Rebecca Aguilar…remember her? Former Dallas TV reporter? She ambushed an elderly Army veteran who had fended off some crooks in his own home and business, asking him “Are you a trigger happy person?” As I wrote at the time:
His crime: Defending his property against thieves who repeatedly broke in and stole from him. After more than 40 calls to police didn’t stop the burglaries at his home and place of business (they’re the same place), he shot and killed two burglars in the span of three weeks. Because they were breaking into his home with impunity. Fortunately, common sense and the laws of Texas back up Mr. Walton’s right to take the actions that he took. Evidently, that’s not good enough for journalist Rebecca Aguilar, so she ambushed him.
She got fired for that, then lost the lawsuit over her firing, but she’s back and in the good graces of her fellow Prog activists in the journalism trade.
The Society of Professional Journalists, hearing an emotional plea from Rebecca Aguilar, a member of SPJ and of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, voted Tuesday to recommend that newsrooms discontinue using the terms “illegal alien” and “illegal immigrant.” The resolution from the 7,800-member organization says only courts can decide when a person has committed an illegal act.
Aguilar argued that using those words insulted Latinos and all those who are or had once been in the United States illegally. She used the example of her mother, who became a “proud American” in 1980. Her mother felt insulted “every time she heard that word,” Aguilar said of the phrase “illegal alien.”
“She turned the tide,” the new president-elect, Sonny Albarado, projects editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in Little Rock, said of Aguilar. “She delivered the statement with such passion. After that, there was just a great overwhelming outpouring of support.” Aguilar, a freelance broadcaster in Dallas, is a board member of NAHJ and of the Fort Worth SPJ chapter, was an SPJ “diversity fellow,” and is a new member of SPJ’s Diversity Committee.
There’s more political correctness in all that than you can shake a stick at. But if the SPJ follows through with the new groupthink, then you will not hear the phrase “illegal alien,” or even the watered down “illegal immigrant,” in their reports. Which makes them less factual than they otherwise might be. Accuracy, publicly slaughtered on the altars of emotionalism and identity politics. Here’s what the resolution says:
“WHEREAS, the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics urges all journalists to be ‘honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information’ and;
“WHEREAS, mainstream news reports are increasingly using the politically charged phrase ‘illegal immigrant’ and the more offensive and bureaucratic ‘illegal alien’ to describe undocumented immigrants, particularly Latinos and;
“WHEREAS, a fundamental principle embedded in our U.S. Constitution is that everyone (including non-citizens) is considered innocent of any crime until proven guilty in a court of law and;
“WHEREAS, this constitutional doctrine, often described as ‘innocent-until-proven-guilty,’ applies not just to U.S. Citizens but to everyone in the United States and;
“WHEREAS, only the court system, not reporters and editors, can decide when a person has committed an illegal act and;
“WHEREAS, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists is also concerned with the increasing use of pejorative and potentially inaccurate terms to describe the estimated 11 million undocumented people living in the United States;
“THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Society of Professional Journalists convention of delegates: urges journalists and style guide editors to stop the use of illegal alien and encourage continuous discussion and re-evaluation of the use of illegal immigrant in news stories.”
Illegal alien is a legal term, describing an individual’s status in the eyes of the law. It’s only become a charged term because people like Aguilar have made it one. The next step after this will probably to go after anyone who actually does use the now verboten terms. See: Andrew Bolt, Australian convict.
As for this “Diversity Committee,” does it include any conservatives?
Diddling themselves while pretending the world is what they wish it was is much easier for progressives if they can force everyone else to play along with them.
If we are ever going to get rid of progressive morons we are going to have to take back academia and the MSM.
Or make a parallel system that is better, cheaper and easier to use. I recommend the Internet.
All right then, should we now call “illegal aliens” by a non-offensive term such as “currently undocumented non-taxpayers” or “recently arrived transitional settlers”?
How about invaders.
+1 for that.
Rebecca Aguilar can shove off to California where liberals are welcome.
Oh please. Don’t send her here. We’re overloaded with the fools already.
