Posted by Tina
(A while back) The AP has banned the use of the words “illegal immigrant” and issued new rules for journalist who cover stories involving….well, you know, groups of people who come here without benefit of papers and government blessing. A quote from the Washington times article on the new rules:
“The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term ‘illegal immigrant’ or the use of ‘illegal’ to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that ‘illegal’ should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally,” said the senior vice president and executive editor Kathleen Carroll.
The wire service’s rationale goes on for many paragraphs before offering the actual Stylebook entry for earnest journalists to consider. It reads:
“Illegal immigration: Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.’
“Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented.”
“Do not describe people as violating immigration laws without attribution. Specify wherever possible how someone entered the country illegally and from where. Crossed the border? Overstayed a visa? What nationality?”“People who were brought into the country as children should not be described as having immigrated illegally. For people granted a temporary right to remain in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, use temporary resident status, with details on the program lower in the story.”
Ms. Carroll notes, “Is this the best way to describe someone in a country without permission? We believe that it is for now. We also believe more evolution is likely down the road. Will the new guidance make it harder for writers? Perhaps just a bit at first. But while labels may be more facile, they are not accurate.”
Reactions among journalists were immediate, with quips of many persuasions appearing on Twitter, gathered via a waggish #NewAPStyle hashtag.
“Pathetic,” declared Twitchy.com, while New York Post editorial page editor John Podhoretz observed, “Maybe they should call them schmillegal schmimigrants.”
Mr. Podhoretz has a point. How silly is this? Extremely silly!
Are people who are in the country without benefit of citizenship alien to this country? Yes they are. If I travel to Canada I am an alien in that country as opposed to being a citizen or guest of that country.
Is a group of people, all of whom have sneaked into the US without authorization, here illegally or not? The answer is obvious; they are here illegally. Ergo, a perfectly acceptable and accurate name or label for that group of people whose members are not citizens and have not entered the nation by legal means is “illegal aliens”. Anyone here with visa or work permit do not fit in that group and should not assume it is a racial slur. Mass offense at the use of this term is unreasonable and petty.
Those who have the right to be here do not fit into the group called “illegal aliens”. Yet the PC left has decided to make this an issue of race in order to pound the he** out of anyone that wants reform. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to manage the influx of immigrants to avoid an overburden on state governments, preserve assimilation, prevent entry by undesirables (drug cartels, terrorists), and promote safer and more amenable entry for those who seek legal means to come to America if we are restricted and shamed every time we attempt to have an honest discussion. That is exactly the goal of the Democrats and their media support teams.
But the term has nothing to do with any particular race and is not racist. The term applies to all races.
People who are here with legal authorization of our government do have good reason to be offended by the left’s political use of this term; they have spent both time and money to come to this country legally. Distorting the meaning of this phrase, and the intention of those using the phrase when addressing the complex immigration issue, creates the illusion of bigotry where none exists. It assumes all people of a particular race are lumped together and targeted when in fact that is not the case at all. Why is this not considered racism?
Jay Leno : “AP Replaces Illegal Immigrant with Undocumented Democrat.” That is spot on. I hope when Leno leaves NBC, FOX scoops him up so he can mop the floor with NBC.
The fact is that there is no other offense wherein we label the offender with the term “illegal.” In the term “illegal immigrant,” the adjective “illegal” refers to the noun–“immigrant”–thus labeling the *person* illegal, not just the action. It isn’t just that the term is insensitive or “politically incorrect;” the more pressing problem to this English major is that it’s imprecise, and unlike any other construction in the English language. The phrase literally doesn’t make linguistic sense.
As Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Eli Weisel has written, “No human being is illegal.”
I am trying to think of a good analogy…driving without insurance is illegal, but we don’t refer to people as “illegal drivers.” We call them “uninsured drivers.” This is why I prefer the term “undocumented immigrant.” Instead of using the generic and misleading term “illegal,” the word “undocumented” is more specific about what law, exactly, the person is breaking.
Shouldn’t we strive to be precise? I know that isn’t always the priority on a political blog, where generalities often are more convenient in making one’s larger point, but in actual journalism precision is crucial. The AP made the right choice.
