I want to QFT most of what you wrote, but to save space, I'll just add my own opinions on one of your points: I've taken to accepting that sometimes the language I use will be received as offensive and changing it around others even when I know I disagree with them. Some people have been offended by "you guys" instead of "you all" or even the use of assumed gendered pronouns before I've explicitly asked the other person what their preferred pronoun is. Sometimes I disagree. I don't consider "bitch" a sexist insult. I care little way one or the other about "undocumented" vs. "illegal". I consider "3rd world" to be a somewhat archaic term from the generation before mine and prefer "developing" instead. I see "jew" as offensive only in some contexts. I dislike the use of "faggot" (and consider it a pejorative for "gay"), but I equate "retard" to "stupid" / "moron" / "dumb" / "idiot" as all having varying degrees of intensity of the same idea. For all of them though, I have learned to recognize when the bother those around me and adjust the words I use in accord with keeping a respectful conversation.2.) Change when you're told a new term, and don't get mad when you're corrected. You don't live the life of a person of colour, or a trans person, or someone with a developmental disorder. That makes it hard to keep up, because you're not steeped in it, all day every day. Also, lots of people have different reactions to different words.
This is the only thing that I have a general disagreement with you about. They way we define immigrants, migrants and refugees has a HUGE repercussion on how they are treated under law. Nowhere is this currently more apparent than in the Syrian refugee crisis right now, and the language being used by varying countries to describe it. In this crisis, people are using the terms "Migrants" and "Refugees". Migrants, meaning those who are leaving their current country to seek a better life in Europe, and Refugees meaning those who have been forced from their homes, fleeing the violence of the Assad regime. What's interesting is whom is using which term. Countries like Germany, who are opening their doors to these people, are calling them refugees. Countries, like Hungary, who are building a border fence to keep these people OUT, are calling them "Migrants". Why is this language important? Because if they are refugees, and they show up at the EU's border, member countries are obliged to act. Also, according to the Dublin Protocol, The country where you enter the EU is supposed to be the one who does the accepting - meaning countries like Italy, Greece, and Hungary are the ones who face the greatest burden. By calling these people "Migrants", not refugees, Hungary can get away with building a wall instead of building a bridge. The same is true, in some ways, with America and its southern neighbours. For example, look at Human Rights Watch's page on Mexico. there are a huge amount of problems in Mexico, and most of the people who are "Illegal" or "Undocumented" immigrants are less immigrants than they are asylum seekers. The situation in many Mexican provinces has become untenable, with clashes between the military and the cartels, not to mention government censorship. But the US refers to them as Illegal Immigrants, because if they are refugees, then they need to accomodate them, according to the UNHCR, or the UN Refugee Agency. I care little way one or the other about "undocumented" vs. "illegal"
Read this and initially thought this was unrelated to the my initial point on offensive language, but since you brought it up and since I haven't given the distinction of "migrant" vs. "refugee" much thought, here's my likely immature, not-too-fully-informed reaction: I agree with you with regards to the value of this distinction, and emphasis of these people as "refugees" not just in the context of the government but also surrounding institutions that hold sway with government officials and voting blocks. But I also see the use of "migrants" in this context as being a weasel word that stems from those countries not wanting to accept the people in the first place, rather than vice versa. I haven't been following the EU vs. Syria events though, past listening to a rant on why the US, UK, and Poland should take responsibility for the refugees. So I say the things above from a PoV of ignorance. -- With regards to Mexico, I'm on the same page as you as seeing those people as refugees (and not migrants!) fleeing from a situation that the US largely helped create via drug / economic / agricultural policies. And to some extent, I believe the US should be held accountable to both relieve the drivers of the unfavorable conditions in Mexico as well as extend relief to those who have already left the country. However, the context that is usually discussed of "undocumented" vs. "illegal" among my peers (who have usually already assumed the following "migrant") has struck me as splitting hairs over PC terminology and not really addressing the fundamental questions of why these people want to leave their homes. And I've found that by the time you get around to arguing for one or the other, people have already made up their minds about the underlying question of whether those people deserve to be in the US in the first place. Maybe one word is more correct, but arguing over that has always struck me as a bit of red herring and all around less important compared to other discussions on the topic...This is the only thing that I have a general disagreement with you about. They way we define immigrants, migrants and refugees has a HUGE repercussion on how they are treated under law.