It seemed like it started last year, when the Society of Professional Journalists passed a resolution recommending newsrooms stop using “illegal alien,” and even questioned the term “illegal immigrant,” in stories on immigration when describing undocumented immigrants.
This year, the Associated Press stuck by “illegal immigrant,” as did the New York Times.
Last week, on Tuesday, Dec. 4, the Arizona Daily Wildcat published that the student-run newspaper’s standards and practices committee “agreed to use the term “undocumented.”’
You can read their announcement here. Snippet:
We easily could have ignored the issue without making a decision. We haven’t had a preferred style in the past and we could have continued to go without.
However, because of Arizona’s proximity to the border and how frequently border security issues come up, even in higher education, it seemed important for the Wildcat to have a set style when it came to this term.
At the beginning of November, Ruben Navarrette, a syndicated columnist with The Washington Post Writers Group, wrote that groups pushing for the word “undocumented” are trying to “shame the media” into political correctness.
The Wildcat staff explored this idea, but agreed that using “undocumented” isn’t about trying to talk around the issue or dress it up as something it isn’t. Using “undocumented” is about avoiding characterizing someone’s entire personhood by one civil offense.
This article appears in Dec 6-12, 2012.
Now I am confused, illegal means unlawful. How about unlawful immigrants?
“Illegal” refers to their immigration status, nothing else. R the drugs, contraband and tunnels to be referred to as undocumented, as well? The Wildcat decision seems naive and weak-minded. How censorship is sown!
“Illegal” is a perfectly good modifier for an activity, viz. “illegal immigration.” But not for a person. There are only illegal acts. Not illegal people.
wait, an institution of “higher learning”–that good money will be spent for me to attend next year; no essays left to write other than about computers, by now–doesn’t expect its students to understand that “illegal” is being used to describe what type of “immigrant” they’re discussing, and that “undocumented” sounds nicer? the problem with “undocumented” is that it places the blame for their status on US, rather than THEM, which would be what “illegal” would indicate. losers.
Stupid is as stupid does…
The policy makes excellent sense. Illegal immigrant was slipped into common usage by those with a particular political ax to grind.
When an undocumented person is found in the workplace, do we hear about an “illegal worker”? No. It’s an “undocumented worker.”
When a citizen is caught driving without a license do we read about an “illegal driver”? No, we hear a description of the offense, driving without a license.
Mari Herreras wrote:
“characterizing someone’s entire personhood by one civil offense.”
Entering a country illegally is a civil offense and not a criminal one? That’s news to me.
Ilya Simkhovich wrote:
“wait, an institution of “higher learning”–that good money will be spent for me to attend next year; no essays left to write other than about computers, by now–doesn’t expect its students to understand that “illegal” is being used to describe what type of “immigrant” they’re discussing, and that “undocumented” sounds nicer? the problem with “undocumented” is that it places the blame for their status on US, rather than THEM, which would be what “illegal” would indicate. losers.”
As much as I agree with your overall sentiment, you need to first go back to grammar school for at least as couple of years. How do people like you get into college in the first place?
Good money will be spent for you? I get the distinct impression it won’t be YOUR money.
Not again, more people sweeping the issues under the table by picking a nicer description for a activity which is against the laws of the Untied States. I will stay with illegal alien as it’s exactly what these people are who come here ILLEGALLY!
I see liberal s like to twist words around so they don’t offend someone breaking the law and at the UofA – Arizona wildcat paper is liberal bais they don’t want to offend the school because of the bucks that on the line they recieve from illegal aliens ….
@Another Amalekite:
You expressed doubt over “Entering a country illegally is a civil offense and not a criminal one.”
Actually, it’s a piddling misdemeanor.
Check this site out, when you have the time:
http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers…
(Which should, at the very least, suggest that immigration issues are very complex. And extremely political.)
As for your admonishing Ilya Simkhovich to tell her to go back to grammar school?
No comment, other than you might feel, maybe, a blush of embarrassment?
@D.A.R:
Is your user name an abbreviation for the “Daughters of the American Revolution?”
Just curious, here…
The term used by the US government in its documents is “illegal alien.” I imagine that is not politically correct, but it is logically correct. People who are not citizens are “aliens” in the technical meaning of the term. It does not matter whether they are here legally or not, they are considered as aliens. There are legal aliens and illegal aliens. The difference is obvious. It is just Orwellian to change our language so people who are in this country illegally will have more self-esteem.
Let go full PC, how about “Immigrationally challenged”?
Actually, I’d like to see us go real PC…change the law so that walking around the Sonoran desert doesn’t make you an illegal anything. Why should an accident of place of birth hold one back in life any more than a time of birth? Walking across the southern boundary of AZ, which has moved a time or two, has only been illegal for a very short time of history. There is no need for that law now, any more than there was when racial animosity toward the Chinese got the first Chinese Exclusion Act passed. And remember, you also have the right to immigrate.