How Language Shapes Policy and Perception
Bottom Line Up Front
The U.S. government’s pervasive use of “non-citizen” to describe foreign nationals distorts the meaning of citizenship and dehumanizes people — dedicated teachers, skilled doctors, vibrant students — who hold full citizenship in their home countries. This term, entrenched in official documents, fuels policies that diminish the humanity of good people based solely on their lack of American citizenship, revealing a worldview that elevates U.S. identity over global dignity.
In a world of 195 sovereign nations, every person walking this earth is a citizen of somewhere. Yet the United States government has adopted language that erases this basic reality, reducing millions of foreign nationals to what they supposedly ‘are not’ rather than acknowledging what they are — full citizens of their own countries.
Introduction
Let’s be clear from the start: People who are not U.S. citizens are still citizens, just citizens of other countries. The fundamental truth we must recognize is that there are no ‘non-citizens’ in this world — only citizens of different nations. The German engineer, the Japanese artist, or the Nigerian physicist living among us are not defined by their absence of American citizenship. A Canadian doctor saving lives, a Mexican teacher shaping young minds, or an Austrian student enriching American campuses are not “non-citizens” — they are citizens of their nations, with dreams, families, and dignity equal to any American. English is a rich language, brimming with precise terms to honor such humanity, yet the U.S. government wields “non-citizen” across Department of Homeland Security (DHS) orders and legislative texts, casting these individuals as lesser for lacking U.S. citizenship.
Using the wrong term out of misguided convenience or laziness may be excusable in casual talk, but it is abhorrent when deliberately turned into a weapon by the government to denigrate fellow human beings. This linguistic dagger reduces vibrant identities to a cold negation, framing good people as outsiders devoid of legitimacy. “Non-citizen” is not bureaucratic shorthand but a deliberate distortion that fuels exclusionary policies and perceptions, betraying America’s promise of fairness and justice.
The Perversion of Citizenship
Citizenship is a sacred bond, granting rights, responsibilities, and recognition of one’s humanity within a political community. A French tourist is a French citizen, a Mexican worker a Mexican citizen — not “non-citizens.” Yet, U.S. agencies apply this term across immigration enforcement, benefit programs, and legal documents, defining people by what they lack. This linguistic choice creates a false hierarchy that treats American citizenship as the universal standard, implicitly devaluing the citizenship bonds that billions of people hold with their own nations — bonds that are just as meaningful, just as ‘real’ as any American’s relationship with the United States. It implies that billions worldwide — from Japanese diplomats to Canadian prime ministers — are mere shadows defined by their distance from U.S. borders, their contributions erased by a reductive label that wounds global dignity.
Government Usage and Official Sanction
The term “non-citizen” is entrenched in U.S. policy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service demonstrates this linguistic harm by labeling international students as ‘non-citizens’ in official guidelines — a reductive term that erases their full citizenship status in their home countries. FEMA’s 2025 guidelines limit cash assistance to “U.S. citizens, non-citizen nationals, or qualified aliens,” relegating foreign nationals to secondary status, even in disaster-stricken communities where they suffer alongside Americans. Most disturbingly, DHS’s 2025 enforcement of the Alien Registration Act, under Executive Order 14159, mandates “non-citizens” to register or face penalties, framing them as threats to national security. The State Department recognizes “non-citizen nationals” — U.S. nationals who are not citizens — acknowledging gradations of belonging, yet this nuance is withheld from foreign nationals, revealing a selective disregard for their humanity.
Whether in immigration, education, healthcare, or disaster relief, this linguistic choice shapes how we see and treat foreign nationals across every aspect of government interaction.
The Dehumanizing Effect
Language shapes hearts and minds, and “non-citizen” cuts deeply.
Imagine Maria, a Brazilian nurse who moved to the U.S. to care for patients during a hospital staffing crisis. Despite her sacrifices, she’s labeled a “non-citizen” in official documents, her identity reduced to a bureaucratic void, her contributions dismissed. This term brands a Mexican nurse or an Indian engineer as “other,” their efforts — building communities, saving lives — erased by a word that screams deficiency.
