AP no longer to use phrase "Illegal Immigrant"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

Seems that the Associated Press has decided that there isn't much to gain from just reporting the news, but that they should also help distort the facts

http://news.yahoo.com/aps-ban-illegal-immigrant-change-talk-immigration-213519402.html

Starting now, you will never see the "lazy" words "illegal immigrant" in another AP story unless they're quoting someone important saying it. That faint sound you hear is Senate reporters from the AP, The New York Times, and beyond smacking their delete keys, rethinking their agenda setting aloud, and figuring out how we talk now, amidst a serious legislative discussion, about the millions of illegal immigrants people living in the U.S. without legal permission. AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll explains the timely style change:
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.
For immigration reform advocates, of course, this is a clear win. Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist who entered the country when he was 12-years-old and does not have legal permission to live in the United States, had pushed the news organization to change its definition back in September. "The term dehumanizes and marginalizes the people it seeks to describe. Think of it this way, in what other context do we call someone illegal?" Vargas asked at the Online News Association's conference. "Being in a country without proper documents is a civil offense, not a criminal one."
RELATED: DREAM Act Faces Senate Vote
The AP's decision also comes as Senators are putting the final touches on a bi-partisan plan for immigration reform, which will no doubt test the nuance and specificity of reporters — at the AP and elsewhere — who tend to be in a rush, even on such a weighty topic. Indeed, there's also a shift on a bigger level here: If an organization as big and influential as the AP is changing the way it uses words, will it perhaps pull or push other publications to strike that phrase?
RELATED: Why 51% of Americans Approve of Arizona's Immigration Law
It turns out that The New York Times, which was also pushed by Vargas to drop the term, is now reconsidering its use. "From what I can gather, The Times's changes will not be nearly as sweeping as The A.P.'s," reports the Gray Lady's public editor, Margaret Sullivan in a blog post today. Sullivan didn't reveal the full scope of the Times impending move, but Sullivan explains the change — which will be introduced to staffers sometime this week — will push journalists to be more specific:
It will "provide more nuance and options" for what term to use, said Philip B. Corbett, associate managing editor for standards. In the past, for example, the term "undocumented" has practically been banned as a euphemism. That position is very likely to be softened in the revision, and other ways of describing those who are in the United States without proper legal documentation probably will be allowed and encouraged.
The Times and the AP are not dictionaries, but they still, by way of their influential readership, could shape the way people use the phrase — or don't — and change conversations people have about the topic. The stricken phrase, as the AP's Carroll explained to Poynter, "ends up pigeonholing people or creating long descriptive titles where you use some main event in someone’s life to become the modifier before their name." She added that the use was a "lazy device."
RELATED: Liberal Bloggers Are Breaking Up with Barack Obama
That's understandable. We'd hate to have one event in our lifetime determine the way we're described in one article for the rest of our existence. And if that term is so important that it could brand someone for the rest of their lives, Caroll believes it shouldn't be marginalized or glossed over — it should be specific. The official AP Stylebook now 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.
And the AP will require its reporters — and presumably a lot of other news organizations beyond just the Times starting to question themselves — to do more homework:
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?
Essentially that prescription would strike from existence sentences like this — from the AP's Monday report on Senate negotiations that have nearly reached a conclusion:
RELATED: Why Hasn't Jose Antonio Vargas Been Deported?
Under the new AP guidelines, that phrase would change to something like "millions of people who don't have permission to live here legally." But even then, such an edit might be a bit too broad, since the original passage could be referring to children who, according to the AP, probably did not voluntarily and knowingly enter a country illegally. But the new reality that we're interested in a line edit and asking questions is probably a sign that the AP's shift isn't merely about semantics.

Funny how the person who was pushing for this change in the AP is an illegal immigrant

**Dreadclaw69**

That was the running joke for a long time, now it seems that the AP thought it was a suggestion.

**Dreadclaw69**

Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah, it totally could have nothing to do with the fact that "illegal" is actively being used in some communities as a slur.

Or that its being used in a factually correct manner to describe immigrants who are in a country illegally. But lets not let that fact get in the way shall we?

**Dreadclaw69**

Ahtman wrote:
But as pointed out we don't refer to other similar things with such toxic verbiage, and it is used as a pejorative, which doesn't really help anyone. There are multiple ways to describe the situation, not just one, and we don't have to go with something so hostile, unless the point is just to be donkey-caves about it.

As pointed out by whom? The journalist who pushed for the change who is an illegal immigrant, and who confuses the concepts of "criminal" and "illegal" acts (as a Pulitzer prize winner I'd hope his understanding of the English language would be better).

What is hostile about describing someone who has entered the country, and disregarded its immigration laws, as an illegal immigrant? It is factually accurate. What ways would you suggest that these people should be described that it factually accurate and doesn't distort the truth about their presence in the country? Please don't say undocumented either, it makes it sound like they just haven't gotten their paperwork through.

**Dreadclaw69**

Kanluwen wrote:
Sure, let's not.

But let's also not gloss over the fact that there are people who are using the term "illegal" as a way to slur people within this country--illegally or not-- and use them as a way to score political points with a voter base that would be just fine with replacing the term "illegal immigrant" with "wetback".

