Over on theblaze website, the story was posted a couple of days ago (December 28th) where the Diversity Committee of the Society for Professional Journalists (SPJ) are now "calling on news reporters nationwide to drop the term “illegal immigrant” from their news coverage in an effort to “inform and sensitize” people on how “offensive” the phrase is to Latinos." The original opinion piece was actually posted September 22nd, 2010. Sometimes news gets around slow when important and life-altering news like Lindsay Lohan, Jennifer Annistion and Brad Pitt seem to dominate the headlines (or worse yet, Lady Gaaaagaaaaa - the sound I get in my throat whenever I hear that cross between Elton John and Hobo the clown spew whatever liberal drivel drools out of the corner of her mouth.
Full article here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/journalist-group-complains-illegal-immigrant-term-is-offensive-to-latinos/
So I did a bit of sleuthing around the web, the great resource that it is, and tried to verify this story. Not that I am calling into question, the integrity of theblaze.com, but it's always best to cover your bases, especially in regards to internet based stories, before reaching conclusions. Misinformation is rampant; there is extreme political polarization these days in
Anyways, the subject of the actual story does check out. The DIVERSITY COMMITTEE of the SPJ did indeed make this recommendation. The catch is that like good lawyers, politicians, journalists, etc... The SPJ covers their rear-ends on their main website (article at https://www.spj.org/quill_issue.asp?ref=1745) by stating:
CLARIFICATION: The following article is an opinion piece and does not reflect the views of SPJ, its membership or its Diversity Committee. The committee itself has taken no official initiative on this topic.
So why cover your ass, put some distance between you and the writer as it were, but then have the article on your website, as one of your sub-committees, for all to see? Grow a pair, and at least say you support this garbage (that's what it is, garbage) and quit trying to play politically correct games with the U.S. Constitution and freedom of the press. To me, it's simply testing the waters to see what public response will be, and see if they can chip further away at the morals of America by playing word games.
Now on to the article, referring to the use of the terms "Illegal Immigrant" and "Illegal Alien".
...it remains offensive to many Latinos, and especially Mexicans, and to the fundamentals of American jurisprudence.
If you are not "illegal" or breaking the law, what is there to be offended about? If you are Latino, and a legal citizen or legal immigrant, this term does not apply to you. If you are Mexican, you are not American, not an immigrant, and can sit back in your own country and pass judgment on the way we run ours, but hey, you don't see millions of us sneaking across the border into your country for a better life...
Also, the article cites no sources or references, no surveys, no polls, where the claims of this being offensive to “Latinos and especially Mexicans” are validated. It amounts to an invalidated claim, which is very "unprofessional" considering the organization is called the society of PROFESSIONAL journalists... this amounts to an error I'd expect to see a high school student to make on an essay.
Some believe the phrase illegal alien originated with fiery, anti-immigrant groups along the U.S.- Mexico border, such as the Minutemen. Gradually, the phrase — along with illegal immigrant — seeped into common usage. It is now even used by some network TV newscasters.
However, there are some national publications, including The Nation, that regularly use the preferred phrase: undocumented immigrant.
At least they gave us ONE reference this time. Of course, more correct wording would have been "However, one publication, "The Nation", regularly uses the phrase that I personally think we should use, that being "undocumented immigrant". But seriously, ONE reference? Not the New York Times, not USA Today, not the Wall Street Journal, but some obscure reference called "The Nation"? The author is grasping at obscure straws here...
The AP Stylebook unfortunately says that "illegal immigrant" is preferred over "undocumented worker."
Let us look at the two conflicting phrases here. The current preferred term, however "unfortunate" the author of the article claims it to be, is "illegal immigrant". It implies first, that the person in question has actually immigrated here, and if they are on this side of the border, not on a tourist visa, then this is probably the case. The second implication is that they did so illegally, meaning not in accordance with
The alternative title, "Undocumented Worker" applies no wrong-doing in regards to the law, just a simple lack of a pesky little "documentation" issue. The type of issue that happens in a regulatory environment, where the successful completion of a task is more important than the required paperwork needed to go along with it, but that the work is at least done, and we can catch the paperwork up later. No dice.
More importantly, it assumes the immigrant in question, is employed. "Worker" sounds so sensible, I mean, after all, if this individual is WORKING, why should we not give them credit for that? Everyone loves a hard worker. However, just like the author claims we don't actually know if this person is "illegal" later in the article, absent a court ruling, we also do not know they are actually "working" without tax returns, social security contributions, or other credible sources beyond someone's claim to be actually, working.
