Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    L.A. Times outdoes even the language police — tosses “illegal immigrant” and “undocumented immigrant”

    L.A. Times outdoes even the language police — tosses “illegal immigrant” and “undocumented immigrant”

    I knew we lost “illegal immigrant” and “illegal immigration” to the language police.

    The preferred and completely politically correct substitute term was supposed to be “undocumented immigrant.”

    Even Colorlines, the group pushing the claim that “illegal immigrant” is racist, used the term “undocumented immigrant” in a recent story:

    Hundreds of undocumented immigrants have been deported back to their country of origin by hospitals seeking to curb high costs. According to a recent report compiled by immigrant advocacy groups at least 600 immigrants were removed over a five-year period because they were ineligible for public insurance as a result of their immigration status.

    But the L.A. Times is going beyond even Colorlines, and will no longer use “undocumented immigrant.”

    L.A. Times updates guidelines for covering immigration (h/t @mlcaderone)

    The Los Angeles Times has announced new guidelines for covering immigration.

    The goal is to “provide relevance and context and to avoid labels.”

    That means stories will no longer refer to individuals as “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented immigrants,” but instead will describe a person’s circumstances.

    A memo from The Times’ Standards and Practices Committee announcing the change explains the move away from labels:

    ” ‘Illegal immigrants’ is overly broad and does not accurately apply in every situation. The alternative suggested by the 1995 guidelines, ‘undocumented immigrants,’ similarly falls short of our goal of precision. It is also untrue in many cases, as with immigrants who possess passports or other documentation but lack valid visas.”

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    This is the kind of quality editorial policy that would be lost if barbarians like the Kochs take over the LA Times.

    If someone broke into the LA Times, thereby trespassing and breaking and entering and he or she stole property -it wouldn’t be intellectual property at the LA Times – wouldn’t the perpetrator’s actions be considered “illegal”?


       
       0 
       
       0
      pilgrim1949 in reply to Sally Paradise. | May 2, 2013 at 9:15 am

      I think that as long as the stolen property was given to some politically-correct group — say, the homeless — that we could rightly demand to be extolled and feted as Champions of the the Downtrodden for providing “FREE” goodies (which, of course, cost nobody anything, they just magically materialize out of thin air).

      Sounds good to me.


     
     0 
     
     0
    pilgrim1949 | May 2, 2013 at 9:11 am

    OooooKAYyyyyyyy….

    Let me take a stab at it (this former collegiate saber-fencer is double-checking to see if my verbal mightier-than-the-sword pen is “registered” — Nope, still not. Good!)…

    How about:

    As-yet-unincarcerated law-breaking criminal?

    Future non-ID-carrying voter and jury member?


       
       0 
       
       0
      Juba Doobai! in reply to pilgrim1949. | May 2, 2013 at 9:21 am

      Criminal is a racist value judgment that dismisses the idea that American citizenship s a civil right f all men. In fact, a human right, therefore those who are seizing their rights are not criminal, and that makes you racist.

      HTH.


     
     0 
     
     0
    texasron | May 2, 2013 at 9:57 am

    Those who entered our country illegally should be called criminals or possibly, leaches.

    I still like “crimmigrant”


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend