BajaNomad - Illegal immigrant’ no more

Illegal immigrant’ no more

Cisco - 4-4-2013 at 06:01 PM

‘Illegal immigrant’ no more
Posted on 04/02/2013 by Paul Colford

The AP Stylebook today is making some changes in how we describe people living in a country illegally.

Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll explains the thinking behind the decision:

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.

Why did we make the change?

The discussions on this topic have been wide-ranging and include many people from many walks of life. (Earlier, they led us to reject descriptions such as “undocumented,” despite ardent support from some quarters, because it is not precise. A person may have plenty of documents, just not the ones required for legal residence.)

Those discussions continued even after AP affirmed “illegal immigrant” as the best use, for two reasons.

A number of people felt that “illegal immigrant” was the best choice at the time. They also believed the always-evolving English language might soon yield a different choice and we should stay in the conversation.

Also, we had in other areas been ridding the Stylebook of labels. The new section on mental health issues argues for using credibly sourced diagnoses instead of labels. Saying someone was “diagnosed with schizophrenia” instead of schizophrenic, for example.

And that discussion about labeling people, instead of behavior, led us back to “illegal immigrant” again.

We concluded that to be consistent, we needed to change our guidance.

So we have.

Is this the best way to describe someone in a country without permission? We believe that it is for now. We also believe more evolution is likely down the road.

Will the new guidance make it harder for writers? Perhaps just a bit at first. But while labels may be more facile, they are not accurate.

I suspect now we will hear from some language lovers who will find other labels in the AP Stylebook. We welcome that engagement. Get in touch at stylebook@ap.org or, if you are an AP Stylebook Online subscriber, through the “Ask the Editor” page.

Change is a part of AP Style because the English language is constantly evolving, enriched by new words, phrases and uses. Our goal always is to use the most precise and accurate words so that the meaning is clear to any reader anywhere.

The updated entry is being added immediately to the AP Stylebook Online and Manual de Estilo Online de la AP, the new Spanish-language Stylebook. It also will appear in the new print edition and Stylebook Mobile, coming out later in the spring. It reads as follows:

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.

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?

People who were brought into the country as children should not be described as having immigrated illegally. For people granted a temporary right to remain in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, use temporary resident status, with details on the program lower in the story."

Ateo - 4-4-2013 at 06:06 PM

Something tells me this will be a heated discussion.

Cisco - 4-4-2013 at 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ateo
Something tells me this will be a heated discussion.

Is it in the right category Jon? Politics on main forum, or, should it go over to OT where we can swear at each other???

Ateo - 4-4-2013 at 06:19 PM

I say let's keep it respectful and on the main forum!!

Bruce R Leech - 4-4-2013 at 06:20 PM

undocumented Democrats.

Ateo - 4-4-2013 at 06:32 PM

Does it say what term they will use in this article? I didn't see anything.

My take on this is I see a major shift in public opinion on 3 issues:

Gay Marriage

Marijuana Legalization

Illegal Immigration/Guest Worker Program

The tide has turned. The older part of the electorate is dying off and the youngsters have fact based evidence at their fingertips (Internet - it's not perfect, but it's better than "my friend told me all atheists eat children").

We are in for some exciting times for the human race over the next 20 years.

I think it's time for an immigration overhaul!!!!

Ateo - 4-4-2013 at 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce R Leech
undocumented Democrats.

That is who they'll be (Democratic) if they ever become citizens. I'm fine with that. Pick the party that best suits your views. We all do that. =)

wessongroup - 4-4-2013 at 06:43 PM

How about "Alleged Illegal Immigrants"

DENNIS - 4-4-2013 at 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cisco
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.

Well....lessee here...........if a person who commits felonies is called a felon, why wouldn't a person with illegal immigration status be called illegal?
Is there an election going on someplace around here?

Skipjack Joe - 4-4-2013 at 07:00 PM

First they're not to be referred to as illegal aliens and the next step is that they're not illegal at all.

I get it. I believe there was a similar methodology described in '1984'.

Sort of like getting into a tub of hot water one toe at a time.

Ateo - 4-4-2013 at 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

No election going on here.....but we all know how important language is in framing an issue.

DENNIS - 4-4-2013 at 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ateo

we all know how important language is in framing an issue.

You must mean, "RE-framing."
Very Orwellian in a "Newspeak" sort of way.

Shakespeare said ...................

MrBillM - 4-4-2013 at 07:48 PM

"A Turd by any other name is still Crap".

Or, something like that, I think.

To be consistent with their stated policy, they WOULD have to reclassify the Undocumented Wayward Wanderer (how about that term ?) as an ILLEGAL once he/she committed a crime.

ALL those Immigrants incarcerated ARE Illegals.

OK, got that straight.

watizname - 4-4-2013 at 09:44 PM

I guess that now that global warming has dried up the river, Ike's term is no longer meaningful, let alone PC.

toneart - 4-4-2013 at 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ateo

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce R Leech
undocumented Democrats.

That is who they'll be (Democratic) if they ever become citizens. I'm fine with that. Pick the party that best suits your views. We all do that. =)

What Ateo said! :yes:

toneart - 4-4-2013 at 09:57 PM

Thank you, Cisco!
Great topic, and it belongs here on the main forum.

It is deep and relevant for this time.

It is controversial for the passing generation.

It is meaningful and evolutionary for future generations.

Tear down those walls, whether they be figurative, symbolic or material!

Ateo - 4-5-2013 at 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart
Thank you, Cisco!
Great topic, and it belongs here on the main forum.

It is deep and relevant for this time.

It is controversial for the passing generation.

It is meaningful and evolutionary for future generations.

Tear down those walls, whether they be figurative, symbolic or material!

What toneart said!!!