Journalist Wants Words "Illegal Immigrant" Banned.
Marc Schenker reports from Canada thus living in a Country which does not have the constitutional guarantee of the right to free speech. He knows well what is meant by the word "banned" when it comes to speech. I appreciate his article which at least flags a discussion in SPJ that would show an intent to limit the use of the term "illegal immigrant" by members of the SPJ. Fortunately, the new media citizen reporters are not bound by the SPJ or other organization limiting the reporting of the truth by changing terminology to reflect something which it is not.
There is a principle difference between "illegal immigrant" and "undocumented immigrant" and between the words "immigrant" and "alien." In fact, people entering the United States illegally are not "undocumented" but "illegal. They become "documented" illegal aliens when apprehended. Alien people are "illegal" the moment they violated our laws, entered the U.S. illegally or violate their legal temporary visa to be in the U.S.. Also, they are are not "immigrants" but "aliens."
Foreign workers and those others entering the US with authorization are legally documented but they are not "immigrants" but foreign aliens legally allowed to temporarily reside and work in the US for a stipulated period of time. Overstaying their legal authorization makes them "illegal."
"Immigrants" apply and go through a legal process to enter the U.S. legally for the purpose of becoming a U.S. Citizens. Illegal immigrants are immigrants who fail to remove themselves from the U.S. after failing to become citizens or when order to do so by the proper authority of the U.S. Government.
If a free press is indeed to remain free and trusted, it needs to remain unfettered. People must be able to freely express their opinions in editorials and journal articles. They do not need others advocating restrictions or suggestions to obfuscate their words.
Journalists group member wants words "illegal immigrant" banned.by Marc Schenker: Yesterday on Fox and Friends, a member of the Society of Professional Journalists was interviewed about his ideological insistence to remove the words "illegal immigrant" from all news stories. Leo Laurence is a member of SPJ’s diversity committee, which promotes a bigger presence for minorities. Being a member of SPJ’s diversity committee also makes Laurence an advocate for illegal immigrants by his endorsement of a term that hides the illegality in their presence in the US. Instead of the words "illegal immigrant," Laurence wants all journalists to use the phrase "undocumented immigrant," which implies that their status is not illegal.
Laurence’s opposition to the phrase "illegal immigrant" is exceptionally strange for another reason not tied to dishonesty or political correctness altogether. "Illegal immigrant" is the current, preferred term in the Associated Press’ Stylebook. However, anyone who has ever read an AP article lately on the subject of illegal immigration is well aware that the AP already goes out of its way to avoid using anti-illegal immigrant phrases like "illegal immigrant"…even though that is a factual phrase. So Laurence is really a hardcore, pro-illegal immigrant ideologue for objecting to the way the media already reports on illegals.
Laurence’s perverse reasoning for why the phrase "illegal immigrant" should not be used by media anymore is the kind of argument that makes you want to pop several arteries in your neck from the frustrating stupidity of it. Laurence’s reasoning is also reminiscent of what a devious, ambulance-chasing lawyer would argue to twist the facts around. His reasoning is that only judges—can you believe that?—should have the power to decide if an illegal alien is really…illegal! That has got to be the ultimate in underhanded, shyster-like reasoning that I’ve ever heard!
Never mind, for a second, insisting that only judges—who already largely lean left in the US—have the power to make the call on whether an illegal alien is really…an illegal. Laurence is saying that every American is too stupid or prejudicial to make the call himself about whether an illegal alien who has snuck across the border with no knowledge of the government…is really an illegal. He’s saying that the border patrol or the police (assuming it’s not a sanctuary city) who discover the illegal alien with no ID or papers is too stupid to make the call on their illegal status right then and there.
Laurence is mendaciously reasoning that because the Constitution entitles everyone, even non-citizens, to the presumption of innocence, only judges can rule on their illegality. That is such an insult to the intelligence because the only criteria that matters to determine if you’re illegal in the US comes down to paperwork and ID. It doesn’t take much more than a policeman or even a business catching you with fake or improper paperwork—that’s it. Or, failing that, the border patrol catching you sneaking across the border!
This shady Laurence fellow, based on his pro-illegal alien stand and his association with a journalists’ group, is clearly a liberal. Worse than that, he’s probably an open-borders for all ideologue. I think this guy wants Mexico to reclaim California and some other Southern states! It’s pitiful that Americans like Laurence are actually serious in their anti-American views. As an American, he ought to be protecting his country and wanting that its borders, culture and language are guarded against hostile, illegal migration. Instead, his attitude is the US should accommodate Mexicans because he probably thinks the US is racist…or at fault for Mexicans sneaking in to begin with.
Tags: Leo Laurence, Society of Professional Journalists, SPJ, SPJ Diversity Committee, undocumented immigrant, illegal aliens, banning speech To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!