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

**Frazzled**

As Jay Leno said:

“And in a groundbreaking move, the Associated Press, the largest news gathering outlet in the world, will no longer use the term ‘illegal immigrant.’ That is out. No longer ‘illegal immigrant.’ They will now use the phrase ‘undocumented Democrat.’

**Dreadclaw69**

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

**Kanluwen**

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

**Frazzled**

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.

Truth is an absolute defense.

**Kanluwen**

Oh right. How could I forget?

We can't let the truth get in the way of a good whine about them damned Liberals!

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
Oh right. How could I forget?

We can't let the truth get in the way of a good whine about them damned Liberals!

**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?

**Ahtman**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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?

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.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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?

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.

I like:
-Illegal forenner (der takin our jobs!) or alternatively:
-Bob.

**Kanluwen**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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?

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".

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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?

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".

Mmm...or they are just being accurate with a defined term, like "illegal tresspasser" or "DamnYankee."

**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.

**Frazzled**

Immigrant assumes they are staying. Migratory workers aren't immigrants - the alien applies. Else they are illegal immigrants.

Just ask Sitting Bull what he thought about all the illegal immigrants...oh wait!

**Kanluwen**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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.

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.

**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?

**Kanluwen**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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.

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.

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

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

But Mexico isn't a failed state (at least not yet and not officially)

Oh, so we need official declarations now?

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

and fleeing from cartel violence isn't a lawful reason to ignore the immigration process.

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

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait a minute...

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?

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

I know you've immigrated to the US. I'm going to let you in on a secret.
When politicians refer to "illegal immigrants", they're referring to people who have immigrated from anywhere south of Texas.

**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?

**reds8n**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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).

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 ?

**Kanluwen**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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."
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1f1c3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=1f1c3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

Yes, imagine the horror of the US being able to refuse people with criminal backgrounds, chronic mental health or personality defects and communicable diseases.

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

Oh. Wait...

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 them 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.

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?

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.

**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.

**Kanluwen**

I don't see this discussion going anywhere productive. I'm out.

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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).

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 ?

Unlicensed alien then? Licensed aliens should have to wear a pin with a hissing Alien holding a diver's license...

**reds8n**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

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.

**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

**reds8n**

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.

No they're not.

They are there unlawfully not illegally.

**Alfndrate**

reds8n wrote:

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.

No they're not.

They are there unlawfully not illegally.

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.

Edit: Just a quick little search led me to this article: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/unlawful-versus-illegal.aspx

Which led me here: http://thelawdictionary.org/unlawful/

So if something is “unlawful,” it is "applied to promises, agreements, considerations, and the like, denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they involve acts which, are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights, either because they are immoral or because they are against public policy" (Black's Law Dictionary).

If something is illegal, it is "Not authorized by law; Illicit ; unlawful; contrary to law" (Black's Law Dictionary).

So I guess they do differ, but at the same time our nation has laws about immigration and the process of such... If you bypass this process, then you are here illegally are you not?

**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.

**reds8n**

I really don't think we have the time to go into the finer minutiae of legal definitions, feel free to have a dig about.

You'll either discover a deep and abiding love of legal systems and terminology and dedicate your life to the law or ( more likely) find yourself on some weird website where they explain how the police can't actually arrest you , income tax is against the Constitution and how the USA is actually governed by a shadowy cabal formed after Roswell in 1947.

more or less.

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.

I have some, very vague, memories of this distinction being kept this way for.. P.O.Ws or some such ..? But there's every chance that's from one of the more..... interesting.. sites out there so...

**Alfndrate**

Well we all know that the third one is true