims (March 2021). mediamatters.org
Journals@KU: Doublespeaking American Immigration (2025). journals.ku.edu
The Guardian: The Insidious Doublespeak of Trump’s Freedom of ‘Choice’ (May 2025).
theguardian.com
SustainLV: Orwell’s Doublethink in Trump’s America (October 2019). sustainlv.org
LSE Blogs: News Media Focus on “Illegal” Immigrants (June 2025). blogs.lse.ac.uk