Language matters. That’s why the Associated Press’ decision to drop the use of “illegal immigrant” as a way of describing those immigrants who lack legal standing was such an important moment in the immigration debate. The AP’s decision accepted one of the basic arguments being made by activists — that a person cannot be illegal, only an action can.
A piece on Salon today wants to take this rhetorical shift a step further. Anat Shenker-Osario asks that we stop using the term “undocumented worker.” Reformers, Shenker-Osario says, “the delicate euphemism ‘undocumented worker'”
is becoming the journalistic term of favor for the people who used to be called “illegal aliens.” The U-word is certainly many steps above that noxious label, but public opinion research shows that it still fares poorly among likely voters. They smell the forced artificiality, and they are not wrong in finding the term ineffective.
The argument goes like this: “it describes immigrants by what they lack, not what they bring” and it keeps the immigration debate “squarely in the rule of law framework.”
The language here is a problem, but the polling Shenker-Osario offers is of no use. Yes, terms like “aspiring American” and “new Americans” may be more positive, but they carry the same level of bias from a journalistic standpoint as does “illegal immigrant.” They may be useful terms for activists, giving them access to a more positive rhetorical language, but they do little to address how journalists can better and more accurately describe the people at the center of the immigration debate. They are as flabby and potentially inaccurate as any of the less positive terms being offered.
For instance, “Aspiring citizens” assumes that all of those who lack legal residency papers want to become citizens. Most likely do, but given that there are 10.5 million immigrants here without official status we can also assume that at least some don’t. “New Americans” is flawed in the same way — many of those without status have been here for decades, which stretches the word “new” beyond its logical meaning. The terms also don’t differentiate between those with legal status — work visas, for instance — and those here without, a distinction that has been central to the debate. From a journalistic standpoint, then, Shenker-Osario’s alternatives offer very little help.
“Illegal immigrant” is inaccurate because it conflates the person with the legal action and “aspiring citizen,” like “undocumented workers” is inaccurate because it is too vague.
What I tell my students — and have told reporters who have worked for me in the past — is that they should be as descriptive as they can be. There are moments when short-hand is necessary, but as a general rule you should provide as much information as possible.
Take some of the people who testified at the hearing last month on the New Jersey tuition equality bill. The bill would treat students who are lack legal residency papers but who graduated from New Jersey high schools as in-state students for the purpose of tuition. One former student who testified came to the United States from Mexico when she was 1 with her parents on a tourist visa to visit family. They overstayed the visa and stayed. She is now about 25, graduated from a New Jersey high school and Rutgers.
How should we describe her? She works as a bartender, but does not have legal residency papers. In that way, she is undocumented. But she has other documents, so calling her undocumented would seem to fall short. Is she an “aspiring citizen”? I believe so. Is she a “new American”? Only if you can still be new 23 years or so after your arrival.
So, how do we describe her? We need some kind of short-hand — I have been using “immigrants who lack legal documentation” or “immigrants who are currently undocumented” — to help set up the larger issues in a story (in the lede and nut graphs).
Send me an e-mail.
Hank Kalet 