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.

**Easy E**

Polonius wrote:
The APs point, which I think is a good one, is that any time a person's immigration status is relevant to a story, it should be clear. Rather than saying, "Jim smith, an illegal immigrant..." its better journalism to say "Jim Smith, here on an expired visa and working as a dishwasher."

And if their immigration status is not relevant, it shouldnt' be in the copy at all.

Polonius nails it.

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

**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.

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
Polonius wrote:
The APs point, which I think is a good one, is that any time a person's immigration status is relevant to a story, it should be clear. Rather than saying, "Jim smith, an illegal immigrant..." its better journalism to say "Jim Smith, here on an expired visa and working as a dishwasher."

And if their immigration status is not relevant, it shouldnt' be in the copy at all.

Polonius nails it.

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

There's no improvement in journalistic integrity whatsoever, unless by that you mean following Democratic Party talking points.

**Relapse**

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.

**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.

**Relapse**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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.

Hah, got me!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is a dodge some Mexicans use by creating a small business in Mexico, along the lines of a tiny store or the like.
They then come up here, get a job, and send a minimal amount of money back to keep the business open. This way they get to stay in this country indefinitly as someone promoting international trade.
I'm not sure of all the legal loopholes gone through, but I've seen it in action a time or two from people who have been in this country for years.

**Seaward**

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.

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

**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.

**Seaward**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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

Nah, my bleeding heart tells me that those standards are far too harsh. The hurdle to get over needs to be so low that as long as I want to come here, I can claim refugee status. It's the only way to guarantee ~~political majority for the party I support~~ we don't become fascists.

**d-usa**

Man, I hate it when news organizations make up new terms and titles for people.

Like "wealthy people" becoming "job creators" without whom we would be sitting on the streets looking for work.

When will this madness stop?

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
Man, I hate it when news organizations make up new terms and titles for people.

Like "wealthy people" becoming "job creators" without whom we would be sitting on the streets looking for work.

When will this madness stop?

Well we can start calling;
Stabbings - unlicensed surgeries
Bank robbery - unauthorised withdrawals
Drug dealers - undocumented pharmacists
Murders - extreme late term abortions
Drink drivers - substance utilising mechanical vehicle operators

**Polonius**

So, the argument is basically, "since this change may in some way help the Democratic party, it is inherently bad."

You are literally arguing that providing more detail, while avoiding a blanket term, is "distorting the facts." That's actually being more specific, which is usually a case of increasing the amount of facts.

I have no problem with the term, but i'm neither an immigration expert nor a journalist. I do write for a living, and I know that there are lot of times where I avoid using commonly understood terms or phrases, and instead use a more specific, accurate, and appropriate term. It's called good writing.

**Seaward**

Polonius wrote:
So, the argument is basically, "since this change may in some way help the Democratic party, it is inherently bad."

You are literally arguing that providing more detail, while avoiding a blanket term, is "distorting the facts." That's actually being more specific, which is usually a case of increasing the amount of facts.

No, the argument is that there's no reason to stop using a perfectly legitimate and accurate descriptor because some people feel that it has a pejorative connotation. Which, even if it does, there's absolutely no reason not to refer to illegal conduct in a pejorative sense.

**Polonius**

Seaward wrote:
No, the argument is that there's no reason to stop using a perfectly legitimate and accurate descriptor because some people feel that it has a pejorative connotation. Which, even if it does, there's absolutely no reason not to refer to illegal conduct in a pejorative sense.

Except for the fact that it's not accurate. Not always. Which I think is the point.

Imagine if every crime story involving a repeat felon simply referred to them as "ex-con." It's true, and legitimate, but wouldn't you, as a reader, want to know if they were a murderer or a money launderer?

I'd rather read copy that explains the nature of their illegal residency, rather than uses a blanket term. Keep in mind that this is AP, which means it's not publishing opinion. How, exactly, would the term "illegal immigrant" be a better choice in a story than a more precise explanation of their residency status?

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
So, the argument is basically, "since this change may in some way help the Democratic party, it is inherently bad."

You are literally arguing that providing more detail, while avoiding a blanket term, is "distorting the facts." That's actually being more specific, which is usually a case of increasing the amount of facts.

I have no problem with the term, but i'm neither an immigration expert nor a journalist. I do write for a living, and I know that there are lot of times where I avoid using commonly understood terms or phrases, and instead use a more specific, accurate, and appropriate term. It's called good writing.

No, the argument is that by trying to call immigrants who are in a county illegally something other than what they are is distorting the facts and shaping the debate. Especially when the change in phraseology has been proposed by a Pulitzer prize winning illegal immigrant who deliberately confuses illegal (against the law) and criminal (against criminal law) to make his point.

**Polonius**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
[
No, the argument is that by trying to call immigrants who are in a county illegally something other than what they are is distorting the facts and shaping the debate.

Which would be true if they were calling them something inaccurate, or a euphamism. Their policy seems to be to specify the nature of their residency, including its legality. That's saying, "George, a twice convicted jaywalker," instead of "George, a criminal."

