Skip to comments.Open-Borders Reporters Ban the Term -- ‘Illegal Immigrant’ (Prefers 'Undocumented Immigrant')
Posted on 04/03/2013 6:47:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
File this in the overflowing cabinet labeled, No Wonder the Mainstream Media Is Dying. On Tuesday, the Associated Press announced that it is banishing the phrase illegal immigrant from its famous stylebook. The worlds largest newsgathering outlet now advises reporters that illegal will only refer to an action, not a person.
The AP directs writers not to use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented anymore, except in direct quotations. It wont be long before illegal border crossers, illegal visa overstayers, illegal deportation evaders, document fraudsters, and illegal-alien traffickers are all referred to as our fellow Americans. Without the quotations. Mark my words.
The AP explains that it wants to stop labeling people. Ha. This is the same organization that employs journalists who have repeatedly shown naked bias against tea-party members, gun owners, and pro-life activists. APs most famous White House correspondent, Jennifer Loven, was such a shameless water-carrier for the Democratic party that she earned the permanent nickname Democratic operative Jennifer Loven on the Internet. In 2010, she left AP to join an official Democratic-run lobbying and communications firm in D.C. Same difference.
I propose that we banish the term journalist when referring to members of mainstream news organizations who pose as neutral news-gathers while carrying out a blatantly ideological agenda. From now on, the APs staffers shall be described in my columns as alleged practitioners of journalism, and as journalists only when using direct quotations.
But I digress.
Just a few years ago, the AP resisted open-borders demands and the pressure of political correctness in favor of pithiness and precision. In 2010, a member of the Diversity Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists launched a campaign against illegal immigrant and illegal alien. The crusading journalist argued that foreign law-breakers should instead be labeled undocumented workers or undocumented immigrants.
As I told Daily Caller reporter Matthew Boyle at the time, the idea that undocumented workers and undocumented immigrants are more objective labels than illegal immigrants is complete and utter nonsense. The euphemisms that mainstream journalists favor are far more politically loaded than the ones theyre trying to replace.
Its a farce to call someone an undocumented immigrant whose pockets are overflowing with fake, fraudulent documents and that is usually the case with many of the suspected illegal immigrants featured in AP stories. (Moreover, it is inaccurate to call someone whose employment history, criminal record, and welfare status are unknown an undocumented worker.)
At the time, the AP agreed. Their deputy standards editor David Minthorn told Boyle three short years ago: The AP Stylebook created its entry on illegal immigrant in 2004, in response to renewed debate over border security and the enforcement of immigration laws after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Together, the terms describe a person who resides in a country unlawfully by residency or citizenship requirements. Illegal immigrant . . . is accurate and neutral for news stories.
So what changed? Journalist Kathleen Carroll, the APs executive editor, attributes the move to the evolving English language. I attribute it to the evolving transformation of once-neutral news organizations into brazenly transparent satellite lobbying outfits for the Left. Its not media bias thats the problem, of course. Its the sanctimonious pretense of objectivity to which these alleged practitioners of journalism cling.
Just look at the ABC News coverage of the APs decision. Journalist Cristina Costantini praised the move and patted her own colleagues on the back for their progressivism. Fusion, the ABC-Univision joint venture, does not use illegal immigrant because we believe it dehumanizes those it describes and we find it to be linguistically inaccurate. On her Twitter account, journalist Costantini gushed that the APs capitulation came thanks to the hard work of great people like @joseiswriting.
@joseiswriting is Jose Antonio Vargas, the former Washington Post reporter who spearheaded the whitewashing of our language and our laws on behalf of illegal aliens. In 2011, with great fanfare and elite media sympathy, Vargas publicly declared himself an undocumented immigrant. Except, as he himself confessed, Vargas had documents coming out of his ears including a fake passport with a fake name, a fake green card, and a Social Security card his grandfather doctored for him at a Kinkos.
As I previously noted when Vargas shed his journalist costume in favor of full-fledged activist, he had committed perjury repeatedly on federal I-9 employment eligibility forms. An immigration lawyer advised him to take responsibility for breaking the law and return to his native Philippines. Following the rules would have meant a ten-year bar to reentry into America. Making false claims of citizenship is a felony offense. Document fraud is a felony offense. Instead of accepting responsibility, Vargas used a friends address to obtain an Oregon drivers license under false pretenses and duped his employers until the golden moment to confess without any fear of punishment under the illegal alien-friendly Obama administration arrived.