Ok, so your argument is that because a small number of people may use the term as a slur then we should strike its usage from all media and replace it with something more cuddly? Currently the only political points being scored are by those people who use the terms "undocumented immigrant", "American in waiting" or the like to sanitize and build sympathy for people who think that the law should not apply to them. Its also common for then to conflate legal and illegal immigration.

So if you're attacked and stabbed will you phone the police to report an unlicensed surgery?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Well more and more a good term to use is "refugee from a failed state", "fleeing from cartel violence", or any number of descriptors related to just how gakky things are south of Texas.

But that really only applies to people coming over from Mexico. You have plenty of other Latin American countries where people are coming from due to violence and potentially government persecution.

But Mexico isn't a failed state (at least not yet and not officially), and fleeing from cartel violence isn't a lawful reason to ignore the immigration process. It also ignores and absolves those who entered for purely economic reasons.
What about people from outside Mexico who outstay their visas, enter illegally etc.? Your descriptions are wholly inaccurate for those people, do we have to add a new descriptor based on country of origin?

**Dreadclaw69**

Kanluwen wrote:
It's also common to ignore the fact that Mexico is a failed state and that people coming over the border can feasibly apply for refugee status in some cases.

Mexico isn't a failed state, it may be close to it but it is not a failed state. They also have to meet the following "Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion."
[url]http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1f1c3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=1f1c3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD
[/url]

Kanluwen wrote:
But no. My argument is that there is a growing number of people who DO use the term in an insulting manner because of the fact that it's not the "most offensive" terminology that they could use.

So your argument is still that because a small number uses it as an insult the rest of us should be stopped from using it. So gays and homosexuals shouldn't be able to describe themselves as such because a small number of people mis-use those words too?

Kanluwen wrote:
I get that you're all upset about the fact that these people are coming over without having had to deal with the "hassle" that is immigration that you've had to deal with.
I mean, it's not like parts of Mexico are a war zone or anything. Clearly, they should have to fill out all the proper forms!

THE FORMS MUST BE OBEYED!

But please. If you're going to discuss things, don't start throwing out ridiculous examples and pretend you're contributing.

Coming from the person who thinks that everyone coming from across the globe is fleeing cartel violence?
Yes, imagine the horror of the US being able to refuse people with criminal backgrounds, chronic mental health or personality defects and communicable diseases.
Its not the hassle (although there is plenty of it). Its the simple fact that people who felt that US law just doesn't apply to the came across the border and now the government and media are bending over backwards to accommodate them. That illegal immigrants qualify for State and Federal aid that lawful immigrants don't qualify for for ten years.
That the Federal government has not learned the lessons from California that illegal immigrants have been a huge drain on the State and have resulted in billions of dollars that should have been spent elsewhere.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Oh, so we need official declarations now?

Anyone who thinks that Mexico isn't a failed state is deluding themselves. They really are.

So absent of official declarations what do you suggest? That because a country isn't quite like the US its a failed state so everyone gets a free pass? Its not up to low level Federal employees to make decisions whether a country is a failed state or not.

Kanluwen wrote:

Oh sure. How could I forget, clearly they need to have filled out the proper forms. And paid up front, like every other refugee!

Hmmm, you don't really know a lot about immigration do you? They don't have to fill out paperwork, they declare themselves at the point of entry.

"Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:
Meet the definition of refugee
Are already in the United States
Are seeking admission at a port of entry"
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1f1c3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=1f1c3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

Lets not let that get in the way of your hyperbole though.

Kanluwen wrote:
How often do you hear people complaining about people from outside of Mexico(or Latin America, for that matter) overstaying their visas?

Pretty much everyone I've spoken too objects to illegal immigrants, regardless of their country of origin. So fairly regularly.

Kanluwen wrote:
When politicians refer to "illegal immigrants", they're referring to people who have immigrated from anywhere south of Texas.

So politicians call legal immigrants from south of Texas illegal immigrants?

**Dreadclaw69**

reds8n wrote:
IIRC it's not actually a crime to be in America illegally, it is in fact merely a civil statute violation. Aside from in places like Arizona where they've passed specific laws.

So, if we're going to claim that the news should just report the news rather than provide an artificial distortion of events due to incorrect language, then the change is entirely correct is it not ?

I wasn't making the claim that breaking immigration law was a criminal matter, so apologies if that was not clear.
What those individuals have done however is broken immigration law (an illegal act) to enter the country as an immigrant. To then say that the term illegal immigrant is therefore inaccurate is a gross distortion of the factual position.

**Dreadclaw69**

Kanluwen wrote:
Because clearly individuals fleeing cartel violence couldn't fit anywhere under that criteria.

No. Because what you are arguing is to widen the criteria so much that any victim of crime could benefit from it

Kanluwen wrote:
How many people do you know of that use the term "homosexual" as a slur? "Gay", "queer" and "f*g/f*ggot" are far more commonly used as slurs in that regard.

I had explicitly mentioned gay, but you choose to ignore that, and also the question. Should we ban the use of the word "gay" because some people use it as an insult?

