Why does Fox choose to use loaded term "illegals"?
On February 5, Fox News' Fox & Friends aired on-screen text stating, "Estimates: 980,000 illegals living in FL," continuing a Fox News pattern of using the pejorative and unprofessional term "illegals" to refer to immigrants in the United States without legal status. Prominent journalists' associations have denounced the use of the term "illegals" by the news media, noting that the term "criminaliz[es] the person, not the action," and "skew[s] the public debate on immigration issues."
Fox News frequently refers to "illegals" in TV reports, on websites
Fox & Friends: "Estimates: 980,000 illegals living in FL." The following on-screen text aired during the February 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Fox & Friends also repeatedly used the term "illegals" while discussing health care reform on the September 28, 2009, broadcast.
MacCallum repeatedly referred to "illegals." During the November 6, 2009, edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, anchor Martha MacCallum repeatedly referred to "illegals" during a discussion of health care reform.
Special Report's Baier referred to "suspected illegals." During the November 16, 2009, edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Bret Baier stated, "Some agents have been required to pursue suspected illegals on horseback or even on foot in order to avoid disturbing protected lands."
FoxNews.com: "Amateurs Patrol Nation's Border for Illegals From Comfort of Home." An April 18, 2008, FoxNews.com headline stated, "Amateurs Patrol Nation's Border for Illegals From Comfort of Home." Other FoxNews.com headlines have included "Waxman: No Gov't Health Insurance for Illegals" and "Illegals Begin Leaving Arizona as New Law Approaches."
Fox Nation headlines routinely refer to "Illegals." Headlines posted on Fox Nation include: "Eva Longoria: Don't Block Obamacare by Scapegoating Illegals," "Is SEIU Funnelling Cash From Illegals Into U.S. Elections?" and "Obamacare Could Cover 1 Million Illegals."
Journalists have called on media to avoid use of pejorative term "illegals," which can "skew public debate"
National Association of Hispanic Journalists called for news media to stop use of "illegals" as a noun. In a March 2006 press release, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ), a "2,300-member organization of reporters, editors and other journalists," stated that it was "particularly troubled with the growing trend of the news media to use the word 'illegals' as a noun, shorthand for 'illegal aliens,' " adding: "Using the word in this way is grammatically incorrect and crosses the line by criminalizing the person, not the action they are purported to have committed":
NAHJ is concerned with the increasing use of pejorative terms to describe the estimated 11 million undocumented people living in the United States. NAHJ is particularly troubled with the growing trend of the news media to use the word "illegals" as a noun, shorthand for "illegal aliens". Using the word in this way is grammatically incorrect and crosses the line by criminalizing the person, not the action they are purported to have committed. NAHJ calls on the media to never use "illegals" in headlines.
Shortening the term in this way also stereotypes undocumented people who are in the United States as having committed a crime. Under current U.S. immigration law, being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime, it is a civil violation. Furthermore, an estimated 40 percent of all undocumented people living in the U.S. are visa overstayers, meaning they did not illegally cross the U.S. border.
Asian American Journalists Association: References to "illegals" can "heighten xenophobia, skew public debate." The Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA) stated in a press release that AAJA "fully supports the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) in calling on the news media to use caution with terminology when referring to undocumented immigrants, workers and laborers." AAJA further stated:
Any reference to "illegals" or "illegal aliens" can heighten xenophobia, skew public debate on immigration issues, and put the lives and well-being of all non-U.S. citizens (undocumented and documented) in this country at risk by suggesting they are criminals and do not belong in the U.S.
Millions of Asian Americans are directly and indirectly affected by the current immigration debate and AAJA urges the news media not to cast a wide net -- through insensitive labels -- that would dehumanize an entire sector of our society.
National Association of Black Journalists: We need to make sure words "are not loaded." The National Association of Black Journalists stated in a press release that it supports the "plea that newspapers, television and radio outlets avoid using the term illegal aliens in the context of the current debate, as it is inaccurate and susceptible to misinterpretation." NABJ added:
The words we use can in fact frame the debate, said NABJ President Bryan Monroe, assistant vice president for news at Knight Ridder, and we all need to make sure those words are not loaded with baggage and off-the-mark. Language does matter. If we cant be accurate, were not doing our jobs.
