Semantics
Illegal alien - someone who is in a nation in violation of that nation's immigration laws.
Illegal immigrant - someone who is in a nation in violation of that nation's immigration laws.
So and so, who entered XX country illegally - someone who is in a nation in violation of that nation's immigration laws.
The news media can use any of these three methods to refer to a person in a news item, and it is important for whatever reason, to note in this story that they are in the country illegally. The debate has raged for years that people aren't illegal, illegal alien is perjorative and so on. Now the Associated Press, whose "Style Guide" is used by most major newsgathering organizations in determining how news stories are written, has decided to eliminate the phrase "illegal immigrant". Let's look at two samples involving usage of this phrase and an alternative method that will be used now that this phrasing is no longer "approved".
"The California State Supreme Court will review the case involving __________, an illegal immigrant, who is seeking to be licensed to practice law in the state."
or
"The California State Supreme Court will review the case involving __________, who entered the U.S. illegally, to see if his dream of being licensed to practice law in the state will come true."
Do the semantics matter all that much? Is this a huge victory? No. Just as the phrase "undocumented worker" is meaningless, eliminating the phrase "illegal immigrant" really accomplishes nothing.
The accomplishment will be real reform in immigration policies, so that we deal with the issue of the millions who are in this nation illegally; and at the same time, hopefully seal the border so we aren't facing the same problem again five years after a solution is put into effect.
I've proposed this solution before, but in case you didn't read it previously...the answer is actually quite simple. Set a date. Now, a few months in the future, whatever. Everyone who is in the nation on that date illegally must self-identify to the authorities. They will be given a path to become legal. As long as they've committed no "serious" crimes. The path might require payment of taxes that are owed for years of work done "off the books". It might involve some amount of public service. It might be as simple as engaging in the same kind of educational and testing process that goes into citizenship. The path doesn't have to include citizenship. Permanent residency with the right to work is more than sufficient. Citizenship should of course be an option for those who want to achieve that goal.
If we find a way to ensure everyone in the country is here without violating the law, the semantical problem disappears.
Illegal immigrant - someone who is in a nation in violation of that nation's immigration laws.
So and so, who entered XX country illegally - someone who is in a nation in violation of that nation's immigration laws.
The news media can use any of these three methods to refer to a person in a news item, and it is important for whatever reason, to note in this story that they are in the country illegally. The debate has raged for years that people aren't illegal, illegal alien is perjorative and so on. Now the Associated Press, whose "Style Guide" is used by most major newsgathering organizations in determining how news stories are written, has decided to eliminate the phrase "illegal immigrant". Let's look at two samples involving usage of this phrase and an alternative method that will be used now that this phrasing is no longer "approved".
"The California State Supreme Court will review the case involving __________, an illegal immigrant, who is seeking to be licensed to practice law in the state."
or
"The California State Supreme Court will review the case involving __________, who entered the U.S. illegally, to see if his dream of being licensed to practice law in the state will come true."
Do the semantics matter all that much? Is this a huge victory? No. Just as the phrase "undocumented worker" is meaningless, eliminating the phrase "illegal immigrant" really accomplishes nothing.
The accomplishment will be real reform in immigration policies, so that we deal with the issue of the millions who are in this nation illegally; and at the same time, hopefully seal the border so we aren't facing the same problem again five years after a solution is put into effect.
I've proposed this solution before, but in case you didn't read it previously...the answer is actually quite simple. Set a date. Now, a few months in the future, whatever. Everyone who is in the nation on that date illegally must self-identify to the authorities. They will be given a path to become legal. As long as they've committed no "serious" crimes. The path might require payment of taxes that are owed for years of work done "off the books". It might involve some amount of public service. It might be as simple as engaging in the same kind of educational and testing process that goes into citizenship. The path doesn't have to include citizenship. Permanent residency with the right to work is more than sufficient. Citizenship should of course be an option for those who want to achieve that goal.
If we find a way to ensure everyone in the country is here without violating the law, the semantical problem disappears.
posted by me at 9:00 AM
<< Home