Kanluwen wrote:
Once again:
You need to realize that when "illegal immigrants" are being discussed here in the US political arena, it is not referring to every single illegal immigrant from around the world. It is, almost without fail, referring to people who are in this country from Latin America.

I'd like to see your authoritative source for this, because right now its starting to sound like you're describing your own usage of the word

Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah, because being able to refuse people with criminal backgrounds sure will keep the drug smugglers/cartel members out!

Oh. Wait...

Pretty sure than going through criminal background checks (carried out by 50+ agencies) does a pretty good job of weeding out the vast majority of bad eggs applying. But if that isn't the case I'd like to see some statistics to show otherwise.
It was more than criminal backgrounds that I mentioned, so please stop ignoring the arguments that don't suit you.

Kanluwen wrote:
How much did it cost you to immigrate? How much did it cost you to ensure that you had all your paperwork in order and that you met all the criteria to immigrate?

And this has what to do with the argument at hand?

Kanluwen wrote:
It's not as simple as you make it out to be. Stop pretending it is, and stop pretending that just because someone is not beating their chest in anger about illegal immigration that they're "bending over backwards" to accommodate them.

You've done a great job in distorting what I've said. My initial point was that a news organisation had change their terminology in a way that can be seen as very biased (especially as the change was proposed and pursued by an illegal immigrant).
The "bending over backwards" concerns the government (State and Federal) doing everything that they can to help people who have no right to be in this country (welfare, medical care, education, social services, driving licenses, not prosecuting people for Social Security fraud, Sanctuary cities that refuse to hand illegal immigrants over to the proper authorities despite being legally obliged to do so etc.) while ignoring those who came to this country legally.
So stop distorting and twisting my words when there are some very real concerns

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

I don't think they all have done this. Especially children and the like, or those who are duped into believing that they're entering legally but in fact aren't. Which I can't imagine is a vast number but it does/can happen. Seems harsh to stigmatise someone for little more than desperate naivety.

.. although we do that with stupidity elsewhere all too oft so...

So if people like that haven't committed an illegal act it doesn't seem that odd to avoid the usage of a blanket and misleading term.

That said of course there should be no problem with referring to those who wouldn't fall into the above exceptions as illegal immigrants/whatever.

Intent or not on the child's part, they are still in the country illegally. So speaking on a purely factual basis they are still illegal immigrants.

Also for those people smuggled into the country (especially by coyotes) its hard to claim ignorance of the facts

**Dreadclaw69**

reds8n wrote:
No they're not.

They are there unlawfully not illegally.

Alfndrate wrote:
I'm not versed in law words... What is the difference between illegally and unlawfully... root words, prefixes, and suffixes imply that those were are fairly identical.

According to my law professors, no significant difference (although I will spare you the terrible joke

) If you really want to get into it though;
If the law prescribes a way of doing something and you do it differently you are doing it unlawfully
If a law prohibits or compels you to do something and you fail to abide by that lay then the action is illegal

So on that basis, if you are compelled to immigrate in accordance with the law and do not follow it then you are in fact entering illegally.

**Dreadclaw69**

reds8n wrote:
And as they're not entering illegally -- as said action is in the past -- they are not illegal immigrants. They are "merely" unlawfully in the country.

But they were compelled to enter the US in a proscribed manner to be a legal immigrant, but nor complying with the law as proscribed they acted illegally and so their continued presence is still in breach of the proscribed law. Therefore they are still in the country illegally and are illegal immigrants.

(either way, they are in a country that they have no lawful right to be in)

**Dreadclaw69**

reds8n wrote:
No it isn't.

Whilst they are in the act of breaking the legal requirement to follow the law they are illegal immigrants.

Once they have done this ( assuming they are not caught) they are unlawful citizens which is of itself not illegal, that being a civil matter.

No, they are not citizens as they have not gone through the process to become naturalised citizens (those not born in the United States who wish to become citizens). They are still immigrants, and their presence in the country is still illegal as they have not followed the proscribed path to enter the country.

Also the use of the words illegal and unlawful are not dependent on the law that is broken being either civil or criminal, merely that the law is broken.

**Dreadclaw69**

What definition are you working off? I'm working off;
If the law prescribes a way of doing something and you do it differently you are doing it unlawfully
If a law prohibits or compels you to do something and you fail to abide by that lay then the action is illegal
(and, as said before, what my professors have said)

reds8n wrote:
Not it isn't.. It's unlawful.

"If a law prohibits or compels you to do something and you fail to abide by that law then the action is illegal " - before entering the US you are compelled to apply for a visa as an immigrant, or complete a visa waiver that states you have permission to remain in the US for 90 days (i.e. you are compelled to leave). On this basis I believe that describing them as illegal immigrants is perfectly accurate and legitimate.

reds8n wrote:
Is irrelevant once they have gotten in.

hence why places like Arizona et al drafted extra laws so their presence would be illegal.

In either event their presence is still contrary to the law of the land, and in Arizona there are additional laws because the State got fed up of the Federal government doing so little

reds8n wrote:
You're right and wrong at the same time.

Like I said above, I'd like to know what definitions you're working off as that may explain our differences in opinion

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
You can argue unlawful vs. illegal -thats fine. Illegal alien was the term used by the federal government, which is where the term comes from.

Having said that, pending appropriate immigration process they are still illegal or unlawful. Every day they are here without following the proper process they are violating the law. The term - although interchagneable-is a correct one.

They are not citizens. Thats sophistry. Until they meet the requirements and are ACTUAL CITIZENS, they aren't. Resident would be the term you're looking for, I think.

Thank you. I'd forgotten to add the part about Residents (my next step once USCIS look at the paperwork we submitted back in October

)

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
And there's at least some validity to the argument that the debate should be about the issue, "illegal immigration," not the people, "illegal immigrants."

So what do we call people who immigrated here illegally? What term do you propose which is factually accurate, and not distorting?

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
But the problem isn't the immigrants. You can't stop illegal immigration by cutting supply any more than you can stop any other illegal action by stopping supply. It's not like you can't get good cocaine despite the best efforts of border patrols.

You can still get cocaine, just not as much. Same principal with illegal immigration, its not a zero sum game. The issue is very much immigration itself, and especially the enforcement (or lack thereof). America is one of the softest countries in the world when it comes to illegal immigration. Politicians court them, and I can't think of many other places were you would get such vocal advocate groups for illegal immigrants, or people publicly stating they are illegal immigrants but still not being deported.
Remember how the last amnesty went?

Polonius wrote:
It's a fairly holistic issue. Focusing on the workers, who for the most part are hard working people trying to make a living, ignores the demand part of the equation: the hundreds of thousands of Americans who hire and profit off of illegal labor.

So, this frames the debate, not as one of economic exploitation, but one of criminal actions. Which is fun, in a "guns and flag" kind of way, but ignores the fact that we have a huge class of farmers, small business owners, and householders that commit crimes by hiring the aliens.

As I've said elsewhere on Dakka I am very much in favour of work permits (complete with a bail and proper enforcement) for farm workers, and for penalties and sanctions for companies/individuals who hire illegal immigrants - i.e. severe financial penalties and possible prison time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
You can actually, if there is the will to do it. however, since the elites of both parties are helped by the present situation, I wouldn't hold my breath.

And I wonder how much of that is because they couldn't have been arsed to vet the staff that they used properly, so they're more worried about an embarrassing headline than the effect of 11 million largely unskilled and under educated will have on the country and those that have to compete with them for jobs.

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
Economically, the common American worker has more in common with an illegal immigrant than he does with that aliens employer. And rather than demanding more from the monied class, we instead focus on the poorest.

Tell that to the American workers who have had their wages depressed because of illegal immigrants, or those who can't find a job because of it.

**Dreadclaw69**

Alfndrate wrote:
I sadly gave up on the, "they took our jerbs!" argument a long time ago... for the most part, these are jobs that normal Americans "don't want" because we're "too good" for them...

In some cases you find that, but in many others (fruit picking, construction, cleaning, gardening etc.) in which the wages have been depressed by illegal immigrants being hired so the wages aren't of any benefit to those working under the table.

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
Exactly. We should be telling them that instead of getting pissed that somebody is willing to risk death for a crappy job, they should be pissed that somebody is willing to hire illegal workers to save money.

If you have mice in your house, are you mad at the mice? Or are you pissed at your wife for leaving food out all over the place?

The problem has always been, "illegal immigrants steal american jobs." Except, that's not the case. The problem is that employers happily give american jobs to illegal immigrants because it's cheaper.

So we have two sets of criminal actors. One group are dirt poor, hard working, and focused on trying to provide for themselves and family. The other group are varying shades of wealthy, likely hard working, and focused on gaining wealth. somehow, we overlook that fact that in a vacuum one group is clearly just doing what they can to survivie by focusing on hating brown people.

Democrats don't want to end illegal immigration because it's a huge source of future voters. Republicans dont' want to end it because small business owners and farmers are the bedrock of the party, and they're the ones that benefit most from illegal labor.

Keep in mind, the goal of the corporate right is to treat nearly all workers like illegals: no workers comp, no unemployment, no payroll taxes, no OASHA, no wage and hour laws, etc.

I was wondering when accusations of racism would start creeping in, I'm just happy to see that it took until the second page for it to happen. You can try all you want to sanitise their law breaking they're just "dirt poor, hard working, and focused on trying to provide for themselves and family" and up against exploitative racists "focusing on hating brown people", but the illegal immigrants are not guiltless party here. They made a conscious decision to enter a country in violation of its laws

Its a lot easier for me to put down poison for the mice, than it is for the wife

(less questions to answer too

)
Sorry, but the problem is twofold. Yes, there are people quite happy to use whatever labour regardless of source. However if that labour was not there to exploit then those unscrupulous individuals would have to pay a proper wage to Americans looking for a job.

That is why there needs to be proper enforcement to prevent, detect and deport those who should not be in the country, and why there should be significant punishments for those hiring illegal immigrants

**Dreadclaw69**

Easy E wrote:
So, back to the original article, it seems to read that:

1. You don't refer to people as Illegal unless you can ascribe a source.
2. Instead of using the term "Illegal" as a lazy short hand, you are suppose to define how they ar eint he country.