New York Times' Lawrence Downes: The word "illegal" "pollutes the debate. It blocks solutions." Downes wrote on October 28, 2007, that "America has a big problem with illegal immigration, but a big part of it stems from the word 'illegal.' It pollutes the debate. It blocks solutions." Downes further wrote:
Since the word modifies not the crime but the whole person, it goes too far. It spreads, like a stain that cannot wash out. It leaves its target diminished as a human, a lifetime member of a presumptive criminal class. People are often surprised to learn that illegal immigrants have rights. Really? Constitutional rights? But aren't they illegal? Of course they have rights: they have the presumption of innocence and the civil liberties that the Constitution wisely bestows on all people, not just citizens.
[...]
Meanwhile, out on the edges of the debate -- edges that are coming closer to the mainstream every day - bigots pour all their loathing of Spanish-speaking people into the word. Rant about "illegals" - call them congenital criminals, lepers, thieves, unclean -- and people will nod and applaud. They will send money to your Web site and heed your calls to deluge lawmakers with phone calls and faxes. Your TV ratings will go way up.
This is not only ugly, it is counterproductive, paralyzing any effort toward immigration reform. Comprehensive legislation in Congress and sensible policies at the state and local level have all been stymied and will be forever, as long as anything positive can be branded as "amnesty for illegals."
Geoffrey Nunberg: "[T]here are disparaging connotations to the negative prefix in Illegal." Linguist Geoffrey Nunberg stated in an April 11, 2006, commentary for NPR's Fresh Air:
Nowadays, those connotations have led the majority of the mainstream media to steer clear of the word aliens -- "illegal immigrants" tends to be the phrase of choice. But illegal has something more than a technical meaning, too. True, dictionaries define the word simply as "not according to law." But there are disparaging connotations to the negative prefix in illegal, which is actually just a variant of the prefix in-. Inhuman doesn't mean the same thing as "not human," and you don't become irreligious simply by not going to church. And you hear the same negative tone in words like insincere, inflexible, and illegitimate. So it isn't surprising that we reserve illegal for conveying strong disapproval. We may talk about illegal drugs, but we don't describe the Porsche 959 as an illegal car, even though it can't legally be driven in the US.
Then too, we don't usually describe law-breakers as being illegal in themselves. Jack Abramoff may have done illegal lobbying, but nobody has called him an illegal lobbyist. And whatever laws Bernie Ebbers and Martha Stewart may have broken, they weren't illegal CEO's.
It's only your immigration status that can qualify you as being an illegal person, or that can earn you the honor of being "an illegal" all by itself.[2] That use of illegal as a noun actually goes back a long ways. The British coined it in the 1930's to describe Jews who entered Palestine without official permission, and it has been used ever since as a way of reducing individuals to their infractions.
Don't take my word for it, research Fox News vids.
"If it Promotes Hatred it Leads"
Fox, The most Rusted name in news.
Mr. News
Incredible.
They are arguing against the use of "illegals" as a noun.
Why not try to stay on topic? You were behaving so well yesterday.
If you read down further it state:
Shortening the term in this way also stereotypes undocumented people who are in the United States as having committed a crime. Under current U.S. immigration law, being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime, it is a civil violation. (emphasis mine)
Pretty much sums it up
Furthermore, an estimated 40 percent of all undocumented people living in the U.S. are visa overstayers, meaning they did not illegally cross the U.S. border.
Describing this situation, which the NAHJ have asked other media outs to not do, with broad strokes, they are over simplifying the subject matter in ways that don't detail the whole situation.
It is a reasonable request from the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and the National Association of Black Journalists to have asked other media outlets not to broad strokes and loaded terms when reporting on immigration.
Furthermore, it shows (in this case FNC and its affiliates) that they do not care what National Association of Hispanic Journalists and the National Association of Black Journalists have to say by continuing to ignore their requests for accuracy in reporting.
