Semantics matter in illegal immigration debate

"600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda"

A few weeks ago the following press release from the National Association of Hispanic Journalists was roundly ignored from sea to shining sea: "NAHJ Urges News Media to Stop Using the Term 'Illegals' When Covering Immigration."

I usually have no patience for these types of outrages because they inadvertently make themselves sound thin-skinned and clueless. In this case it's the terms "illegal" or "illegal aliens," that the NAHJ did a terrible job of deriding in their release.

"By incessantly using metaphors like 'illegals,' the news media is not only appropriating the rhetoric used by people on a particular side of the issue, but also the implication of something criminal or worthy of suspicion," NAHJ Executive Director Ivan Roman said.

Uhhh, no one's going to bat for you on that point, Ivan. The so-called "implication" NAHJ refers to is not so much an implication but a fact: We are, after all, talking about people who have broken a law and therefore have done something that can easily be defended as both "criminal or worthy of suspicion."

There are better arguments against offensive terms, and I've written about this very issue at length, both defending the legal term "illegal alien" and decrying the pejorative term "illegal."

This whole "alien" business is simple: the legal term, in relation to immigration law, simply means "One who is not a citizen or a national of the United States."

A "legal alien" is someone like my uncle Juan who is a legal permanent resident — he's not a citizen nor was he born here (a "national"). Not to be confused with someone like his brother Carlos, who is a naturalized U.S. citizen, and therefore no longer an "alien" despite his love of the starry night sky.

Now here's what gets tricky: the lady who sells corn on the cob slathered in mayonnaise and topped with parmesan cheese on 26th and St. Louis streets in the Chicago's Little Village neighborhood, she may be here illegally. She may have overstayed her tourist visa or may have entered the country with the intent to work here without proper permits. So what is she?

She's an "illegal immigrant."

Some would like to couch that to a more politically correct "undocumented worker," but that's a euphemism. The government's official term for people who are living and working in the United States without explicit permission from the government is "illegal aliens." It's nothing personal.

The tricky part, you ask? For me, here's where it crosses the line, let's take Mrs. Corn Vendor in the previous example:

If you were to say she's "an illegal," that's where I bust you out for being . . . I don't even know how to put it . . . divisive? Rude? Cold? I'm not sure, but not nice, and most importantly — imprecise. Why?

To say that Mrs. Corn Vendor is an "illegal alien" is to describe her in the context of her immigration status. However, to say that Mrs. Corn Vendor is "an illegal" is to make an abstraction of her and to dehumanize her.

The NAHJ is correct in insisting on a higher degree of journalistic objectivity. But since when are editors supposed to employ the use of euphemisms in order to report news? For the record: never.

Still, it wouldn't hurt for the Mainstream Media to get past the NAHJ's obviously emotional request and confront the heart of this matter: responsible, fair, and non-simplistic coverage of the complex illegal immigration issue is in order.

Take away the flaws in logic and Roman's ultimate sentiment rings true: "The words used can be part of the problem or can contribute to fair coverage and a fruitful public debate."

Write to Esther J. Cepeda at eejaycee@600words.com

This column was first published:

The Tampa Tribune, Tampa Bay, FL (10/17) "Semantics matter in 'illegal' debate" http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/oct/17/co-semantics-matter-in-illegal-debate/news-opinion-commentary/

The Star Press Muncie, IN (10/18) "Semantics do matter in the 'illegal' debate" http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20091018/OPINION/910180308

Arizona Daily Star, AZ (10/21) "Semantics do matter in immigration debate" http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/314029

Comments

Uhhh, no one's going to bat for you on that point, Ivan. The so-called "implication" NAHJ refers to is not so much an implication but a fact: We are, after all, talking about people who have broken a law and therefore have done something that can easily be defended as both "criminal or worthy of suspicion."

[blackmamba]

Great insight. Words can be used to marginalize and dehumanize people. Rhetoric that somtimes carries a message far beyond the literal meaning of the actual words. Where history and societal norms meet to make the words an expression of socioeconomic political reality e.g the N word. Context and perspective are important. Ethic slurs are never acceptable. Compassion should be the basis for the immigration debate. And remembering the Golden Rule and being our brother's keeper should be our guiding lights.

[ALEX TERRONES]

I cant agree w/ you more! Ms Cepeda.
You are a very articulate & wonderful woman.
I read you articles when time permits.
Yes I also find it very frustrating when I see
overly exagerated assumptions on illigal status. Its just goes to show you that in society we as a whole are ignorant w/o any
compassion towards humanity. Ill leave you w/
this last sentence. "People tend to believe they are better poeple once they find fault in other people." (IGNORANCE)!