So the AP for asking their journalists to focus on the facts of how someone is in the country and not use a blanket short hand statement that has a ton of different meanings to the average reader? People are mad that Journalists are being asked to report facts?

I don't get the kerfluffle. Am I missing something?

Generally in the media there has been a shift away from describing people in the country as illegal immigrants. Instead they substitute phrases such as "undocumented workers", "citizens in waiting" etc. to obscure the fact that the individuals in question are in the country illegally. It is also common for this to develop further into conflating legal and illegal immigration so we end up with claims such as "immigrants no longer welcome in the US", "America deporting record numbers of immigrants" etc. All of which conceal the true nature of the actions being reported, and designed to gain sympathy for illegal immigrants to make legal reform/amnesty etc. easier for them to gain.

Also the simple fact is that, as I said before, stating that someone is an illegal immigrant because she/he immigrated to the United States illegally is perfectly factual and far from inaccurate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:
Well, first off, it's not racism. Mexican is not a race, and most are of majority white descent.

It's easier to relate to those that are like you, and you admire (American business owners) than people that are forieng and here illegally.

The reason I cry a certain amount of bigotry is that the rage is all focused on the immigrants. yes they are criminals and yes they are breaking the law, but so are those that employ them. And nobody is mad at them. Why not?

You said, and I quote, "focusing on hating brown people". You didn't say Mexican, you made a specific point of mentioning skin colour. I've been pretty clear in saying "illegal immigrant" so as not to bring race into this discussion.
Pretty sure I've also been clear on several occasions to say that people who hire illegal immigrants should be punished.

Polonius wrote:
Well, you rarely if ever have a supply when there isn't a demand. Nature abhors a vacuum and all that. It's really not a chicken/egg situation, although the sheer supply will increase demand, especially as wages continue to drop.

Which is why I said that it is a twofold problem and that both the supply side (illegal immigrants) and the demand side (people hiring them) should be tackled. You tried to paint a sympathetic picture of poor hard working immigrants being up against The Man. That distorts the situation and helps to absolve those who entered the US illegally

Polonius wrote:
I still think it'd be easier to audit and run checks on all hires, and have serious sanctions against businesses that hire illegals. Business owners, by definiation, have something to lose. Illegal immigrants dont'. So you can spend billions guarding a massive border against people that will just keep trying to infilitrate, or you can cut off the demand with fines.

Guarding the border will never work fully, it will cost a fortune, and it will cause those in the coutnry to stay. going after employers won't wrok fully either, but it will cost a lot less, and will encourage those in country to leave by removing their only income source.

Illegal immigrants who are caught are banned from entering the United States again for a varying period of time. So they do have something to lose. It may not be as much as the business owner, and I wouldn't spend taxpayers money jailing them either.
So what do you propose to stop people entering the US illegally through the southern border if you don't believe that guarding it will work? If the border is patrolled and people who pay to be smuggled get turned back more frequently then you may start to find that fewer people want to take the risk.

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
It was an off hand comment, but yes, I think bigotry plays a bigger role in this than most are willing to let on. The sheer focus on the them, and not the employers, by the grassroots organizations is a strong indicator that they're either bigoted or dont' understand the issue. Or, well, both.

It's not a malicious bigotry. It's reasonable to like the culture and language of your country, and not want it to change. I'm not in favor of massive immigration myself because I don't want to the nation to change dramatically like that. But I'm not going to focus my ire on the guys who are still, at the end of the day, screwed.

I don't think that bigotry plays as much a role as some people would like to think that it does. Are there people who will abuse others for being different? Absolutely. But in the overwhelming majority are people who seem p*ssed off that there has been no concrete action in years, and that the government is now rewarding people who gave the law of the land a big middle finger

Polonius wrote:
I'm not sure it distorts the situation. The Man tells them, "you can't come here legally, but we're not going to check very hard once you're here. Oh, and you can make a lot of money, compared to home." I think they, like us, are up against the Man.

They aren't up against The Man, if they've crossed the border illegally and are helping to suppress real wages they're helping The Man screw over low paid Americans.

Polonius wrote:
And I'll be honest: I've never understood the strict, law and order above all else mentality to immigration. Sure, it's a crime. So is speeding, which I do literally every time I drive. I drank under age, as did most people. A huge percentage of this country smokes weed. We absolve people of tons of crimes. I understand the criminal system well enough to know that I'm not morally outraged by somebody breaking the law.

Its civil law, not criminal. Big difference so your comparisons are off.
The immigration system is designed so that only the right people get into a country. That those with criminal records, mental health issues, drug issues, communicable diseases, agents of hostile states etc. do not enter the country much less take up residence. Millions of people can here legally, and have family that did so within living memory. They remember what all they had to go through to get here. Now people who ignored the system decided to skip the queue, skip being vetted and walk right in and can claim all sorts of benefits and public assistance that legal migrants cannot for years.
If I entered the US illegally or out-stayed my visa then I could be banned from entering the country for anywhere from 3 years to life. Furthermore I cannot have committed a crime against moral turpitude (including SSN fraud, outstaying a visa or the like) to be allowed to enter the US. People who have entered the US illegally are now being rewarded with work permits (granted ahead of legal migrants), deferred action and now the very real possibility of amnesty. Those who committed SSN fraud will be given a small fine. People want law and order when it comes to immigration because otherwise there is no fair play and there is no point to the system of waiting your turn - it becomes a free for all.

