Advocates for immigrants are calling on the New York Times, arguably the most respected newspaper in the U.S., to stop using the term "illegal immigrant." They argue that the term is not only an inaccurate description of unauthorized migrants but also promotes racial stereotypes. On Oct. 1, Mónica Novoa, coordinator of the Drop the I-Word campaign, wrote an open letter to the New York Times calling into question the paper's use of "illegal immigrant." In particular, Novoa takes issue with the rationale of Times' staffers who argue that the term is "neutral."
"The term is far from neutral, given that it was popularized by anti-immigrant restrictionists and recommended for use by Republican strategist Frank Luntz in an effort to encourage an understanding of immigrants as 'criminals' and create a politically useful division among voters," Novoa states in her letter.
A number of news agencies, including the Miami Herald, the San Antonio Express-News, Fox News Latino, ABC News and the Huffington Post, no longer use the term "illegal immigrant." They've likely not only made this move to be culturally sensitive but also because the term has real shortcomings. For one, "illegal" is usually not a term used to characterize human beings. As Novoa points out:
"Whenever someone's actions are in violation of the law, that does not make a person's entire existence 'illegal.' We know she was convicted of a crime and still we don't call Martha Stewart an 'illegal businesswoman.' Firearms can be 'illegal.' Contraband can be 'illegal.' A person cannot be described as such."
But that's not all. Advocates for immigrants also argue that the term "illegal immigrant" has been used to paint all immigrants, specifically Latino ones, with a broad brush. They say the term has resulted in all Latino immigrants, and sometimes all Latinos, being viewed by the public as "illegal." That means people buy into the notion that Hispanics have no rights, which has led to hate crimes and police brutality against Latinos as well as unlawful arrests and detainment of them in places as disparate as Maricopa County, Ariz., and East Haven, Conn.
According to a report by the National Hispanic Media Council called the "Impact of Media Stereotypes on Opinions and Attitudes Towards Latinos," the American public views the terms "Latinos" and "illegal immigrants" as interchangeable. Additional studies have found that nearly half of all Latinos find the term "illegal immigrant" offensive. If retiring the I-word will lessen stereotypes about Latinos and immigrants, why not drop the term in favor of, say, "unauthorized migrant" or another term that doesn't dehumanize a group of people based on citizenship status?
Comments
Ummm…
Every single person I have known that (1) crossed the border illegaly or (2) over stayed their visa… knew that they were breaking the law. I have been living in Los Angeles for 25+ years and have worked in the social service field for most of those years. I personally know and have worked with hundreds of illegal immigrants from mexico and other central and south american countries… they were all great people… and they knew when they were crossing the border illegally that they were breaking the law.
I also have a number of european freinds (from Hungary, France, IceLand, Poland and Russia… and one of them was deported.) all who entered the country legally and over stayed their visas… (which is illegal) and each and everyone of them knew that they were breaking the law…
PC is ok… but not when it denies the obvious.
Robert, I don’t think immigrant advocates are denying that undocumented immigrants have broken the law. I think they are making the argument that while people can commit illegal acts, no person is “illegal.” Moreover, what about the children of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. with no knowledge of their citizenship status. Should be they described as “illegal immigrants?”
I agree with Nadra. Lots of people do illegal things (including things like speeding, smoking marijuana, underage drinking, etc), and we don’t call them “illegals.” It is offensive that this person’s whole identity should be based on one illegal act that he or she committed, many times out of desperation. Also, I think some people confuse the meanings of “legal” and “moral.” Just because something is illegal does not mean that it is inherently immoral. Crossing the border illegally is so dangerous- people do that only when they feel they don’t have any options left.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Again, I have never considered the term “illegal immigrant” to refer to a person’s morality, basic humanity or right to exist but rather a term focused on their immigration status. For me, this is common sense… but my grandmother always said that “common sense”… is “uncommon”.
As for the children who were brought over the border by parents (I have worked with many kids and families in this situation) changing a term resolves nothing… only immigration reform (such as the Dream Act) will help.
But in thinking about it… for me… the term is not the issue… it is the timing…
Creating a battle over the term “illegal immigrant” may annoy moderates (there are still a few out there and they are called “swing voters”) So, it might be a good idea for the person who started the fuss to think about the unintended consequences of causing the fuss… (i.e. turning off swing voters.)
Not a good idea in an election year.
Robert
(I wish Gavin Newson had thought of the negative, unintended consequences of his grand standing gay marriage act in 2004. I am gay… when I heard the news, I knew Newson had just won George Bush re-election… and that is exactly what happened.)