Did you know that it’s not criminal to be an
undocumented immigrant? In fact, one of the burning issues in the
recent and ongoing debate on immigration reform is whether to make such
mere presence a felony.
If you didn’t know this, you probably didn’t read past that headline.
You know, the one with the word Illegals emblazoned in large type.
Maybe even in your own newspaper.
“There he goes again,” some of you are probably thinking. “Politically
correct Ricardo.” That’s one take, I guess. Another might be,
“trying-to-be-accurate Ricardo.” It’s a matter of both grammar and law.
Illegal as a noun offends both — not to mention the offense given by
stigmatizing an entire group of people.
Yes, we’re talking about illegal immigration. But illegal is a modifier, not generally a noun. And presence without the required papers, under current law, is a civil violation, not a criminal
one.
“But they crossed the border illegally,”
you say. Maybe — but maybe
not. Many of the people here without documents have overstayed their
visas. In
other words, they got here legally. And is a child, who had no say in
the matter but was brought to this country by migrant parents without
documents, illegal?
Funny how it’s OK to use illegal, without an alleged in front, only
in the context of immigration. Imagine this headline: “Illegal robs
bank” over a story in which your common, garden-variety, native-born
criminal holds up one of your local banks.
Robbing a bank is illegal, so one could make a strong argument that
this headline would be OK. I’m guessing you still wouldn’t use it. Even though
we’re talking about a real, honest-to-goodness crime, not an act that
some aspire to make a crime. And even if this person is caught, he
becomes a suspect — in other words, an alleged bank robber.
But I view the use of the term illegal — as a noun — as
more of a reflection and consequence of American newsrooms than
anything else. It’s pretty clear that too many newspapers
simply don’t know how to cover immigration. Part of it is a language
problem. Too few newsrooms have Spanish speakers. But part of it is
also a
cultural problem. Too few newsrooms are bicultural, with deeper
understanding of Latino cultures than can be derived by cursory
observance or passing acquaintance.
So I’m guessing that there aren’t a lot of people, in many of those newspapers that have illegals in their
headlines, who might be
genuinely offended because we’re criminalizing an entire group of
people who happen to look a lot like them.
I happen to be offended.
My parents were illegals at one time. So, I
am likely to say something when I see it in a headline. Or when I see a
story that seems to buy too heavily into stereotypes about immigrants.
And the sense I get is that folks believe my protest is all a matter of
a personal agenda. Well, yeah. I like to be accurate and I’m generally
not in favor of slamming entire groups of people. Neither should you.
But I wonder if anyone stops to think about the agenda of those
insisting that illegals be used. I’ve heard from many people who
believe this — generally after I’ve written something that uses the
term undocumented immigrant.
It’s clear to me that many of these people simply want to make a
political point about illegal immigration. And they want their local
newspaper to agree with them. So, they call their local columnists when
they read undocumented. Or they call the copy desk chief. Or the
editor. Or the publisher.
If all of this results in a discussion about calling people illegals, this might even be a good thing. Many times, I’m guessing, it’s simply
a matter of bending to the will of squeaky wheels.
Every time I see the word in a headline — and, less frequently, in a
story — I think of my parents. But I also think of the undocumented immigrants I
have run across — particularly in Arizona, where I spent time as a columnist.
Some of them would come to me because I frequently wrote about immigration
matters. They’d ask for advice. I’d refer them to folks far more
expert. But there was a pattern.
Many of them had children who were U.S. citizens. Many owned their own homes. One,
threatened with deportation, joined the U.S. Army. They worked. They
paid taxes. And thinking of most of them and “criminals” in the same
thought, I’m sure, would not even occur to you. Calling them illegals
to their faces wouldn’t, either.
So, why put it in 48-point type?
It’s not that there aren’t real criminals among them — but it’s likely
that the proportion of criminals to non-criminals is similar to that of
the rest of the population.
Politically correct? I’m guessing a lot of folks who use this term
simply long for the days when there were fewer brakes on what we could
put in newspapers. But there is the right way to cover an issue and the
wrong way.
I have some hints on covering the immigrant community in broader fashion. It’s
pretty simple stuff: Go where they go. Talk to them. If you can’t, find
someone who can translate. I’d bet — no, I know — that you’ll find
a whole lot of people who don’t fit into that stereotype of refusing to learn
English.
So go where they go and talk to them, even when immigration isn’t the
mega-issue du jour. You’ll find out that they have many of the same
concerns that you have.
Illegals? Unless that U.S. House bill passes, no. Just people. Or, as one friend of mine calls them, undocumented taxpayers.
The National Association of Hispanic Journalists has an interesting
discussion about other dos and don’ts in covering immigration. You can find it here.