Even well-meaning friends and family, who defend immigrants amid recent tensions, now casually use “non-citizen” in conversations, unaware that its normalized acceptance perpetuates harm. In immigration enforcement, this language justifies harsh policies, like DHS’s 2025 registration requirements, which treat foreign nationals as suspects requiring surveillance. It flattens diverse identities — students, workers, visitors — into a monolithic category, stripping away their stories.
This linguistic cruelty fuels policies that punish rather than protect, shattering the dreams of good people who enrich America’s cultural and economic fabric, betraying the fairness America claims to champion.
Now, imagine if Germany labeled all Americans visiting Berlin as ‘non-citizens’ in official documents. Picture the French government referring to American students in Paris as ‘non-citizens’ rather than ‘American students.’ The absurdity becomes clear — these terms erase national identity and dignity, reducing people to bureaucratic negatives.
Every American traveling abroad remains a fully American citizen — they do not become ‘non-citizens’ of their host countries. They would rightfully reject such labeling as demeaning and inaccurate. Why then do we accept this linguistic diminishment of others?
Historical and Legal Context
Historically, U.S. immigration law used “alien,” a term rejected for its dehumanizing sting. The Biden Administration’s shift to “non-citizen” aimed to soften this, but traded one harm for another. Federal statutes, like the Immigration and Nationality Act, define people by their lack of U.S. citizenship, a practice that seeps into DHS reports, media, and public discourse. This legal language perpetuates a narrative that devalues foreign citizenship, ignoring the pride and identity it holds for billions.
A Global Perspective
Other nations show that language can honor humanity. Canada uses “permanent resident” or “temporary resident,” affirming individuals’ status in their home countries. The UK employs “migrant” or “international visitor,” recognizing agency without negation. Australia’s “visa holder” focuses on legal status, not absence. These terms contrast with the U.S.’s “non-citizen,” which elevates American identity over global dignity, exposing a linguistic nationalism that isolates rather than unites.
A More Accurate Alternative
Terms like “foreign nationals,” “foreign citizens,” “international visitors,” or “residents of other countries” acknowledge citizenship elsewhere while maintaining clarity. These alternatives reject the negative framing of “non-citizen,” which positions American citizenship as humanity’s gold standard. Choosing “non-citizen” reflects an ideological bias that devalues global citizenship and undermines the very justice America claims to champion.
Language is a choice. Every time we say ‘foreign national’ instead of ‘non-citizen,’ we choose to see the whole person rather than the bureaucratic void.
The Broader Implications
The term “non-citizen” is more than a word — it’s a worldview that elevates American citizenship above all else. It fails to see the Mexican teacher, the Canadian doctor, or the German student as equals, reducing their lives to paperwork. This linguistic nationalism fuels policies that treat foreign nationals as problems, not people, betraying the principles of fairness and dignity. It asks: how can a nation claiming justice dehumanize those who contribute to its strength?
Conclusion
The U.S. government’s use of “non-citizen” is a deliberate distortion that erases the citizenship and humanity of billions — good people who teach, heal, and dream. From SNAP guidelines to DHS’s punitive registries, this term shapes policies that punish rather than protect, breaking America’s promise of justice. Alternatives like “foreign nationals,” as used by Canada, the UK, and Australia, honor global citizens. The language we choose shapes how we treat others. For a nation built on fairness, it’s time to reject “non-citizen” and embrace terms that uplift the humanity of all, regardless of borders.
Will America choose a language that recognizes the full humanity and citizenship of all people, or will we continue using terms that reduce millions to what they supposedly lack? For a nation that claims to champion human dignity, the answer should be clear.
Sources:
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, SNAP Eligibility for Non-Citizens, 2025–03–17
- FEMA, Citizenship Status and Eligibility for Disaster Assistance, 2025–01–20
- DHS, Secretary Noem Reminds Foreign Nationals to Register, 2025–04–10
- USCIS, Alien Registration Requirement, 2025–05–05
- State Department, Certificates of Non-Citizen Nationality, 2023–04–30
- Migration Policy Institute, Shaping Citizenship Policies, 2012–08–02