Whenever a new policy discussion arises, the media always jumps on some new way to frame the debate in its favor. Immigration reform is no exception. The Associated Press announced April 2 that the definition of illegal immigration will be changed to reflect the illegality of the act rather than that of the person. The amended entry reads as follows:
Illegal immigration — Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.
Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented.
Do not describe people as violating immigration laws without attribution. Specify wherever possible how someone entered the country illegally and from where. Crossed the border? Overstayed a visa? What nationality?
People who were brought into the country as children should not be described as having immigrated illegally. For people granted a temporary right to remain in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, use temporary resident status, with details on the program lower in the story.
When the AP writes that reporters should “use illegal to refer to an action, not a person,” it victimizes immigrants as people who are at the mercy of some domineering system that operates beyond their control. It shifts responsibility and not only misrepresents the perpetrator but also the action itself. Many will now sympathize with those who are living in this country illegally, thus establishing a foundation for leniency. It is no coincidence that such political correctness comes in the midst of newly introduced immigration bills in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, which caused a new migration of illegal immigrants into this country.
“We’ve seen a 500 percent surge in the amount of activity from August to December of last year,” Janice Kephart of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies said in a recent interview.
Yes, believe it or not, the content of the AP Stylebook can be an effective tool for pushing forward policy reform; and it does not only affect our understanding of immigration policy. According to AP Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll, there is a concerted effort to eliminate all labels from the Stylebook. The “labeling” power of the media is a powerful one that should not be underestimated. Every issue with a label attached to it, whether it be same-sex marriage or terrorism, can be easily subject to a hidden media agenda. Once you control how the person who commits a certain action is defined, then you control how that action is defined.
People are much more likely to be sympathetic to the man who identifies himself as a woman than the transgender, which can change their views regarding marriage. Once the AP has unlimited labeling control, the story is no longer about a terrorist killing innocents to bring about the downfall of a civilization, but a freedom fighter who is fighting for what he believes in. And no, I’m not saying that illegal immigrants are terrorists. I’m just saying that the next time you read a story about immigration, expect to come away more confused than satisfied.