So yes, please explain why there shouldn't be accuracy in reporting, specifically dealing with immigration.
However it is inaccurate, because using broad strokes and loaded terms when reporting on immigration is the epitome of using spin. Which is the whole point of the NAHJ and the NABJ original request.
You specifically might not care, hence your ignorance for accuracy, but the majority of people who watch the media expect reports to be accurate and there in lies the whole reason this entry exist.
Someday they will just stop and defend their ideas no matter how they are worded. Someday.
False. It is inaccurate as outlined above in the body of the article and in my posts. There has been not "bait and switch" as you put it.
If you are willing to settle for mediocre reporting that's fine. I however cannot.
Actually I don't, everything has been outline. If you refuse to accept it, that's your prerogative, and it doesn't make what is stated above any less true. It just highlights your ability to accept mediocre reporting using broad strokes and loaded terms when reporting on immigration.
It's the use of "illegals" as a noun that MMFA and professional journalism groups object to.
"Illegals" is a pejorative term when applied to a person - people are not illegal. Their behavior may be illegal, but they themselves are not. People can't be illegal - we sanction behavior, not people.
It has a pejorative connotation because of its connection to breaking the law. Too bad. . .
Like the Xian lie: "we hate the sin, not the sinner". Yet they call someone 'an evil person', not 'a person who does evil things'.
I see what you are trying to do, it might go something like this:
So I guess if you have ever gotten a ticket, DUI or even a loitering charge I can, by using a broad term, call you a criminal as you have broken the law.
Now it fits the narrative right ON and pongotwistleton are creating.
Do you get it now?
Speeding is illegal
Driving while intoxicated is illegal.
Not having the proper paperwork to live in the country is illegal.
Trust me, I get what you are saying.
Which is the point that RightON and his sidekick are trying to avoid admitting.
You're on the money. This is a tried and true tactic of the left. Soften the phrase so sixty year old Elmer and Martha hopefully wont connect the dots.
Question: Why are visa overstayers discriminated against when the question of their illegal residence arises? Answer: Because they are not Hispanic and cannot be relied upon to vote en bloc for the Democratic Party once they receive Citizenship via amnesty.
"a Fox News pattern of using the pejorative and unprofessional term "illegals" to refer to immigrants in the United States without legal status. Prominent journalists' associations have denounced the use of the term "illegals" by the news media, noting that the term "criminaliz[es] the person, not the action," and "skew[s] the public debate on immigration issues."
So I guess you, like MMFA, feel that some "prominent journalists' associations" should define acceptability in our society? Who cares what these "prominent organizations" say? When are you and others going to learn that politically correct terminology will not change the reality of what is and what isn't? You seem to want people in this country to use different language so that we see people who are not following the rule of law as victims? Criminal disobeyance or civil disobeyance of our laws both have one thing in common sir.
The reason "prominent journalists' associations are cited is because it shows how FoxNews, which continues to provide evidence that they aren't a legitimate news organizations, is violating standards set by the groups whose standards they should follow if they WERE a legit news organization!
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The topic here is "Illegals". That's a fact. It's not word parsing to say that. It's dishonest to claim anything else.
So, you're the dishonest one here.
And you were behaving so well yesterday. Thanks for proving that the good behavior yesterday was the aberation.
MMFA is highlighting how FoxNews has chosen to use the noun "illegals" when it's inappropriate, pejorative, and not the proper use of that word.
Sometimes you are so naive, or just dishonest.
This is about "illegals" being used as a noun.
I understand you've been trying to derail the conversation from that topic to a different topic with the help of your sidekick pongo, but your attempt at derailment doesn't actually change the subject.
These other groups feelings about the use of "illegal aliens" is irrelevant to the discussion of "illegals" as a noun.
For example, someone may be okay with abortion in the first 20 weeks but totally against it after that time. It would be unfair to come to that discussion and insist that they are for abortion without any prohibitions throughout the pregnancy. It would be unfair to portray their beliefs in that way. MMFA is talking about the use of "illegals" as a noun, not ALL use of the word "illegal" WRT immigrants who came into the country illegally or who overstayed visas.