The persistent use of open-borders euphemisms championed by Vargas and Co. once again serves as the perfect illumination of the agenda-driven, dominant progressive media. Theyre as activist inside their newsrooms as Vargas is out in the open. Vargas wont rest until the legal definition of American citizenship is obliterated. And neither will his journalist colleagues cheering him on, whitewash brushes in hand.
Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies.
We do not have to speak as they do.
And in any case, most of “them” will be unemployed Obamadork voters soon...and for good reason.
They have never been illegal ‘immigrants’. They are NOT any kind of immigrants. They are ILLEGAL ALIENS.
I would go for the more appropriate, Squatter, however.
Squatter, definition: A person who settles in or occupies property with no legal claim to the property. A squatter is one who resides on a property to which he or she has no title, right or lease.
The ***holes can start by no longer referring to American TEA Party members as "racists" and/or "extremists".
The New York Times, Too, Is Reconsidering the Term Illegal Immigrant
The Associated Press made a bold move on Tuesday in dropping the term illegal immigrant from its influential stylebook.
The Times, for the past couple of months, has also been considering changes to its stylebook entry on this term and will probably announce them to staff members this week. (A stylebook is the definitive guide to usage, relied upon by writers and editors, for the purpose of consistency.)
From what I can gather, The Timess changes will not be nearly as sweeping as The A.P.s.
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.
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST...
You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. Word-smithing is something communists and Democrats do.
OK. How about "Criminal Alien"?
WE are so “old school” we still call them wet backs.
Unfortunately Fox news decided to Give HOSE-A Vargas airtime yesterday.
Greta.....What a waste of air time! Why would you give this illegal alien airtime?
Hmmmm.,let me see,”Illegal Immigrants”(law-breakers)are referred to as”Undocumented Workers”;Heter0sexual marriage is now referred to as:”Opposite-Sex Marriage”?What language is this??????????????????????????????
That is still better than ‘new immigrant’ or ‘new American’
So, should we now refer to burglars as “Undocumented Houseguests?”
Words mean things.
They are ‘criminal immigrants’.
“HOSE-A Vargas “
For those who read George Orwell, what the news agencies are doing should not come as a surprise.
Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a reduced language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit free thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, peace, etc. Any form of thought alternative to the partys construct is classified as thoughtcrime, crimethink, or doublethink.
Newspeak is explained in chapters 4 and 5 of Nineteen Eighty-Four, and in an appendix to the book. The language follows, for the most part, the same grammatical rules as English, but has a much more limiting, and constantly shifting vocabulary. Any synonyms or antonyms, along with undesirable concepts are eradicated. The goal is for everyone to be speaking this language by the year 2050 (the story is set in the year 1984hence the title). In the mean time, Oldspeak (current English) is still spoken among the working class citizens of Oceania, or the Proles .
Orwell was inspired to invent Newspeak by the constructed language Basic English, which he promoted from 1942 to 1944 before emphatically rejecting it in his essay “Politics and the English Language”.
In this paper he deplores the bad English of his day, citing dying metaphors, pretentious diction or rhetoric, and meaningless words, which he claimed to encourage unclear thought and reasoning. Towards the end of the essay, Orwell states: I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions.”
These news agencies are simply taking the ideas inspired by 1984. They have been doing it for over two generations. And like Sheep, The American populace is just too dumb and ignorant to know it.
Leno broke ranks and called them “Undocumented Democrats”
On NBCs Tonight Show, host Jay Leno said, They will now use the phrase undocumented Democrat
Just call them foreign invaders and be done with it. That is what they really are, but this admin wants to make them voting rats.
Even “conservatives” practice newspeak. Hugh Hewitt is still pushing the 1984-style substitute for “amnesty” — “regularization”. How pathetic (and disloyal to the Constitution).
Just one more way we allow the communist wordsmiths to define the terms of any debate.
As these people have not even attempted to apply to immigrate, they in no way can be defined as immigrants of any type.
When you violate the borders of a country, you are a “Criminal Trespasser” or an “Invader”. You are not immigrating.
If one were to sneak into the White House, one would NOT be an “Illegal President” but a criminal trespasser and should be arrested and detained.
This is our country and we have a right to our borders.
I welcome those who follow the laws and want to become CONTRIBUTING Americans.
I don’t have any issue with a worker visa but we all know exactly the game the communist left is playing. They want to use this issue to paint those of us on the right as bigots & racists.
Jay Leno said, They will now use the phrase undocumented Democrat" ... instead of undocumented immigrant!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.