I'm as averse to Political Correctness as the next person, and the story doesn't go into what they will call folks who are not in the country legally. Part of the implication is that immigration status is rarely useful in describing people (and there's some truth there), and "illegal" should refer to actions, not people (true enough). Which is okay, but the tone of the editor's blog post vaguely grates me in some fashion.
Less ambiguous, though, is my reaction to the first couple dozen (at time of reading) comments below the story. They're all about the snarky or seething anger, anger, and more anger, most of it because of ALL THEM DAMN ILLEGALS COMING HERE AND GETTING FREE PHONES AND FREE DOCTORS AND MOOCHING OFF ALL US HARD-WORKING CITIZENS!
I don't know about you, friends, but I certainly don't see a lot of folks who have made a lot of unsafe (and costly) effort to enter the US illegally just sitting around, chatting on free phones, and goofing off. Most of them are the people cutting lawns, picking crops, scrubbing floors, cleaning offices, washing dishes, and all that other grunt work that I doubt many if any of those commenters (or their kids, after say age 16) are very interested in doing.
Reshared post from +The Denver Post
The Denver Post, effective immediately, is dropping the use of the term "illegal immigrant" to describe anyone in the United States unlawfully. The Associated Press announced a similar change to their policy recently, but it had been a point of discussion in our newsroom for even longer. Read Editor Greg Moore's explanation of our decision below.
FULL STORY: http://dpo.st/YhqcGw
(Photo by Hyoung Chang, The Denver Post)
Looks like the folks are all trying to our-troll each other.
I'd like to talk to people that get all frothy about the supposed perks "mooches" (no matter how they came to be in the country) get. Maybe they can track down my ex so the state can someday garnish his wages for the years of child support he has yet to pay. My immigrant family is far more responsible for their life choices than my white 'murrican ex.
NPR interviewed NYT's editor on it last week or the week before — I think they mentioned the new preferred term as being "undocumented alien."
I guess it comes back to the essential question of what attributes about a person are essential to a story, and even moreso which need to be directly tied to the person. If there is a murder, how essential is it to know that the alleged perp is an Illegal Immigrant, vs. a Jew, vs. a Blond, vs. a Computer Programmer, vs. a Left-Hander?
If the person is actually picked up on immigration charges, then noting that is clearly part of the story.
All that said, while I understand the idea of labeling a person as "illegal" is dehumanizing, the term "illegal immigrant" suffers only from whether the adjective is being applied to the person or to the noun (i.e., Fred has immigrated illegally therefore he is an illegal immigrant.) Since clearly there is some ambiguity here (esp. since the term gets truncated down to "illegals"), I think there's a legitimate case for changing the terminology used.
Further, I'm conflicted because I recognize that Fred is in the country illegally, but I also recognize that it is (in general) not a matter of being a casual criminal or scofflaw or mocking mooch or menacing felon, but most likely a matter of seeking needed employment. One is still a criminal, at least technically, if on steals a loaf of bread to feed one's family — but it's still substantively different (IMO) from stealing a car to take a joyride.
So I'm not sure what the best terminology is here. The DP's explanation is feebly expressed, but I think their decision is a correct one. By the same token, "undocumented alien" seems far too neutral to describe the situation.