The proper term is “as-yet-unregistered-Democrat-voter”
sadly, “unregistered Democrat, so we’ll cast their ballot for them” is closer to the truth.
How about “undocumented voters”?
I suppose this means “wetback” is now the politically correct term for those who enter the US contrary to the law. Seems a little rough to me, but if that’s what the SPJ wants I guess the rest of us will have to put up with the term.
I would suggest ‘Non-citizens’- the term is both accurate, and it is not illegal to be a non-citizen, so calling someone that does not suggest they are guilty of a crime. Readers will be able to arrive at the logical conclusion on their own.
misplaced organics
“WHEREAS, a fundamental principle embedded in our U.S. Constitution is that everyone (including non-citizens) is considered innocent of any crime until proven guilty in a court of law and;
There is no such thing in the United States Constitution.
But, if you expect correct information from a bunch of journalists…you’re a nutcase.
“pre-documented guest workers
“Rick Perry groupies”?
Why is the term, illegal alien, particularly offensive to “latinos?” Are they more sensitive than other illegal aliens?
ZING!
Exactly!
I suppose she could have told that elderly veteran,
“You built a [house] out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you were safe in your [house] because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your [house], and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”
If you hear the terms migrant or migrant workers, be on alert. Both terms are being widely adopted in an effort to rebrand illegal aliens as transient and non-threatening folks, motivated solely by work/work opportunities. (Nothing to see here folks, move along.)
The kicker: A current popular PC argument is migrant workers should be allowed to cross borders at will in pursuit of work opportunities. Any costs to the US/taxpayer are offset by the value of the work they do.
This is precisely what the Left is teaching children in the schools: If someone else’s language offends you, and if you can find some way to trace your offense to the fact that you’re in a protected minority group, then the other person is automatically wrong and evil, regardless of what their actual intent and meaning is.
No wonder our public school reading scores are so abysmal; language has no meaning beyond the emotions of the moment.
Eh, whatever. Immigrants who have documents are legal immigrants. To be an immigrant and not have documents is illegal since the law requires you carry them and present them on request.
It won’t take long for undocumented immigrant, or undocumented worker, or undocumented people to be the new offensive and politically charged term that replaces the old offensive and politically charged term.
A better way to guarantee all these offensive and politically charged terms aren’t used anymore is to deport all the people they apply to. Then there will be no need to use them.
I don’t understand the difference. These people haven’t been found by a court of law to be ‘undocumented’ either, and since an undocumented immigrant is one who is here illegally… they’re doing the exact thing they’re pretending not to do, they’re just using a different term for it.
Why not use the same adjective as every other person “assumed innocent until proven guilty” that gets into the news? You can call them an ‘alleged illegal alien’.
Or, we could just call them “wetbacks”; Ike did!
These lines are interesting:
“WHEREAS, a fundamental principle embedded in our U.S. Constitution is that everyone (including non-citizens) is considered innocent of any crime until proven guilty in a court of law and;
“WHEREAS, this constitutional doctrine, often described as ‘innocent-until-proven-guilty,’ applies not just to U.S. Citizens but to everyone in the United States and;
“WHEREAS, only the court system, not reporters and editors, can decide when a person has committed an illegal act and;
Why are they interesting?
I’m no lawyer, nor am I a judge. However, I am an Immigration Officer and have been for 15 years. I can tell you, and i’m sure this will upset many of you, those three lines are not accurate. Or maybe i’m confused? I don’t consider myself a member of, “The court system.” and yet, I determine all the time who is and who is not an, “Illegal alien”.
These illegal aliens do actually have the right to appeal my decision, through something called the 240 process (240 is the section of law), but they rarely do. Usually, they know, just as I do, that they are illegally present in the United States. They know, just as I do, that our court system is expensive. And they know, just as I do, that it’s easier to be deported quickly and sneak back in, than it is to go through a long, drawn out court battle that they will lose anyway.
So how is it, that together, myself and the illegal alien can determine that they are illegal, and carry out the sentence (Judge, jury and executioner) outside of any court of law, and the above three statements still be accurate?
