[T]he Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection applies to all persons, not just citizens. The presumption that the 14th Amendment can be set aside while immigrants are hunted down and punished is widespread but false. The judge wrote: “We cannot say clearly enough that persons who enter this country without legal authorization are not stripped immediately of all their rights because of this single illegal act.”
-- NYT Editorial
This respects a ruling that struck down local legislation in part because it interfered with an area held to be largely a federal matter. One part of the ruling was that there was no compelling need -- a hearing showed that only a few crimes in the area were committed by the targeted class. It also sent a red flag up respecting "this single illegal act." Some want to not protect non-citizens held in Gitmo and elsewhere.
But, a somewhat similar mentality arises when dealing with non-citizens, especially those here potentially without authorization, are on clear U.S. soil. This is highlighted by the language. "Illegals" is the generally understood word for those here illegally. But, it is woefully overbroad. Any number of people -- including the Bush White House -- are "illegals." For instance, those involved in a grey market industry. Or, a blatantly illegal one. It is quite logical to speak of such people as "illegals," though I wouldn't -- it is a word that tries to remove the face, making all members some faceless group.
It is a blatant abuse of language, one of many we accept as quite acceptable and logical. It simply is not. This is surely the case given their name comes from an activity that quite honestly we generally accept as not a big deal -- even if we don't quite like to admit the fact. For this, those involved are just to be known as "illegals?" Dubious.