You're the one who's trying to conflate non-equivalent usages of the word.
It may be describing the same group, but just like it's not okay to describe children with Down Syndrome as retards, it's not okay to describe illegal immigrants as "illegals".
That's the whole point here, and it flew right over your head! How amazing, that you failed once again to figure something out!
Dippy do,
looks like at least some dictionaries disagree with you. This is from the free online dictionary. .. Google it.
il·le·gal (-lgl)
adj.
1. Prohibited by law.
2. Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
3. Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.
n.
An illegal immigrant.
The fact that it's sometimes USED as a noun doesn't make it a legitimate use.
Just like the online free dictionary says a similar thing about "retard"! The fact that it's used doesn't make it RIGHT, you fool!
MMFA is highlighting how FoxNews has chosen to use the noun "illegals" when it's inappropriate, pejorative, and not the proper use of that word.
And one of their arguments is "we don't describe the Porsche 959 as an illegal car, even though it can't legally be driven in the US."
Precisely. And if it IS driven in the US it is properly described as "illegal".
Undocumented workers does not describe the problem... what about undocumented criminal, undocumented convicts, undocumented loafers. ILLEGAL ALIENS or simple ILLEGALS covers the whole gamut.
Try to keep up.
What's the clever conservative way to say "illegal employer" to make it more palatable, or more precisely, easier for conservatives to ignore?
I agree that the words themselves mean nothing to me. Whatever you want to call them, I would just be happy if someone actually offered a workable solution. Sending them all back to their countries of origin would not work and would actually be detrimental to our economy. Keeping them as they are as shadow citizens where they are allowed to be used and abused by their employers and drive all wages down is also unacceptable. I am open to any reasonable compromise in between. But, I do not care what term people use for them.
If and when there is a discussion here about the sleazy Karl Rove, I will offer an opinion. He did more to divide our nation and his electoral antics were reprehensible, not to mention he is a failure and an idiot.
But I stand by what I said about left wing Democrats and their strategists. They need votes, they all need votes. So they do what they have to in order to get them. Meaning people who are dependent on government tend to vote Democratic, so why is it in their best interest to end as much dependency as they can? It makes no strategic sense. Think about it.
I am always a little confused by what dependent on government means. We are all dependent on government at some level. I can only assume you mean the poor or those on welfare? I am never quite sure which group you are referring to with that.
The problem I have with the "conservative" mindset is that they believe most or all people on government assistant do nothing to try to improve their lives and only are looking for a free handout. Most people on Government assistance are only on it temporarily and get off of it as soon as possible.
You've probably never had to feel the humilliation of having to use foodstamps to buy food and have the cashier give you a look of disgust like you are a bug. You've probably never had to endure the insults poured onto you by the so-called Christian charities telling you that you are poor because your faith is weak, that you are lazy or you belong to the wrong denomination.
I do admit that there are people who do abuse the system and THOSE are the ones that need to be dealt with, not the people who are down on their luck, usually through no fault of their own.
You're 100% wrong. But at least you're on topic, unlike your buddies.
Try to keep up.
Duh, of course, it's so they can become dependent on the government and vote accordingly. It's not about helping the working poor, it's about staying in power. Now I got it.
That is certainly true for the liberal elite, and the dumb liberal sheep represented on sites like this blindly regurgitate the talking points. . .
Who are the "liberal elite"?
For years many "undocumented" workers in Florida would have voted Republican if "undocumented" workers were able to vote.
One thing that most people on the right ignore is how desperate most "undocumented" workers are. They live in fear of being sent home.
Even the criminal element, among the "undocumented" workers, won't jeopardize their criminal lifestyle by exposing themselves to the authorities.
So they're not going to do all of the things that scare people on the right.
They will not register to vote and or show up at the polls.
They will not collect social security benefits.
In fact Social Security would be in even worse shape if they had to give benefits to the million s of people who pay into the system with no chance of ever collecting any benefits.
