CBP Reinstates 'Alien' Term for Noncitizens and Migrants

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

The CBP reinstated “alien” to describe noncitizens, sparking debates on its implications for tone and U.S. immigration policy.
Critics argue the term dehumanizes migrants, impacting legal outcomes, social stigma, and access to essential services.
Supporters view “alien” as precise, reflecting enforcement-focused policies amid broader immigration system debates and ideological divides.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recently reinstated the word “alien” to describe noncitizens and migrants, reverting to terminology that had previously been replaced by “noncitizen” during the Biden administration. Announced on January 20, 2025, this decision has already sparked wide-ranging debates among lawmakers, immigration lawyers, and advocacy groups. The move signals a significant shift in the tone and priorities of U.S. immigration policy, with implications extending far beyond the linguistic choice.

Historical Background and Context

CBP Reinstates ‘Alien’ Term for Noncitizens and Migrants

For decades, the term “alien” has been ingrained in U.S. immigration law through the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), where it denotes any individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national. While technically precise, the term has drawn criticism for its dehumanizing undertones, with many arguing that it fosters negative stereotypes about migrants. In 2021, the Biden administration moved to replace “alien” with “noncitizen” in official documents. This change was part of an effort to make immigration discussions more inclusive, as many believed the previous terminology perpetuated harmful biases.

Studies have emphasized the effect language can have on public opinion and legal decisions. One compelling finding revealed judges were more likely to issue positive rulings for immigrants when the term “noncitizen” appeared instead of “alien” in legal proceedings. Critics of the reintroduction of “alien” argue that it could lead to stricter interpretations of immigration laws and a harsher approach to resolving immigrant cases. Nonetheless, supporters of the linguistic shift argue it aligns with the statutory language embedded in U.S. law since its inception.

Policy and Structural Implications

This decision to reintroduce “alien” parallels other policies under the current administration, which seem to emphasize stricter immigration enforcement. These measures illustrate a deeply enforcement-oriented strategy within the administration’s immigration agenda, which includes the following:

Higher Deportation Rates: The administration has committed to expediting the removal of undocumented migrants. The language around “criminal alien” is increasingly being used to rationalize rigorous deportation measures.
Reduced Humanitarian Protections: Programs like Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are under review. Their potential rollback could expose hundreds of thousands of individuals to deportation or legal limbo.
Enhanced Border Security: Plans to expand physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border have been prioritized, alongside additional funding for personnel and surveillance technology.

Together, these shifts suggest a broader move to tighten immigration policies. Analysts, including those at VisaVerge.com, have linked these measures to Project 2025, an ambitious plan to restructure immigration systems by emphasizing enforcement and reducing pathways for legal migration.

Tangible Impacts on Migrants and Noncitizens

For individuals residing in the U.S. without citizenship—whether on temporary visas, undocumented, or pursuing permanent residency—the return to the term “alien” carries specific risks and concerns. The language shifts don’t just change the tone of government communications; they also have real-life consequences:

Legal Proceedings: The terminology used in immigration courts and legal documents can influence perceptions of migrants and their cases. The reintroduction of “alien” might encourage stricter judicial interpretations of immigration laws.
Social Stigma: The term “alien” often carries negative associations, which can exacerbate feelings of exclusion. Noncitizens may face heightened challenges in their communities, as the term fosters societal division.
Access to Services: With the term “alien” reentering official use, many noncitizens may encounter added suspicion when accessing healthcare, educational opportunities, or public benefits. This could dissuade individuals from seeking help when it is needed most.

Undocumented individuals, in particular, might feel alienated—that is, further disconnected from U.S. society—by the language used to categorize them. Some experts warn that it could discourage individuals from reporting crimes or seeking protection due to fear that they will be labeled as “aliens” in official records.

Current Immigration Data and Trends

To understand the gravity of this shift, it’s critical to look at recent data outlining immigration patterns in the U.S.:

By 2023, the United States was home to approximately 47.1 million immigrants, of whom about 22.4 million were considered noncitizens.
The population of unauthorized immigrants rose to 11 million in 2022, reversing a decade-long trend of declining numbers.
Noncitizens remain disproportionately uninsured compared to naturalized U.S. citizens. Half of noncitizens lack health insurance, while only 6% of naturalized citizens are uninsured.

Such statistics reveal how deeply immigration is tied to systemic challenges, including access to essential resources like healthcare. Noncitizens, already navigating these difficulties, could find themselves further ostracized through the linguistics of policy.

Criticism and Support of the Change

The CBP’s move to reinstate “alien” has stirred passionate responses from across the political and societal spectrum. Supporters see the decision as a return to legal and terminological precision, suggesting the phrase is necessary for clarity, especially within legislative and judicial systems. They argue that abandoning terms like “alien” for more neutral alternatives obscures the gravity of legal violations committed by unauthorized migrants.

On the other hand, critics contend that the term reinforces damaging stereotypes and works against efforts to foster understanding between immigrant communities and the broader U.S. population. Advocacy groups worry the language shift will undermine trust, making immigrant populations view the government as less inclusive and approachable.

This conflict between supporters and critics reflects the broader ideological divide in the U.S. regarding immigration. It underlines the tension between an enforcement-heavy approach to immigration policy and the growing calls for policies that are more human-centered and focused on integration.