Now on to the meat of this article...
One of the most basic of our constitutional rights is that everyone (including non-citizens) is innocent of any crime until proven guilty in a court of law. That's guaranteed under the Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendments of the Constitution, as I learned during four-year post-doctoral studies in appellate law at the California Court of Appeal in San Diego.
The presumption of innocence is an ancient tenet of criminal law. That legal doctrine is basic to our common-law system of jurisprudence. It has also been adapted by many countries following the Napoleonic, civil-law legal system including Italy, Spain, Brasil, Poland, the Philippines, Russia and the United Nations. It's often expressed by the phrase “innocent until proven guilty,” credited to English lawyer Sir William Garrow (1760-1840).
There are volumes of case studies and court cases, judiciary opinion, that hold dissenting beliefs as to what extent the U.S. Constitution applies to citizens versus non-citizens. Terrorists, to cite a recent example, are still being held in
Thomas Jefferson said "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first”. But that's a topic for another day...
From the article:
Actually, if a law enforcement officer (or observant civilian) witnesses a crime in progress; they can take action to terminate the breaking of the law either by direct intervention of calling local authorities. A judge doesn't come online and verify that the perpetrator is indeed breaking the law at present. They determine that in court later. Whether it's doing 10mph over a posted speed limit, breaking and entering, possession of a controlled substance... congress has already declared certain behavior and actions illegal, upheld by courts. At that point, the prohibited act IS illegal by definition. The only question remains as to if it actually occurred, or mitigating circumstances.
If a person draws a gun and robs me at gunpoint, they broke the law. They committed an illegal act. The question of court comes down to whether or not the person apprehended for the crime, is indeed, the perpetrator. We do not want to wrongfully convict the innocent, and that is why we have trials. It doesn't change the fact, that even if an innocent person was arrested, and courts released him as not guilty, the actually guilty perpetrator is still at large. The perpetrator is still a law-breaker, a possible felon, and engaging in illegal activity.
An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant. If someone is apprehended crossing the border, that is illegal. The term fits, aptly, because they did commit the accused act.
To be blunt, "Illegal Immigrant" and "Illegal Alien" are applicable terms. If any correction should be applied to them, it should be to an apprehended illegal immigrant with no prior record, in which case, MAYBE, until actual status is applied, refer to them as "alleged or suspected illegal immigrant" or "suspected illegal immigrant". It's no different than the term "suspected felon" applied to U.S. citizens who have not yet been found guilty in a court of law. Of course, according to the author, Mr. Leo Laurence, it seems he would have no terminology applied to these illegal immigrants, until they have been found to actually be illegal, in a court of law, by judge decree. ELEVEN MILLION illegal immigrants tying up courts, claiming due process, on tax payer dollars, filing appeals... all the worst of our legal system... spot on move their Mr. Laurence. How about applying some reality to your wild theories and your legal utopian world you apparently live in?
And please quit trying to squeeze whatever meaning out of the Constitution you can, and as Thomas Jefferson again said:
On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.Now my actual favorite part of this entire article... the plethora of typos that made it past the heavily credentialled author, his spell-check, his proof readers, editors, and the website of a national organization known as what? THE SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST! My total count was no less than EIGHT.
I am going to paste their entire article into this blog, and highlight the gross typos that made it into their online article, and highlight the errors in magenta...
**************************************
Frequent use of the phrases "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" by our mainstream media is being questioned in order to remain faithful to the principles of our U.S. Constitution.
SPJ’s Diversity Committee met during the 2010 convention in Las Vegas and decided to engage in a yearlong educational campaign designed to inform and sensitize journalists as to the best language to use when writing and reporting on people of different cultures and backgrounds.
Some believe the phrase illegal alien originated with fiery, anti-immigrant groups along the U.S.-Mexico border, such as the Minutemen. Gradually, the phrase — along with illegal immi-grant — seeped into common usage. It is now even used by some network TV newscasters.
Yet it remains offensive to many Latinos, and especially Mexicans, and to the fundamentals of Ameri-can jurisprudence.
However, there are some national publications, including The Nation, that regularly use the preferred phrase: undocumented immigrant.
"Immigrants always have been the canaries in the mine shaft — an early-warning system about the health of the U.S. economy," columnist-author Linda Chavez wrote.