I didn't parse words. I don't have a problem using the word. I've got friends here illegally.
I asked for evidence of your charge and asked for you to provide us with the evidence.
You responded with more anecdotes but nothing to substantiate your claim.
That's when I started parsing words.
No doubt that's why thousands of Hispanic illegal immigrants drive unregistered cars without license or insurance,go to City Commission meetings to demand the "right" to live in Florida with attendant, City-funded "Resource Centers" to help them find employment,gain work skills and learn English; demonstrate to demand Spanish language instruction for their children who overcrowd local schools; attend emergency rooms for free medical treatment and childbirth services for their anchor babies and whine about discrimination if anyone refers to them as "illegal".
Plenty of exposure to authorities. No fear of deportation. Just fear of not getting a big enough share of taxpayer funds.
Because voting should be at least as easy as registering with Selective Service.
We do however do realize that MOST of the illegal immigrants coming to this country are only doing it to better themselves and should be treated with some empathy, but sent back to their countries.
If you have any problem with illegal immigrants then focus your outrage on the people who exploit them so they do not have to pay legal persons more money. Take your outrage on the real people who exploit the poor, not the ones that want to help them.
immigrant
noun
1. a person who immigrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.
2. an organism found in another habitat.
Funny, but I can't seem to find the word "invited" anywhere in that definition. It would seem, then, that it's YOUR statement that is inacurate, ABBA humjob.
Nice try, though.
Nunberg's right, we now call him a felon
This is not rocket science.
It's the use of "illegals" as a noun that MMFA is objecting to here. And the article explains why.
We call him a felon because he committed a felony, in the past. We call undocumented workers "illegals" because they're here illegally, right now. It's an accurate term.
This is not rocket science
Remember, this is about...
Fox News' pattern of using the pejorative and unprofessional term "illegals" to refer to immigrants in the United States without legal status. Prominent journalists' associations have denounced the use of the term "illegals" by the news media, noting that the term "criminaliz[es] the person, not the action," and "skew[s] the public debate on immigration issues."
If I follow this logic then, if someone enters the U.S. illegally, is caught, is sent back to the country of their origin, and then later re-enters legally and becomes a citizen, it is OK to call the "illegal" because they were once an illegal alien.
Because, at the risk of offending liberal sensibilities, they are called illegals because their very existence of being, of being in this country without benefit of legal status, specifically, is illegal. It doesn't go to their character necessarily or insults them as committing every act they do here as being illegal. They are not performing an illegal act if they buy a soda at the grocery store, obviously, but they are still illegals.
It is an accurate description of their status in this country, they are illegals.
You don't have a leg to stand on. Your argument about illegal immigrants has no standing here, since MMFA's point was about using "illegals" as a noun, not an adjective.
It's the term illegal in any context, as a noun or a verb or an adjective, that has MMfA and the biased open border interest groups they cite as "experts" have a problem with. If you believe it's strictly some grammatical error they are complaining about, then you are even stupider than I thought. Wise up.
Why is it okay to call someone a felon if he committed a felony, but not okay to call someone an illegal if he remains in this country illegally?
LOL!
They aren't arguing that point.
You are the one who has consistently tried to change the subject to that one, but that's never been the topic, despite your attempts to make it be the topic.
The topic is "illegals". Used as a noun. Used to describe people instead of their behavior. People aren't "illegals". Ever.
But thanks for showing everyone, once again, that when your attempts to derail the thread are thwarted, you can't resist the personal animus you feel to explode into another one of your posts.
A person who is in this country because of entering it illegally or overstaying a visa hasn't committed an "illegal".
You don't call people who are guilty of contempt of court "contempts", do you? "Illegals" isn't a noun. People aren't illegal. Their behavior might be, but the person is not illegal.
A person who is in this country because of entering it illegally or overstaying a visa hasn't committed an "illegal".
If you're going to base your argument on purely grammatical terms, (whether a word is properly used as a noun), then would you be okay with simply calling those who remain here illegally "lawbreakers."
