Semantics matter in 'illegal' debate

A few weeks ago the following press release from the National Association of Hispanic Journalists was roundly ignored from sea to shining sea: "NAHJ Urges News Media to Stop Using the Term 'Illegals' When Covering Immigration."

I usually have no patience for these types of outrages because they inadvertently make themselves sound thin-skinned and clueless. In this case it's the terms "illegal" or "illegal aliens," which the NAHJ did a terrible job of deriding in their release.

"By incessantly using metaphors like 'illegals', the news media is not only appropriating the rhetoric used by people on a particular side of the issue, but also the implication of something criminal or worthy of suspicion," NAHJ Executive Director Ivan Roman said.

The so-called "implication" NAHJ refers to is not so much an implication but a fact: We are, after all, talking about people who have broken a law and therefore have done something that can easily be defended as both "criminal or worthy of suspicion."

This whole "alien" business is simple: The legal term, in relation to immigration law, simply means "one who is not a citizen or a national of the United States."

A "legal alien" is someone like my uncle Juan who is a legal permanent resident - he's not a citizen nor was he born here (a "national"). Not to be confused with someone like his brother Carlos, who is a naturalized U.S. citizen and therefore no longer an "alien" despite his love of the starry night sky.

Now here's what gets tricky: The lady who sells corn on the cob slathered in mayonnaise and topped with parmesan cheese on the street corner may be here illegally. She may have overstayed her tourist visa or entered the country with the intent to work here without proper permits. So what is she?

She's an "illegal immigrant."

Some would like to couch that to a more politically correct "undocumented worker," but that's a euphemism. The government's official term for people who are living and working in the United States without explicit permission from the government are called "illegal aliens." It's nothing personal.

The tricky part, you ask? For me, here's where it crosses the line. Let's take Mrs. Corn Vendor in the previous example:

If you were to say she's "an illegal," that's where I bust you. Why? To say that Mrs. Corn Vendor is an "illegal alien" is to describe her in the context of her immigration status.

However, to say that Mrs. Corn Vendor is "an illegal" is to make an abstraction of her and to dehumanize her.

Let me give you a different example. My friend Shanti Shmulevitz is Jewish. I would never say Shanti is "a Jew," because that leaves it open to interpretation. What the heck might that mean?

Still, it wouldn't hurt for the mainstream media to get past the NAHJ's obviously emotional request and confront the heart of this matter: responsible, fair and non-simplistic coverage of the complex illegal immigration issue is in order.

Take away the flaws in logic, and Ivan Roman's ultimate sentiment rings true: "The words used can be part of the problem or can contribute to fair coverage and a fruitful public debate."