That’s OK. Really doesn’t matter what AP thinks, since if they’re in the US illegally, by definition they’re ILLEGAL aliens! Period!
And AP now stands for Always Pusillanimous . . . .
“That’s OK. Really doesn’t matter what AP thinks, since if they’re in the US illegally, by definition they’re ILLEGAL aliens! Period!”
No. “Illegal” is an adjective that can be applied to actions, not categories of people.
It’s ironic that those who feel the most sympathy for the English only movement…actually don’t have very good English skills.
An IBD article posits that the move by AP is totally political and informs that the AP had the opposite position just a year ago:
The article also recounted Jay Leno’s take:
And therein lies the politics.
It’s a good article describing the ways the left attempts to control the narrative, as well as the outcome in political battles, through the use of language.
One more thing for which to be aware!
The fact that the term “illegal alien” may be slightly imprecise is irrelevant. We use many terms that are imprecise. Most people, for example, say their car alarm went “off” when they really mean it went on. Nonetheless, we have been using the illegal alien term for many years. Everyone knows exactly what it means. That is called clear communication. Quibbling over literal precision is called boring pedantry (my condolences regarding your major, Chris), but in this case, it is correctly called politics. Personally, I prefer the term “unregistered Democrats.”
When we’re talking about a group of people that is at the center of a hot-buttong political issue, then yes, it is extremely important to be precise and consider the consequences of the language we use.
Let’s not pretend that the term “illegal immigrant” is totally free of political connotations. That term is also political. So you’re not really angry that language is being used for political purposes, you’re mad that it’s being used for political purposes *with which you disagree.* The term “illegal immigrant” is also used for political purposes, but you have no problem with that, because those purposes happen to overlap with your own.
ABC News published a great analysis about the term “illegal immigrant” which details some of the history of the term. Did you know that American law does not actually use this term? And that it has anti-semitic origins? I didn’t. You should really read the whole thing. Here’s an excerpt:
“What’s more, for some immigrants, legal status can fluctuate from year to year, and month to month, depending on visa expiration and approval dates. However, the “illegal” label seems to suggest a permanent, and unchanging identity, which fails to acknowledge the realities it attempts to describe. For example, would we ever describe you as an “illegal” or an “illegal parker” when your parking meter expired? And then a “legal” again once you filled it with quarters? Probably not. It just doesn’t make that much sense. Lacking legal status is not a static identity in the same way that being a German-American, or olive-skinned, or a Chicago-native, is. If we’re looking to use language most precisely, why not describe the situation, the specific behavior, what actually happened, rather than label a person with a reductive label?”
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Opinion/analysis-debate-illegal-matters/story?id=18871400#.UV8WepNQFic
“…the “illegal” label seems to suggest a permanent, and unchanging identity, which fails to acknowledge the realities it attempts to describe.”
No, it describes only those persons who enter the country illegally or overstay their visa, making their status change. When we speak about illegal aliens we are speaking about people who intentionally have broken the law to get here or to stay here. Anyone that doesn’t fit that description also does not fit within the group referred to as illegal aliens.
The term has been used over several decades in conversation to distinguish between people that have a legal right to be here and those who do not.
It became political when Democrats discovered they could use the issue to label their opponents as racist. It was made political when the Democrats used the established racism label to buy what they hoped would be a permanent voting block. It’s politics all right, lazy, sleazy politics. I say lazy because Democrats don’t have to perform and sleazy because they blatantly use people.
“For example, would we ever describe you as an “illegal” or an “illegal parker” when your parking meter expired?”
We certainly could! As far as I know, however, there has never been a need to distinguish between legal and illegal parkers in conversation nationally so it’s never come up.
It just doesn’t make that much sense. Lacking legal status is not a static identity…”
Calling those who overtly enter the country by illegal means “lacking legal status” is playing with words to avoid the simple truth…a person (or group of persons) is breaking our immigration laws. A person who purposely overstays his visa is not simply “lacking legal status”…he is intentionally breaking our laws.
If we’re looking to use language most precisely, why not describe the situation, the specific behavior, what actually happened, rather than label a person with a reductive label?”
The only reason the terms is considered bad form is because Democrats have made it about race rather than the law. Now the AP, and Democrats, are giving themselves starring roles as they ride in to rescue people from the horror of the ginned up racism that doesn’t exist. You people are pathetic.