Especially when the change in phraseology has been proposed by a Pulitzer prize winning illegal immigrant who deliberately confuses illegal (against the law) and criminal (against criminal law) to make his point.

I guess I don't care much who proposes a change. I look at the merits.

**Seaward**

Polonius wrote:
Except for the fact that it's not accurate. Not always. Which I think is the point.

Imagine if every crime story involving a repeat felon simply referred to them as "ex-con." It's true, and legitimate, but wouldn't you, as a reader, want to know if they were a murderer or a money launderer?

I'd rather read copy that explains the nature of their illegal residency, rather than uses a blanket term. Keep in mind that this is AP, which means it's not publishing opinion. How, exactly, would the term "illegal immigrant" be a better choice in a story than a more precise explanation of their residency status?

It's not a blanket term, though. As I said, it's an accurate descriptor. It's not calling a money launderer a generic criminal, it's calling a money launderer a money launderer. An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant.

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
Which would be true if they were calling them something inaccurate, or a euphamism. Their policy seems to be to specify the nature of their residency, including its legality. That's saying, "George, a twice convicted jaywalker," instead of "George, a criminal."

You mean like "undocumented immigrant", "citizen in waiting"? Both these have been used to describe illegal immigrants to conceal their law breaking. If you want to "specify the nature of their residency" its quite simple - they are immigrants who are here illegally, therefore they are "illegal immigrants". Perfectly accurate and factual

Polonius wrote:
I guess I don't care much who proposes a change. I look at the merits

You're right. I can't imagine why you would want to look at who proposes a change when he has a vested interest in shaping the debate in his favour, and who has been an advocate for illegal immigrants getting right above legal migrants.

**Polonius**

Seaward wrote:
It's not a blanket term, though. As I said, it's an accurate descriptor. It's not calling a money launderer a generic criminal, it's calling a money launderer a money launderer. An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant.

Can you think of a sentence in which the term "illegal immigrant" is more appropriate than a more specific descriptor?

I'm genuinely curious. I think the argument that the term is legitimate is a decent one, I just find the counter argument that a complex issue should use accurate language more compelling.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Polonius wrote:
I guess I don't care much who proposes a change. I look at the merits

You're right. I can't imagine why you would want to look at who proposes a change when he has a vested interest in shaping the debate in his favour, and who has been an advocate for illegal immigrants getting right above legal migrants.

Actually, now that I think about it, I'm shocked that a person recommended a policy change that benefits himself or people he relates to. Because that so rarely happens.

**Frazzled**

Polonius wrote:
Seaward wrote:
No, the argument is that there's no reason to stop using a perfectly legitimate and accurate descriptor because some people feel that it has a pejorative connotation. Which, even if it does, there's absolutely no reason not to refer to illegal conduct in a pejorative sense.

Except for the fact that it's not accurate. Not always. Which I think is the point.

Imagine if every crime story involving a repeat felon simply referred to them as "ex-con." It's true, and legitimate, but wouldn't you, as a reader, want to know if they were a murderer or a money launderer?

I'd rather read copy that explains the nature of their illegal residency, rather than uses a blanket term. Keep in mind that this is AP, which means it's not publishing opinion. How, exactly, would the term "illegal immigrant" be a better choice in a story than a more precise explanation of their residency status?

How is it not accurate?
They are here illegally, therefor illegal.
They are not citizens, therefore alien.
The nomenclature was used by the government.

In U.S. law, an alien is "any person not a citizen or national of the United States."[7] The U.S. Government's use of alien dates back to 1798, when it was used in the Alien and Sedition Acts.[8] U.S. law makes a clear distinction between aliens and immigrants by defining immigrants as a subset of aliens.[7] Although U.S. law provides no overarching explicit definition of the term "illegal alien," the term is used in many statutes[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] and elsewhere (e.g., court cases, executive orders). U.S. law also uses the term "unauthorized alien."[18][19][20][21][22] U.S. immigration laws do not refer to illegal immigrants, but in common parlance the term "illegal immigrant" is often used to refer to any illegal alien.[23] Because at law, a corporation is a person, the term alien is not limited to natural humans because what are colloquially called foreign corporations are technically called alien corporations. Because corporations are creations of local state law, a foreign corporation is an out of state corporation.

The power of Wiki compels us!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:
Seaward wrote:
It's not a blanket term, though. As I said, it's an accurate descriptor. It's not calling a money launderer a generic criminal, it's calling a money launderer a money launderer. An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant.

Can you think of a sentence in which the term "illegal immigrant" is more appropriate than a more specific descriptor?

All of them where a nonresident alien is here without following the correct legal procedure and intends to remain permanently.
I'm not getting the issue here.

**Polonius**

I'd rather see the term "illegal alien" than "illegal immigrant," because not all aliens are immigrants.

It'd be like calling all house guests "roommates."

I'm more bothered by aliens that are here commiting crimes than those here temporarily or seasonally and wire money home. And I'm more bothered by those than people that came over illegally, but are staying and raising families here. And all of those bother me more than a person that came legally, but is staying illegally.

