Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Charles Garcia — the CEO of Garcia Trujillo, a strategy
firm that works with Hispanic-owned companies — does not like the term illegal
immigrant. He prefers economic refugee.
He is not alone. Media Matters for America, the liberal
website “dedicated to . . . correcting conservative misinformation,” claimed
that Fox News used President Obama’s June 15 immigration announcement as an
“opportunity to dehumanize undocumented immigrants.” MMFA reported that Fox News
used the term illegals 17 times during its June 15 broadcast, illegal aliens
twice, and aliens once, not including uses of these terms in on-screen text.
These “racial slurs” are further proof, the site contended, of Fox’s “long,
documented history of anti-immigrant bias.”
Efforts to change the parlance of the immigration debate
are not new. In 2010 the Diversity Committee of the Society of Professional
Journalists called on journalists nationwide to replace illegal immigrant and
illegal alien with undocumented worker or undocumented immigrant, arguing that
the usual terms are “offensive” to Latinos.
That same year, the Applied Research Center, a
self-described “racial justice think tank,” launched its Drop the I-Word (DTIW)
campaign, calling on media outlets and elected officials to “uphold reason, due
process, and responsible speech by dropping the i-word.” Illegals, the think
tank contends, “is a racially charged slur used to dehumanize and discriminate
against immigrants and people of color regardless of migratory status.”
But while DTIW maintains that “the i-word” is racist,
dehumanizing, and often inaccurate, is it actually any of the three?
“The discriminatory message is not explicit, but hidden,
or racially coded,” DTIW’s website reports, and it “fuel[s] violence.” Mónica
Novoa, who came to the U.S. in the 1980s as a refugee from wartorn El Salvador,
is the coordinator of the DTIW campaign. She cites as an example of
anti-immigrant violence the case of Marcelo Lucero, a 37-year-old Ecuadorian
immigrant who was stabbed to death on Long Island in 2008. Angel Loja, a friend
of Lucero’s who was with him at the time, testified that the gang that assaulted
them called them “Mexicans” and “illegals.” Novoa also mentions bullying
against immigrants in Charlotte, N.C., where the language used indicates, she
says, the “anti-immigrant animus . . . obvious in the comments section of any
daily around the country whenever someone reports on immigration.”
These attacks should be condemned in the strongest terms,
but they do not suggest that the majority — or even a significant minority — of
the Americans who use the word “illegal” use it as racist code. Moreover, the
claim that “illegal” is a racist slur fits a broader pattern: “Pro-immigration”
organizations are quick to label as racist any attempt to enforce federal
immigration law, while the DTIW campaign regularly conflates “anti-Latino” with
“anti-immigrant” under the guise of promoting “racial justice.”
One of DTIW’s taglines, taken from Holocaust survivor and
Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel, is “No Human Being Is Illegal.” The vocabulary
of the current immigration conversation, says Novoa, “demoniz[es] an entire
population of people.” Take alien, for example: “Alien has the connotation of
someone being subhuman.”
Shahid Haque-Hausrath of the Montana-based Border
Crossing Law Firm, PC, wrote on the firm’s website that illegal alien “implies
that a person’s existence is criminal . . . [It] has been used to dehumanize
immigrants and divorce ourselves from thinking of them as human beings.”
“A person cannot be illegal,” says Novoa. The language
confuses the “actions and the people who are committing those actions.” But in
fact, for Novoa, there is no place at all for illegal: She refuses to use the
word in any context. And she is stumped, during our phone conversation, when I
ask how it differs from calling someone a criminal or a felon.
Novoa says that it is “easy to confuse this term for
legal language.” U.S. law does not define illegal alien, nor does it use the
term illegal immigrant. But it does define alien: “any person not a citizen or
national of the United States” (8 USC § 1101). This has been standard
government usage for centuries, most famously in the 1798 Alien and Sedition
Acts. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services continues to use the term in
official publications. As for illegal, the term indicates a violation of the
law; there is therefore no reason for the law itself to define it.
In part, Haque-Hausrath rests his argument against
illegal alien on the fact that overstaying a visa, as many immigrants have
done, “is a civil offense, not a criminal offense” — which is true: It is a federal
criminal misdemeanor to enter the U.S. other than through an established point
of entry, while it is a civil infraction to overstay a visa. But to call only
the former “illegal” is misleading. Many things are illegal but not criminal —
exceeding the speed limit, for example. Overstaying one’s visa falls into this
category.
Another argument against illegal immigrant is that it
presumes the guilt of those it denotes. NumbersUSA estimates that, of the
approximately 10.8 million “unauthorized immigrants” currently residing in the
U.S., about 60 percent crossed the border illegally and about 40 percent
overstayed their visas. But to call all 10.8 million of those immigrants
illegal, according to DTIW’s website, “finds many people guilty before they are
tried.” Haque-Hausrath concurs:
When white collar criminals are arrested, we are careful to label them as “accused” and state that the government’s accusations are merely “alleged.” But when newspapers refer to immigration raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the headlines often repeat ICE’s figures on the number of “illegal aliens” who were arrested. These individuals are effectively convicted in the media before trial ever begins.
That is reasonable ground for precision in terminology, but
it is no argument against using the term for people who in fact are here
illegally. Discussing the problems — economic, social, cultural, moral — of a
massive population residing in this country in violation of American law
requires a general term, and illegal immigrants is a perfectly reasonable label
for that group.
When journalists say that there are 10.8 million “illegal
immigrants” inside American borders, Novoa says, they fail to put “people
first.” Indeed, the intrinsic dignity of every person should be respected, and
it is true that many immigrants have suffered immense hardship in their home
nations. But empathy should not be an excuse to overlook the fact that people
who broke our laws to come here have no right to remain here. The authorities
and the media should not leap to the conclusion that any particular individual
belongs in this group, but if he is found to have no legal documentation, he
should be treated accordingly.
But DTIW goes farther than merely to dissemble on the
question of illegality. The campaign uses inaccurate language of its own. DTIW
condemns the “anti-immigration strategy” that, through the mainstream media,
has normalized the use of illegal and similar terms. But with the exception of
a few fringe groups, most do not oppose immigration as such. They oppose
illegal immigration, and many argue for restoring the sorts of restrictions on
immigration that existed until the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. Above
all, they insist on the importance of repealing that act’s family-reunification
provision, which has let in hundreds of thousands of low-skilled immigrants.
DTIW’s conflation of nativist groups with people who want strong action against
illegal immigration and a sensible revision of the terms of legal immigration
is, in DTIW’s own words, a practice that “halt[s] and derail[s] reasoned,
informed debate.”
However, for all the misleading arguments and examples,
Novoa’s final advice is sound: “For the purposes of reporting and for the
purposes of the law, what we can ask is for people to be as precise as
possible.” In the end, a judgment must be made about the subject of any
conversation about immigration, and the goal of that judgment should be to
label the persons involved as accurately as possible.
And that responsibility belongs to both sides.
No comments:
Post a Comment