Polonius wrote:
Clearly you guard the border, but if you eliminate the demand for illegal labor, there wont' be the pressure to cross illegally. We know this, because the number of people illegally crossing dropped dramatically since the recession.

At least we agree on guarding the border. I agree that there should be legal ways to enter the US for work with a permit (but no residence or citizenship rights)

Polonius wrote:
Well, I agree in that euphamisms arne't good. The problem is that many illegals aren't, ya know, immigrants. A person that does seasonal labor, or plans to work for a few years, is not an immigrant.

It's far too broad of a term when discussing any given individual, or even group of individuals.

People in those situations are usually called migratory or transient workers because they aren't setting up home in the host country and getting access to citizenship and public assistance. As well as that I believe that there is a set length of time before someone becomes a migrant, as opposed to just a visitor.

**Dreadclaw69**

Sigvatr wrote:
And why?

They are immigrants and they break the law...thus I fail to see why it's not pc...

Because the truth hurts evidently

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
Then why is that anger only focused on the immigrants? Why haven't states passed laws saying that under reasonable suspicsion, an employer needs to show papers on all employees?

Legitimate employers have to e-verify staff, when my wife got a part time job a quarter of the new hires disappeared when they found out they'd have to prove their status in the US

Polonius wrote:
I get why people are angry about illegal imigration. I get why they're mad at the illegals. I don't get why they aren't made at the system that tacitly condones it, or the employers. That leads me to believe that it's not some high minded sense of fair play, but simple tribal thinking.

Because they want people to be responsible for their actions? Or maybe they're angry at the government for not doing what they are supposed to do by regulating the border

Polonius wrote:
I think by definition anybody engaging in illegal activity is against the man, somehow.

Even murder, rape and child abuse?

Polonius wrote:
I know why, in theory, the immigration laws work the way they do. I just don't see why anybody that's removed from an immigration issue themself would care. There are plenty of examples of situations where people, corporations, etc. violate, en masse, rules for conduct. And hardly anybody cares.

So you don't see why a person should be concerned about letting criminals, addicts, people with mental health problems and communicable diseases into the country, the depression of wages, the strain on welfare, diverting resources away from citizens etc.

Polonius wrote:
People aren't mad because illegals are here. They're mad because they cost taxpayer dollars in benefits, and lower wages. But every debate seems to center on "they're breaking the law!" like we're a nation of Judge Dredds. In nearly any other area, most people see a clear distinciton between morality and the law.

Yes people are mad because there are illegals here, and because of that there are social and economic impacts. People are mad that the government that they elected aren't doing anything meaningful to prevent illegal immigration, but are instead looking to grant amnesty.
When there is a clear cut law that says that people here illegally should not be allowed in the country then its pretty obvious as to why they get upset when its not being enforced. It sends out the wrong message.

Where is the morality in having a system to let desirable people immigrate to the US an go through the entire procedure, when the government has no problem giving preferential treatment to those who skip their turn and who may not even be eligible to enter the country. People keep saying that illegal immigrants are breaking the law because the law should oblige the government to act to uphold it. If the government refuse then they are surrendering their authority and showing that they have no interest in the application of the law as written, no interest in fairness and no interest in natural justice.

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
I see your point, you just don't seem to be hearing mine, which is that I'm puzzled why the grassroots activism seems entirely aimed at the immigrants, not at the rest of the system that brings them here.

Until I see activism that targets the employers, I'm going to assume that while the anger is justified, the aiming is based on bigotry. Criminal employers are doing just as much to bring illegals here as they workers themselves, yet they are seen in a generally positive light. Start boycotting businesses that employ illegals, start pushing for tighter hiring checks, etc., and I'll join in. Keep yelling about illegals stealing jobs, and I'm bored.

So in the absence of any actual evidence you just assume racism and bigotry?
As I said before illegal immigrants are being targeted because they are responsible for entering the country illegally. They are responsible for their actions. and should be punished. The same way that the employers who hire them should which I've also said before. You're just too wrapped up in trying to fight "The Man" and the system to see that.

Polonius wrote:
And that is why focusing on people, and not the problem, is poor wriitng. It frames the issue as being criminals vs. society. It's not that simple: our society, at least big chunks of it, loves illegal imigration. Hell, as offensive as it is, calling 'em "wetbacks" is more accurate to the situation.

Once again, illegal immigration is not criminal. Its about those who want to ignore the law and then seek preferential treatment vs. society
So you assume that grass roots activists are racist and bigoted for targeting their efforts on the people entering illegally, but you have no problem advocating that illegal immigrants should be described using a pejorative?

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
do you really think there is no evidence of anti-immigrant bigotry in the US?