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
Actually, now that I think about it, I'm shocked that a person recommended a policy change that benefits himself or people he relates to. Because that so rarely happens.

And because it happens elsewhere we just shrug our shoulders and accept people using their positions for personal gain?

**Seaward**

Polonius wrote:
Can you think of a sentence in which the term "illegal immigrant" is more appropriate than a more specific descriptor?

I'm genuinely curious. I think the argument that the term is legitimate is a decent one, I just find the counter argument that a complex issue should use accurate language more compelling.

I'm not sure what you mean. Most journalistic endeavors that have cause to use the phrase 'illegal immigrant' are stories about illegal immigrants, either as a group or as individuals.

Again, you seem to have some odd hang-up in admitting that 'illegal immigrant' is accurate language. It's 100% accurate. It's right there on the tin, you know what you're getting. Illegal immigrant? Immigrated illegally. Armed robber? Robbed while armed.

**Polonius**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Actually, now that I think about it, I'm shocked that a person recommended a policy change that benefits himself or people he relates to. Because that so rarely happens.

And because it happens elsewhere we just shrug our shoulders and accept people using their positions for personal gain?

I mean, we look at the bias, and we look at the benefit to the person proposing the change. and we look at the overall benefit. Does the overall benefit justify the personal benefit or not?

Now, I don't think there's a huge benefit either way with this. It's a pretty typical meta-media tempest in a tea cup. Those that see the tendrils of "liberal media" controlling thought will go that way. I think it's more likely a response to changes already in society than an attempt to change society, but I'm not in the business of selling news.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean. Most journalistic endeavors that have cause to use the phrase 'illegal immigrant' are stories about illegal immigrants, either as a group or as individuals.

Again, you seem to have some odd hang-up in admitting that 'illegal immigrant' is accurate language. It's 100% accurate. It's right there on the tin, you know what you're getting. Illegal immigrant? Immigrated illegally. Armed robber? Robbed while armed.

I think the term has a strong connotation with a large, but specific, type of illegal alien. But after reading this thread I know better than to try to show any bias whatsoever in the American people.

**Frazzled**

Polonius wrote:
I'd rather see the term "illegal alien" than "illegal immigrant," because not all aliens are immigrants.

It'd be like calling all house guests "roommates."

I'm fine with that too. Not seeing where we are disagreeing on that. Lets just use the approporiaten government term and not worry about it.

I'm more bothered by aliens that are here commiting crimes than those here temporarily or seasonally and wire money home. And I'm more bothered by those than people that came over illegally, but are staying and raising families here. And all of those bother me more than a person that came legally, but is staying illegally.

I'm bothered about
1) the utter lack of border security and control. That includes goods as well (especially little things like shipping containers)
2) the utter lack of management of visas and those that overstay them.
3) illegal aliens that commit crimes here, especially ones that are deported, return, and commit more crimes.

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
I mean, we look at the bias, and we look at the benefit to the person proposing the change. and we look at the overall benefit. Does the overall benefit justify the personal benefit or not?

Lets see - does someone abusing a position of power to frame the debate in a manner that suits them benefit society as a whole, or the factual reporting of the illegal immigrant issue. Nope, it doesn't. It distorts the debate to sanitise and absolve people who came here illegally so they can lobby more easily for immigration rights above and beyond what legal immigrants are entitled to.

So where is the benefit for a country in treating those who wish to enter lawfully worse than those who come here unlawfully?

Polonius wrote:
Now, I don't think there's a huge benefit either way with this. It's a pretty typical meta-media tempest in a tea cup. Those that see the tendrils of "liberal media" controlling thought will go that way. I think it's more likely a response to changes already in society than an attempt to change society, but I'm not in the business of selling news.

So in the middle of a massive discussion on immigration reform you don't think that there is a substantial benefit for illegal immigrants to re-brand themselves and distance themselves from their lawbreaking so they can obtain rights more easily?

**Seaward**

Polonius wrote:
I think the term has a strong connotation with a large, but specific, type of illegal alien. But after reading this thread I know better than to try to show any bias whatsoever in the American people.

So because a guy from Latin America can be an illegal immigrant and a guy from India can be an illegal immigrant, you believe we need different terms for them? What would you prefer? Everything I've seen proposed so far to sugarcoat the term - "undocumented citizen" has to be my favorite just for the hilarity value - doesn't change at all the fact that the term's still going to be associated with the source of the bulk of illegal immigration in this country.

**Relapse**

I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.
The big trick is sorting out the scumbags that are here among them.

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
I'd rather see the term "illegal alien" than "illegal immigrant," because not all aliens are immigrants.

What you seem to be missing is that they don't want to describe them as illegal at all.

**Seaward**

Relapse wrote:
I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.
The big trick is sorting out the scumbags that are here among them.

Why the assumption that everyone coming in across the Rio Grande is Mexican?

What about the millions of others who aren't from Mexico?