A person who is in this country because of entering it illegally or overstaying a visa is breaking the law. Is "lawbreakers" okay with you?
Just because a dictionary doesn't have "noun" next to the word, doesn't always mean the word cannot be contextually used as a noun. Your grammatical argument is exceedingly weak. ..
Pretty classic tactics of a failing flailing argument gone bad. She tries, but it just doesn't work anymore.
No. they call them contemnors. They call people who fail to report to their probation officers "absconders." Why? because they absconded. I have news for you, there are many terms and phrases that are used in legal contexts without regard to whether they are used grammatically correct. ..
But if they did, they'd be describing their specific offense, their specific crime, and NOT the generalization that they're "illegals". "Illegals" is not a noun, and shouldn't be used as one.
Adding "-er" to a crime to make it into a noun is different than calling people "illegals".
You can't win this argument, since I have facts on my side. All you're doing is showing your alliance with RightON and your buddies who log on with a sockpuppet identity to log a thumbs up every time you get another thumbs down!
Do you seriously get dumber by the day? They most certainly do call them contemnors. People held in contempt of court have been called contemnors for several centuries, twit. Try doing a little reading before opining about something of which you're obviously clueless.
And you simply don't get it. Again, your grammatical argument is utterly ridiculous. Answer the question: Would you be okay with calling undocumented workers lawbreakers? Lawbreakers is a noun. Does that make it better for you?
The term "illegals", in the context which it is used, describes people who are here right now in violation of the law. The term is entirely accurate, and you have yet to present a cogent argument why it is not.
Of course there are other terms to describe them. But so what? You can call someone who commits rape a rapist, a felon, a deviant, or a slew of other names, all of which are accurate.
Besides your personal aversion to using the term "illegal," explain the inaccuracy!
Do you seriously get dumber by the day? They most certainly do call them contemnors. People held in contempt of court have been called contemnors for several centuries, twit. Try doing a little reading before opining about something of which you're obviously clueless.
And you simply don't get it. Again, your grammatical argument is utterly ridiculous. Answer the question: Would you be okay with calling undocumented workers lawbreakers? Lawbreakers is a noun. Does that make it better for you?
The term "illegals", in the context which it is used, describes people who are here right now in violation of the law. The term is entirely accurate, and you have yet to present a cogent argument why it is not.
Of course there are other terms to describe them. But so what? You can call someone who commits rape a rapist, a felon, a deviant, or a slew of other names, all of which are accurate.
Besides your personal aversion to using the term "illegal," explain the inaccuracy!
Calling a PERSON "illegal" is wrong. NO PERSON IS ILLEGAL. They may have exhibited behavior that's illegal, but no person is illegal. People aren't "illegals".
This is not rocket science.
Please keep proving to everyone that 1) you're out to defend RightON at all costs and 2) you're willing to continue to argue a point long after you've been proven wrong.
I guess you truly do get dumber by the day. Try typing in "contemnor," not contemptor, you freakin dunce. And it doesn't matter one iota how many sites refer to contemnor. It's a legal term, just like tortfeasor and a slew of others that you're likely too dense to dense to comprehend.
Since your grammatical argument falls flatly on its face, you have no argument. How have you proven anything? All you have is your idiosyncratic, emotional-based, belief that its "wrong" to call someone illegal. Other than absurdly whining about nouns and adjectives, you fail utterly to explain why this term is inappropriate for immigrants who are illegally in this country. Again, would you prefer that we call them lawbreakers? Either term is fits the bill.
Do you seriously get dumber by the day? They most certainly do call them contemnors. People held in contempt of court have been called contemnors for several centuries, twit. Try doing a little reading before opining about something of which you're obviously clueless.
And you simply don't get it. Again, your grammatical argument is utterly ridiculous. Answer the question: Would you be okay with calling undocumented workers lawbreakers? Lawbreakers is a noun. Does that make it better for you?
The term "illegals", in the context which it is used, describes people who are here right now in violation of the law. The term is entirely accurate, and you have yet to present a cogent argument why it is not.