After my post on this issue on the Diversity Committee blog, Miryam Wiley, a 20-year SPJ member, wrote to me:
"As a journalist who has written for more than a decade about undocumented immigrants, I applaud you for your suggestion (about) 'suspected' illegal immigrants. ... I have encountered resistance from my editors when I used the word 'undocumented' to refer to immigrants. I have seen my text changed, under my byline, to conform to the AP style. I found that disturbing but did not have a say in the mat-ter. I often remind people that the word 'undocumented' is a better choice. This week, a lawyer thanked me for making that choice."
The AP Stylebook unfortunately says that "illegal immigrant" is preferred over "undocumented worker."
"The National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) is concerned with the increasing use of pe-jorative terms to describe the estimated 11 million undocumented people living in the United States," NAHJ says.
It is calling for a national discussion and re-evaluation of the use of the phrase illegal immigrant. "The term criminalizes a person," the organization of Latino journalists contends.
NAHJ recommends: "Instead, use 'undocumented immigrant' or 'undocumented work-er’” and to "Avoid using 'illegal(s)' as a noun.”
Constitutional Principle
One of the most basic of our constitutional rights is that everyone (including non-citizens) is innocent of any crime until proven guilty in a court of law. That's guaranteed under the Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendments of the Constitution, as I learned during four-year post-doctoral studies in appellate law at the California Court of Appeal in San Diego.
The presumption of innocence is an ancient tenet of criminal law. That legal doctrine is basic to our common-law system of jurisprudence. It has also been adapted by many countries following the Na-poleonic, civil-law legal system including Italy, Spain, Brasil, Poland, the Philippines, Russia and the United Nations. It's often expressed by the phrase “innocent until proven guilty,” credited to English lawyer Sir William Garrow (1760-1840).
**************************************
Simply put, only a judge, not a journalist, can say that someone is an illegal.
Wrong... Illegal is illegal. Breaking the law is just that. Getting called out on it, while it may offend you, is similar to getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar as a child. You did it, end of discussion
Oh, and from the blog linked elsewhere: http://blogs.spjnetwork.org/diversity/
However, some Mexican journalists I know go out of their way to become more Americanized, and will themselves use the degnirative (degenerative?) terms illegal alien or illegal immigrant in their stories. That doesn’t make it right.
Speaking of "the Author"... Mr. Leo E. Laurence (who lists his contact email as leopowerhere@msn.com)...
A little history:
1. http://leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Speakers&bio=2547 - supporting legalization of drugs. I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I bet we'll soon be seeing articles on the politically correct term for a strung out druggy - chemically happy individuals. Drug dealer sounding so offensive, and after all, as the article implies above, maybe only a judge can state that someone actually is a drug user, or drug dealer".
2. http://www.facebook.com/people/Leo-E-Laurence/1052956561 - if you are so inclined to add him as a friend...
3. http://zengersmag.blogspot.com/2009/02/forty-years-later-gay-lib-pioneer-still.html - In support of gay rights, as far back as the 60's where he...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Liberation -
On March 28, 1969 in San Francisco, Leo Laurence (the editor of Vector, magazine of the United States' largest homophile organization, the Society for Individual Rights) called for "the Homosexual Revolution of 1969," exhorting gay men and lesbians to Join the Black Panthers and other left-wing groups and to "come out" en masse. Laurence was expelled from the organization in May for characterizing members as "timid" and "middle-class, uptight, bitchy old queens."So lets see here... joining black panthers, founding militant groups, expelled from the militant black panthers for calling them "timid, middle-class, uptight, bitchy old queens". And they gave this man a badge and a gun as a sheriff's deputy and put him in the San Diego Attorney General's office???
He then co-founded a militant group, the Committee for Homosexual Freedom, with Gale Whittington--a young man who had been fired from States Steamship Company for being openly gay, after his photo appeared in the Berkley Barb, next to the headline "HOMOS, DON'T HIDE IT!", the revolutionary article by Leo Laurence. The same month Carl Wittman, a member of CHF, began writing Refugees from Amerika: A Gay Manifesto, which would later be described as "the bible of Gay Liberation". It was first published in the San Francisco Free Press and distributed nation-wide, all the way to New York City, as was the Berkeley Barb with Leo's stories on CHF's Gay Guerilla militant initiatives.
Simply put, only a judge, not a journalist, can say that someone is an illegal
No comments:
Post a Comment