One of the unfortunate side effects of the PC movement of the 1990s has been to develop a sort of innate denial of anything remotely racist by people. Which is sad, because it's prevented any real progress over the last 15 years. Of course there is bigotry. Every psychological study performed on the subject shows that people relate easier, and generally prefer, people of similar race and backbround. It's human nature, we're tribal beings. We know that once we know a person, they are a person. But when it comes to people, we take every shortcut we can.

think of it this way: a white guy and black guy are robbing a store. Two white cops show up, and start beating the crap out of the black guy. The white guy just walks away. Is there direct evidence of racism? No. Is there pretty strong circumstantial evidence? I think so.

What other reason, other than relatively normal xenophobia, is there for anger aimed at immigrants but not at the employers?

So you still don't have evidence, just a terrible comparative peace and your own opinion. Moving along....

Polonius wrote:
Well, i have a problem with it, which is why I prefaced it with the word offensive. But my broader point was that I'd rather see an accurate slur than half accurate term.

But you're still advocating for a racial perjorative to be used to describe them that is not based on their actions. So that's hardly "accurate"
I had a co-worker who had family that were Irish (pasty, white and Irish) working in American bars illegally because he stayed on after his visa ran out. Was he still a "wetback"?

Polonius wrote:
And I don't think the activists are bigots. I think they're allowing biases rooted in bigotry to influence their message, to their own detriment. They aren't doing anything to better themselves by making it harder to sneak in.

So they're not bigots, just guided by "relatively normal xenophobia"... Glad we cleared that up then.....
I'd hate to think that people were decrying illegal immigration and not bringing race or national origin into it.....

Polonius wrote:
Immigrants are like guns: they aren't the problem. The people that use them are.

Guns are inanimate objects with no will of their own. People are not.
Because diverting millions of dollars annually in resources and driving down wages isn't a problem?

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
45 seconds of google searching found this:

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/hate-crime/immigrants-hispanics.htm#stateselection

Which states that while hate crimes overall are declining, they are rising against latinos.

Correlation does not imply causation, so you're out of luck unless you have something more concrete.

But you're still advocating for a racial perjorative to be used to describe them that is not based on their actions. So that's hardly "accurate"
I had a co-worker who had family that were Irish (pasty, white and Irish) working in American bars illegally because he stayed on after his visa ran out. Was he still a "wetback"?

Polonius wrote:
No, because nobody, outside of the feds, care about Europeans here illegally.

And I'm not advocating for its use. If you want to win points for showing that i'm a terrible bigot, then I'll stop trying to clarfiy and allow you a victory dance.

Yes you are advocating for its use, you even said as much because you thought it was accurate. No one cares? Everything I read and hear talks about illegal immigrants, not illegal Latino immigrants etc. You're the one bringing race into this discussion.

Polonius wrote:
Find me somebody angry about illegal immigrants that aren't latino (or maybe southeast asian) and I'll believe your argument.

So its xenophobic because you haven't seen a Latino argue against illegal immigrants? Pretty sketchy logic there.

Polonius wrote:
It's a huge problem that screws over the poor. And they should be mad about it. And they are. But not at the people encouraging the problem to exist. Which baffles me.

The people allowing it to exist are those who enter illegally or outstay their visas, those getting away with flaunting immigration law are encouraging the problem to exist as it shows that others can get away with it.

**Dreadclaw69**

Andrew1975 wrote:
No, because nobody, outside of the feds, care about Europeans here illegally.

People don't care because as a percentage of the illegal immigrants they are truly a small faction and for the most part you never hear about them. Every once in awhile you hear about a group of Russian illegal mafia, but that's really about it. Lets face it there is more to illegally immigrating to the US from Europe than just hopping a fence, hell sometimes you don't even have to do that.

The hoops that I and my wife had to jump through to get her here were pretty elaborate and expensive, including showing financial security and responsibility that we will make enough money so that she will not have to live off the government. She's a Doctor who will pay lots taxes and in general be a benefit to society and still she almost got deported. It's not easy to legally immigrate, and it shouldn't be. You should have to prove that you are not going to drain the system like many of the illegals do, that you are going to try to assimilate into society and and be a blessing, not a burden.

Yup, to come here legally (in my case with an American wife) you have to;
Have a background check performed by Homeland Security
Disclose any and all convictions/cautions etc.
Have a medical to ensure you do not carry any communicable disease, have any addictions or mental health issues
Be vaccinated against certain diseases
Provide an afadavit that you will not become a public charge for at least 10 years
Have an interview

And that's just to get into the country

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
Ok, so we have a rise in anti-latino hate crimes, massive outrage about illegal immigration, but there's absolutely no connection.

Here's an essay on it:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-immigrant/the-anti-immigrant-movement

I get the feeling that there is no evience that could satisfy you.

If you actually provide evidence then I'll let you know. That essay just documents that there are more, what they term, "Nativist groups" in existence. It doesn't show a rise in violence against Latinos, nor does it tie a rise in violence (if any) to immigration issues.
Its also worth pointing out that the essay you linked to also conflates legal and illegal immigration, and mentions that these groups are motivated by conspiracy theories so that doesn't overwhelm me about its prospects for accuracy. Notwithstanding the charge that the SPLC has long been accused of casting its net wide to classify many groups as hate groups. In fact reading hoe the SPLC describes people who voice concerns over immigration I'm a little concerned.