Today the AP announced the word Islamist is also not acceptable.
Funny they never have a problem using the KKK or Skin head, or Christian extremist.
Free speech is at issue…and so is the purposeful destruction of the language. The AP is being anything but precise.
More PC rules. George Will describes the PC use of the language and the terms diversity, tolerance, inclusion…
It is quite clear how the left uses and abuses the language.
Mail Online reports on PC rules used in Army reserve-training video as suggested by the left leaning Southern Poverty Law Center:
Tina, why should the newspaper use a term that even most state and federal laws don’t use?
Admit it, the reason you are so committed to using the word “illegal immigrant” is because you know the use of that term makes a difference in the debate. The term “illegal immigrant” is helpful to your side. Your objection is entirely political.
The term “political correctness” has lost all meaning.
I thought that you would at least take the words of a Holocaust survivor, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and world-renowned author that the phrase “illegal immigrant” is dehumanizing, but I guess that has no effect on you.
The term illegal immigrant may or may not help in the debate now that your “side” has managed to associate it with racism but it does distinguish between those who arrived here by legal means and those who have not. Making that distinction is important if we are ever going to have an honest discussion about how to control our borders and create a workable immigration policy.
“…the phrase “illegal immigrant” is dehumanizing…”
I can see how it has become a dehumanizing term. But it has become a dehumanizing term not because it has been used accurately to describe those who come to this country illegally but because the Democrat Party smeared the term with racist overtones! This is a common practice in the Democrat Party. In this case it is particularly despicable and, by the way, is meant to dehumanize those whose politics are conservative.
You don’t give a damn that this is how the Democrat Party operates and because you don’t you will never convince me that you actually give a damn about the people, the issue, or finding a solution to the problems associated with this illegal activity and our current policy.
And by the way, if you and your fellow leftists have decided PC is passe it’s probably because the term is no longer useful or is hurting your side.
Tina: “I can see how it has become a dehumanizing term. But it has become a dehumanizing term not because it has been used accurately to describe those who come to this country illegally but because the Democrat Party smeared the term with racist overtones!”
This from the so-called party of responsibility. Wonderful.
“You don’t give a damn that this is how the Democrat Party operates and because you don’t you will never convince me that you actually give a damn about the people, the issue, or finding a solution to the problems associated with this illegal activity and our current policy.”
Tina, my position is the same as Eli Weisel’s. Do you believe he “gives a damn” about the people he believes are being dehumanized? Or do you believe this Holocaust survivor’s opinion is entirely political, simply because you disagree with it?
Eli Weisel’s opinion is a response based on a very different set of circumstances including fear of the rise of regimes with totalitarian (extermination) ideas in mind:
Someone recalling that his people had to flee a country because a dictator vowed to eliminate them from the face of the earth would understandably think this way but let me ask you, in very simple terms Chris, do we jail the offender or the offense when someone commits murder? Do we ticket/fine the person or his offense when the meter runs down?
We hold individuals responsible when they break the law not their offenses.
Your ABC article also includes another opinion:
A person that would make this statement is the type who thinks and behaves like a tyrant!
This entire opinion projects onto US citizens and their police forces the mindset and force of the SS under Hitler. It’s an ugly, irresponsible piece of yellow journalism.
The fact that you have bought into this is more disturbing than anything. You have no sense of your heritage as an American, Chris. You have no sense of what it is to be an American. Your higher education has taught you to be an activist for causes…the very meat of totalitarian politics.
Being an activist for causes is “totalitarian?”
Oh, you.
No, being a pawn, a useful idiot, in an ambitious politician’s socialist totalitarian game is ignorant and diminishes your chances for a future lived in freedom and prosperity.
“…let me ask you, in very simple terms Chris, do we jail the offender or the offense when someone commits murder? Do we ticket/fine the person or his offense when the meter runs down?
We hold individuals responsible when they break the law not their offenses.”
You’re changing the subject. While we do hold the individual responsible, we do not declare the individual “illegal.”
Except, of course, when we talk about “illegal immigrants.”
How convenient for you.
Let me ask again: why should newspapers continue using a term that even U.S. law does not use?