Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, wrote two of the bills supported by immigrant rights groups. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press / May 16, 2013)
By Patrick McGreevy
May 20, 2013, 10:24 a.m. Continue reading
HuffPost Latino Voices
The Associated Press dropped the term “illegal immigrant” from its style guide Tuesday, handing a victory to immigration rights advocates and Latino media organizations who have pressured the news media for years to abandon a phrase that many view as offensive.
The news was first announced in a statement from AP’s Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carrol on the wire service’s blog, who said the change resulted from conversations with people who opposed the term, as well as a commitment to eschew labels.
“Our goal always is to use the most precise and accurate words so that the meaning is clear to any reader anywhere,” Carrol said.
AP will also avoid sweeping labels like “undocumented” or “unauthorized” used by some in the news media who avoid the term “illegal immigrant.”
“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,” the style guide update says. “Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented.”
Instead, the AP styleguide instructs reporters to specify how someone entered the country. Those brought to the country as minors “should not be described as having immigrated illegally,” the guide says.
The National Association of Hispanic Journalists first pushed the news media to stop referring to immigrants without lawful immigration status as “illegal” in 2006, arguing that the term criminalizes people rather than their actions. Almost half of likely Latino voters find the term “illegal immigrant” offensive, according to a Fox News Latino poll published last year.
The NAHJ was later joined by the Applied Research Center and its publication ColorLines, which pressured the media to “Drop the I-Word,” calling it a “racially charged slur used to dehumanize and discriminate against immigrants and people of color regardless of migratory status.”
But pressure to drop the term “illegal immigrant” ramped up last year, as Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and immigrant rights activist Jose Antonio Vargas and ABC/Univision News openly challenged the New York Times and the Associated Press to change their stylebooks. At the time, the AP said it would restrict its use of the term illegal immigrant without dropping it entirely, while the New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan said she continued to view it as the appropriate word choice.
“It is clear and accurate; it gets its job done in two words that are easily understood,” Sullivan wrote in October. “The same cannot be said of the most frequently suggested alternatives – ‘unauthorized,’ ‘immigrants without legal status,’ ‘undocumented.'”
Vargas welcomed AP’s decision to strike the term entirely.
“This was inevitable. This is not about being politically correct,” Vargas said in an interview with Poynter.
The AP’s new policy leaves the New York Times increasingly isolated. Several news organizations, particularly in television, have abandoned the term “illegal immigrant” — an editorial decision likely prompted by networks’ efforts to attract the growing U.S. Hispanic market. CNN, ABC News, and NBC News have all excised the term in recent years, according to ABC/Univision News. Fox News Latino, a digital property of the Fox News empire, uses the term “undocumented” to refer to those without legal immigration status.
The Huffington Post uses the term “undocumented immigrant” to refer to those without lawful immigration status.
UPDATED: The New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan writes on her blog that the paper is also considering changing its stylebook. She writes:
The Times, for the past couple of months, has also been considering changes to its stylebook entry on this term and will probably announce them to staff members this week. (A stylebook is the definitive guide to usage, relied upon by writers and editors, for the purpose of consistency.)
From what I can gather, The Times’s changes will not be nearly as sweeping as The A.P.’s.
Read the rest of the explanation at the New York Times.
This post was updated at 5:10 p.m. on Tuesday, April 2, 2013.
Moving ahead in organizing for this effort! This would be one more example of how California can be a leader in defending the rights of immigrant workers who have contributed so much to this economy.
See: TRUST Act to be reintroduced 2 months after Gov. Brown vetoed it
Below: An Article that appeared in numerous papers from the Associated Press. Unfortunately, they are still using the term “illegal” and I have sent them a strong e-mail condemning the use of this term. However, the article does relate that “the U. S. Department of Homeland Security said that each state could determine whether to issue licenses or extend other benefits to young immigrants who qualify for the deferred status” and that some states, such as Arizona and Mississippi will deny them.
Jose Zapata Calderon
“Some states, such as Oregon and Georgia, have announced that they will grant driving privileges to those eligible for the new program. Others, such as Arizona and Mississippi, have vowed to deny them.
California legislators this month approved a bill that would allow an estimated 450,000 eligible young immigrants in the state to use the federal work permits at the Department of Motor Vehicles as proof of lawful presence in the country. The bill is now headed to the governor.”