Polonius wrote:
Actually, I'm not. You are. I'm bringing hispanic origin into it, to be fair, but that ain't a race.

That's not correct is it? I mention illegal immigrants, you mention Latinos and "hating brown people".

Polonius wrote:
And nobody is openly bigoted anymore, wtih a few exceptions. And a big chunk of the population, yourself apparently included, seems to think that as long as you don't include demographic limitaitons in terms like "illegal immigrant," you can't be bigoted.

So saying that people should be equal before immigration law, with no reference to race, nationality etc. means I'm a bigot? That has got to be one of the most baseless accusations I've heard.

Polonius wrote:
No, I haven't seen anybody argue that we need to crack down on illegal immigrants that aren't latino.

You haven't been reading my posts very well then, or countless others who want illegal immigrants removed and who don't mention their race/ethnicity/country of origin. Or do we have to have a disclaimer?

Polonius wrote:
So you're saying that employers are less culpable, if so, why? And if not, why shouldn't people be just as mad at them?

If you still have to ask that question after I have repeatedly said that employers should be fined and/or jailed for hiring illegal immigrants then I'm starting to think that you're just stirring the pot

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
gak... the Press Council of Australia has already make 'illegal immigrant' something that basically can't be said.

I mean, why call a spade a spade when you can call it something utterly different...

Yup, we can't call someone who immigrates illegally an illegal immigrant, but we have no problem calling someone convicted of a crime a criminal

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:
http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/21/immigration-debate-the-problem-with-the-word-illegal/

But describing an immigrant as illegal is legally inaccurate. Being in the U.S. without proper documents is a civil offense, not a criminal one. (Underscoring this reality, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion on SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law: “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a movable alien to remain in the United States.”) In a country that believes in due process of the law, calling an immigrant illegal is akin to calling a defendant awaiting trial a criminal.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/05/opinion/garcia-illegal-immigrants

Migrant workers residing unlawfully in the U.S. are not -- and never have been -- criminals. They are subject to deportation, through a civil administrative procedure that differs from criminal prosecution, and where judges have wide discretion to allow certain foreign nationals to remain here.

Immigration ruling leaves questions Ariz. Gov. Brewer: This is not the end Toobin: Guidance from court not clear
Another misconception is that the vast majority of migrant workers currently out of status sneak across our southern border in the middle of the night. Actually, almost half enter the U.S. with a valid tourist or work visa and overstay their allotted time. Many go to school, find a job, get married and start a family. And some even join the Marine Corps, like Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, who was the first combat veteran to die in the Iraq War. While he was granted American citizenship posthumously, there are another 38,000 non-citizens in uniform, including undocumented immigrants, defending our country.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and three other justices, stated: "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." The court also ruled that it was not a crime to seek or engage in unauthorized employment.
As Kennedy explained, removal of an unauthorized migrant is a civil matter where even if the person is out of status, federal officials have wide discretion to determine whether deportation makes sense. For example, if an unauthorized person is trying to support his family by working or has "children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service," officials may let him stay. Also, if individuals or their families might be politically persecuted or harmed upon return to their country of origin, they may also remain in the United States.

This is the conflation of illegal and criminal I mentioned earlier. Their acts are illegal (contrary to the law) yes, they are not criminal (contrary to criminal law). No one is trying to describe them as "Criminal Immigrants", but as illegal immigrants.
The fact that a Pulitzer winning journalist, and others in the industry seem to be willingly conflating the two is pathetic.

**Dreadclaw69**

Frazzled wrote:
We should also note, "illegal alien" was the actual government term. This may have changed.

Yeah, to "Potential Voter"

**Dreadclaw69**

Easy E wrote:
[Polonius nails it.

This is about improving Journalistic integrity and getting the facts, not some pro-immigration/amnesty tool.

No, its about distorting facts and sanatising the truth. These changes were proposed by an illegal immigrant. I don't think you can use the phrase "Journalistic integrity" when the journalists in question, including a Pulitzer prize winner, are deliberately confusing illegal and criminal acts to make their case.

**Dreadclaw69**

Relapse wrote:
I'm about three quarters of the way to thinking of illegals as refugees instead, given the stories I hear from them about what's happening down there.

Even those not from Mexico? Damn those cartels, making life a misery for Chinese, Indians, Irish etc.

**Dreadclaw69**

Seaward wrote:
Wish we had a process in place for refugees to get in legally.

I know, its hard to believe that the government didn't consider them.....

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1f1c3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=1f1c3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

Refugees
Refugee status is a form of protection that may be granted to people who meet the definition of refugee and who are of special humanitarian concern to the United States. Refugees are generally people outside of their country who are unable or unwilling to return home because they fear serious harm. For a legal definition of refugee, see section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States. For more information about refugees, see the “Refugees” section.

Asylum
Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

Meet the definition of refugee
Are already in the United States
Are seeking admission at a port of entry
You may apply for asylum in the United States regardless of your country of origin or your current immigration status. For more information about asylum status, see the “Asylum” section.