Lest some might think i’m some kind of vigilante, ask anyone who works on the border. They will tell you we spend our days doing this very thing, without any judge, or court.
I submit that these “journalists” are morons who do not understand US Immigration law. I’ll bet that they have no idea that the burden of proof is on the alien, not on the government.
Very sad.
I think they understand very well. But they have a political agenda, and they’re counting on the rest of us not knowing what the law is.
Baggi: “I submit that these “journalists” are morons who do not understand US Immigration law. I’ll bet that they have no idea that the burden of proof is on the alien, not on the government.”
These are no longer journalists but advocates for progressive causes. You and I are supposed to pretend that they represent a moderate, disinterested position, thereby moving the “goalposts.”
Is there no one in the National Association of Hispanic Journalists who sees the irony of having… a National Association of Hispanic Journalists? What does this do for journalism exactly, other than direct it along a biased path. Which is the exact opposite effect of what journalism was intended for.
Aguilar is an illegal journalist. Only journalists who tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and ONLY but the truth are legal journalists.
This makes most MSMers illegal as well. Bloggers – OK!
If someone is only suspected of breaking United States immigration laws but not “proven in a court of law” why not use the correct and common term “suspect”?
“Undocumented Immigrant” is sloppy. It assumes that the suspect both has no documents and is an immigrant neither of which has been “proven in a court of law”. “Undocumented worker” also assumes the suspect works.
Maybe the logic makes more sense in Spanish.
I suppose that line of logic could make most of the ganjaweed users “undocumented herbal enthusiasts.” Release the Hounds!!
I can’t figure out why the offspring of conquistadors merit any special consideration in any event. I mean, weren’t they just evil Europeans who invaded what was apparently a lefty Gaia worshipping paradise and raped and pillaged the poor innocent natives just like the English, French, Germans, Portuguese, Belgians and Dutch?
The Spanish just happened to call their raping and pillaging “intermarriage”.
Oh, and they lost a war to the US back when we were a “developing nation” and they were part of an empire. So now they are “victims” deserving of a place in the Left’s pantheon of helpless innocents who have to be subsidized and pandered to in return for votes?
I kind of like the portmanteau, “criminaliens.” I addresses the fact that they frequently show the same disrespect to the laws inside the nation that they did to the borders.
It’s pretty hard to find an illegal alien who isn’t also committing tax evasion and driving without licenses/registration/insurance. And that’s not accounting for the large minority within the minority that commit theft, drug dealing/using, and violent crimes.
Take a look at the FBI’s most wanted website, they have the main 10 most list and various other wanted lists. Usually somewhere between a fifth and a third of the wanted gunslingers, axe murderers and baby rapers are foreign nationals. Just committing the crimes we don’t have enough depraved Americans to commit.
This is not a matter of ethnicity, but nationality (the illegal alien wanted criminals appear representative of the many illegal alien nationalities). While some of them came here through visa fraud, most didn’t. It’s pretty unusual to find a violent criminal who ever had a legal H1 or M1 visa (work or school).
Our immigration system is a disaster. It puts enormous obstacles in the path of legitimate, productive workers on the one hand, and even greater obstacles in the path of immigration enforcers who would deport violent criminals on the other. The only people that win are the criminals and the immigration lawyers, who are if anything a more debased and vile set than the gang-tattooed cholos and callused tong members on the FBI website.
Recently in Massachusetts — stop me if you’ve heard this before — a frequently convicted and never deported career alcoholic mowed down an innocent and productive young citizen. The Governor, a Mini-Me of Obama, has made it clear his sympathies are entirely with the criminalien in the clink, and not the mourning family (let alone the stone-cold-dead victim). Fortunately for the Governor, even if the criminalien goes to jail, in Mass. even incarcerated felons can vote.
“Invasive Species’?
This reminds me of when my children were in elementary school and the decision was made to bus in large numbers of a particular group to achieve some racial balance. The children already at the school were instructed to call the newcomers, “our Bus Friends”.