Broader Implications and Future Developments

The decision to resume using “alien” within the immigration system appears to be the first step in a recalibration of how immigration policies are framed and implemented. Several areas are likely to face scrutiny in the coming months:

Congressional Actions: Legislators from opposing parties may propose bills to affirm or challenge this linguistic shift, further widening the political divide over immigration.
Court Involvement: The judicial system may soon be tasked with evaluating whether terms like “alien” influence due process or equitable treatment for migrants appearing before the courts.
Public Opinion: The American public will play a vital role in determining the course of future immigration policies, as activism and media coverage on this issue intensify.

Advocacy organizations have already announced plans to counter these rhetorical policy changes using public campaigns, legal challenges, and education initiatives within their communities. The term itself could become a focal point in the ongoing immigration debate in the lead-up to the next presidential elections.

Concluding Thoughts

The reintroduction of “alien” by the CBP is more than just a change in language—it reflects a considerable philosophical shift in the United States’ approach to immigration. Critics argue that it undermines efforts to humanize immigration policies, citing studies that show its potential for bias in legal settings and community integration. Supporters, however, maintain that the term provides clarity in legal contexts and reinforces existing immigration laws as defined under statutes like the INA.

For migrants and noncitizens, the ramifications are personal and far-reaching—from how they are perceived in court to the opportunities available to them within their communities. This language choice will undoubtedly be absorbed into broader policy debates and tensions surrounding immigration in the coming years.

As these developments unfold, staying informed is essential. Readers seeking updated information on U.S. immigration policies can visit the official CBP website to review authoritative resources and updates. While the ongoing debate over language and policy plays out, one thing is certain: the words used to describe migrants will continue to shape not just government policies, but also societal attitudes and the everyday experiences of millions of individuals in the U.S.

CBP resumes using “alien” in migrant terminology
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has reinstated the term “alien” to describe noncitizens and migrants, reversing a previous move toward more inclusive language. The decision reflects a larger policy shift under the current administration.

Why it matters:
Language shapes perception. Critics argue that the term “alien” dehumanizes migrants and reinforces stigmas, potentially altering public opinion, legal decisions, and how immigrants integrate into society.

The big picture:
The term “alien” has deep roots in U.S. immigration law, appearing in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to describe anyone who isn’t a U.S. citizen or national.
– Under Biden, CBP had moved to the term “noncitizen” in an effort to humanize immigration discourse.
– Research supports this shift: courts using “noncitizen” were found to rule more favorably toward migrants compared to those using “alien.”

The reversion to “alien” symbolizes a harsher stance on immigration, aligning with broader enforcement priorities.

State of play:
This change comes as the administration ramps up restrictive immigration policies:
– Increased deportations: Streamlined processes for identifying and removing undocumented individuals, with terminology like “criminal alien” reinforcing enforcement narratives.
– Rollback of protections: Programs like DACA and TPS are under review, risking the legal status of hundreds of thousands.
– Border security expansion: Plans for more barriers and enforcement personnel along the southern border are underway.

Practical impacts on migrants:
The terminology shift is more than symbolic and could affect migrants’ lives:
– Legal outcomes: The word “alien” may signal stricter court interpretations of immigration laws.
– Social stigma: Negative connotations of the term could worsen biases against immigrants and hinder community integration.
– Access to services: Fear of the label may discourage undocumented individuals from seeking healthcare or reporting crimes.

By the numbers:
Immigration trends highlight the scale of the issue:
– 47.1 million immigrants lived in the U.S. as of 2023, including 22.4 million noncitizens.
– The unauthorized population rose from 10.5M in 2021 to 11M in 2022, ending years of decline.
– 50% of noncitizens are uninsured compared to 6% of naturalized citizens, revealing systemic obstacles.

What they’re saying:
– Supporters argue the return to “alien” restores legal clarity and reflects statutory language. “Language consistency is critical for legal precision,” they say.
– Critics call it dehumanizing and fear it will worsen trust issues between immigrant communities and the government. Advocacy groups warn that it perpetuates xenophobia.

Between the lines:
The term’s revival reflects an ideological shift toward enforcement-driven policies over integration or humanitarian approaches to immigration.

The bottom line:
CBP’s decision to revert to “alien” signals a pivotal change in U.S. immigration policy, emphasizing enforcement at the expense of inclusivity. The impact extends beyond language—shaping law, public perception, and the lived experiences of millions of migrants in America.

Learn Today

Alien: A legal term in U.S. immigration law referring to any individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): A U.S. law establishing the framework for immigration, naturalization, and residency, including key terminology like “alien.”
Temporary Protected Status (TPS): A temporary immigration status granted to individuals from specific countries facing crises, such as armed conflict or natural disasters.
Deportation: The formal removal of an individual from the U.S. for violating immigration laws, often referred to as “removal” in legal contexts.
Noncitizen: A term used to describe individuals residing in the U.S. who are not citizens, including visa holders and undocumented migrants.

This Article in a Nutshell

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s decision to reinstate “alien” for noncitizens reignites debate over language in immigration policy. Critics argue it’s dehumanizing, fostering bias, while supporters claim legal precision. This shift reflects tougher immigration enforcement, potentially altering public perception, judicial fairness, and migrants’ daily lives—a stark reminder of words’ powerful influence.
— By VisaVerge.com