Author: Lena Smith
Senator John McCain is one of eight lawmakers working on a proposal for a path to legal citizenship for millions of people residing illegally in the United States.
However, when publicly asked to drop the dehumanizing term, “illegal immigrant,” McCain refused. Perhaps he feels it is a term that people understand but is unnecessarily ambiguous and insensitive to the individual stories of the people to whom it refers.
The issue of how and if anyone residing illegally in the United States should be granted citizenship is the subject of constant debate. Therefore, information and rhetoric on the topic must be as accurate as possible to ensure an effective debate and to show respect for the people whose lives are affected by it.
The Associated Press (AP) set a standard for accurate communication about illegal immigration on April 2 by updating its style book to ban the term “illegal immigrant.” The change discourages the AP’s readers from classifying a diverse group of people into a single category, allowing them to see immigrants as individuals and providing them more context to discuss immigration. Critics believe this takes political correctness too far. They point out that “illegal immigrant” refers to a person who has immigrated to a country and stayed illegally, no matter how he or she arrived on U.S. soil. However, the phrase should be dropped because it permits journalistic ambiguity. It attaches the concept of “illegal” to each immigrant’s identity, rather than specifying that he or she has committed a single unlawful act.
An alternative favored by most activists for immigrants’ rights
is “undocumented,” mainly because it does not imply that the person, as a
living individual, is illegal. The AP has rejected “undocumented” as an
acceptable replacement for “illegal” in an effort to avoid any
misleading implications. After all, a person can
still have documents, such as a passport, driver’s license or even a
social security card and still reside in a country illegally.
For advocates who strive to abolish the term, like the two campaigns Drop the I-Word and Define American, the style change is an important victory. Articles written for the AP are widely distributed and often reprinted by smaller news organizations. As a result, both The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times are considering
similar changes to their stylebooks, though theirs are likely less comprehensive. Instead of an outright ban, The Los Angeles Times may
decide on another two-word option, which would not solve the problems of distancing or ambiguity. It takes more than two words to accurately convey the circumstances of a person’s immigration.
The AP has set an example for politicians and journalists to follow, moving away from over-simplification to accurate representation of people and their situations. Under its new system, someone who was once an “illegal immigrant” becomes an individual with a story.
Lena Smith is an undeclared first-year. She can be reached at lenasmith@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