Of course there are other terms to describe them. But so what? You can call someone who commits rape a rapist, a felon, a deviant, or a slew of other names, all of which are accurate.
Besides your personal aversion to using the term "illegal," explain the inaccuracy!
ILLEGALS are those that have illegally gained entry into the US or other country... If I go into Canada without going through custome and immigration I am an ILLEGAL.... danggg
It's not an grammatical argument at all.
It's related to the same argument I make on many threads - don't attack someone for things they can't control. This is a behavior issue. That's a place for an adjective. It's not a person who is illegal.
As for them not being able to control it, that is the most ridiculous thing you have said today. So they can't control it, are they forced to stay here against their will? You are an absolute mess.
This discussion ISN'T about the use of the phrase "illegal immigrants" to describe people who are in our country without the proper paperwork. It's about describing people who are in our country without the proper paperwork "illegals".
The better question is WHY is Faux Noise still on the air?!
What they are doing constitutes SEDITION and they should be removed from the air! Better yet, under their beloved Bush's US PATRIOT Act, they can all be arrested, held without bail, charges as terrorists against the American government and her people!
In fact, Gitmo's going to have some open spots - and since they oppose the closing of it......
Or they need to be forced to remove the words "NEWS" and "Fair and Balanced," then to stay on the air - under the rights of freedom of press, blah, blah, blah - they will have to be reclassified from "news" network to reflect their 'all hatred' format. Perhaps it could be labled as an "alternative reality network."
Now, what to call it........?
Calling a group of people "illegals" doesn't include within that label the crime they committed at ALL!
The term "rapist" describes the criminal behavior of that person.
The term "illegals" says that the person themselves is illegal, not the behavior they exhibited.
This is not rocket science.
WHAT is this about?
It's about FoxNews choosing to use "Illegals" when they shouldn't.
The discussion is NOT about what we should use as an alternative.
It's strictly about how "Illegals" should NOT be used.
It's people like YOU who are not staying on topic, and who think that we should talk about what word or phrase we should use who need to skip THAT argument!
You were 100% wrong when you tried to equate "Rapist" to "Illegals", and so you act like I failed in some way. I didn't. I stuck to the topic, not you.
Get a clue.
By the way, rapist refers to the person. The act itself is rape. Note, genius, the term rapist criminalizes the person.
We have a deficit in our US native born population that is twenty years long. It's called Generation X, born 1965 to 1984. Generation X has nine million fewer people than the Boomer Generation born 1945 to 1964. This means that Generation X can not earn, consume, pay taxes or populate the labor force at the level of the baby Boomers because they simply do not have the critical mass. This labor deficit drove labor costs up, manufacturing off shore and sucked in Latino immigrants like a vacuum.
We need Latinos immigrants to earn, consume and pay taxes at the level necessary to run our great nation. Without the Latino immigrants our economy would crash in about ten to fifteen years making the current economic crisis look like a cake walk. So not only can Latino immigrants enjoy the American dream, they actually make it possible.
One hundred years ago employers wouldn’t hire Irish immigrants.
Kenneth W. Gronbach
Likewise "Undocumented" fails to convey the purposeful disregard for federal, state, and local laws broken when a foreign national plans and executes entry into this country without "documentation".
Let's compromise and call these "undocumented aliens"/"illegals" what they really are .. criminals at large.
So, in order to sustain the myth, while we do some nasty things to "others", they have to be rhetorically reconstituted to do away with their human-ness. If someone is "illegal", then we can still remain clean morally and spiritually, while we round them up like dogs, throw them in special "detention centers" (read: concentration camps), and keep them their indefinitely until we finally deport them. If they're "illegals", then it's OK to do the same to kids, women, sick elderly people, etc. If they're not human, our hands are clean.
These same ideas helped sustain the "American moral supremacy" myth in this country during the Native American genocides, and the worst chatell slavery system in history. If they're not human, we still get to call ourselves "Christian".
It's all about language. Words are powerful things. Things have changed very little actually.