Posted: Sep 15, 2012 12:27 PM PDTUpdated: Sep 15, 2012 12:47 PM PDT
By GOSIA WOZNIACKA
Associated Press
FRESNO, Calif. (AP) – When 17-year-old Alondra Esquivel needs to get from her rural central California home to classes at Fresno State University 20 miles away, she must rely on rides from her relatives or her boyfriend.
Most Californians her age can drive. But Esquivel, a college freshman, was brought illegally to the United States from Mexico when she was 7. And California has denied driving privileges to immigrants lacking legal status since 1993.
“Without a license … I have to depend on others to do the basic things,” said Esquivel, who lives in rural Parlier, Calif., has classes at the college four times a week in Fresno. “It’s a big inconvenience.”
But Esquivel soon could get driving privileges: She is one of an estimated million eligible for a new federal program that temporarily defers deportation and grants work permits to people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. California has the largest number of potential applicants.
The new immigration policy has brought to the forefront the long-running and bitter debate over whether illegal immigrants should have access to driver’s licenses. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said that each state could determine whether to issue licenses or extend other benefits to young immigrants who qualify for the deferred status.
Some states, such as Oregon and Georgia, have announced that they will grant driving privileges to those eligible for the new program. Others, such as Arizona and Mississippi, have vowed to deny them.
California legislators this month approved a bill that would allow an estimated 450,000 eligible young immigrants in the state to use the federal work permits at the Department of Motor Vehicles as proof of lawful presence in the country. The bill is now headed to the governor.
For young people like Esquivel, foreign-born but steeped in America’s language and lifestyles, the single administrative policy at the federal level, coupled with a state decision, could spell a life-changing moment – transforming school and work opportunities, daily nuisances and even social lives.
In California, where the automobile is king and car-culture dominates, the change could be most profound. Nearly inaccessible without a car, the state is famous for its freeways, streets lacking sidewalks and spotty or nonexistent public transportation. Driving is more than a practical necessity for Californians: it’s a birthright.
Illegal immigrants in California who can’t drive face a long series of daily inconveniences and calculated risks. Some drive without a license, unable to find another way to get to work or school. Others depend on family, friends and co-workers for rides.
It’s especially hard on young people like Esquivel, who was raised in the U.S., but has had to miss out on the quintessential American rite of passage. She got top grades at Parlier High School, earning a merit scholarship to attend college, and plans to become an elementary school teacher. But at an age when getting behind the wheel seems pivotal, Esquivel can’t drive to the mall or to see her friends, not to mention to school or work.
“Sometimes I feel like going out, but I can’t really do that,” she said.
Esquivel was smuggled by relatives through a border checkpoint in a car with her younger sister – an experience she barely remembers.
In high school, she watched classmates get driver’s licenses and cars as soon as they turned 16. Esquivel and a few others could not apply because of their legal status.
“It was hard,” she said. “I felt left out. They were able to do things, go places, and I couldn’t.”
Parlier, population 14,500, has little in the way of public transportation, stores or services. Residents drive virtually everywhere – to get to work, grocery shopping, to the doctor and to church.
Esquivel’s parents, who pick grapes, olives and other crops in nearby fields, don’t have time to drive her places and have not allowed Esquivel to drive without a license, because it’s too dangerous, she said.
“If I get stopped, I could get deported,” she said. “Things like that worry them.”
Numerous bills to grant licenses to those without legal status in California have failed or been vetoed by several governors over the past decade.
Still, the commute to college has proved a challenge. Family members have to wait for hours while Esquivel is in class. And while the young woman’s boyfriend, a U.S. citizen, also studies at Fresno State, their schedules don’t coincide.
Her parents told her she might soon have to drive on her own, which fills Esquivel with dread. For the past month, she has occasionally sat behind the wheel with a relative in the passenger seat, in lieu of driving lessons.
Esquivel, who is in the process of applying for the new immigration program, hopes a license will come with it. To benefit, immigrants must prove they arrived in the United States before they turned 16, were younger than 31 as of June 15, have been living in the country at least five years, are in school or graduated, and have not been convicted of certain crimes.
Young immigrants who qualify won’t get permanent legal residency or a path to citizenship, but will receive a work authorization card and a Social Security number.
“I’m really hoping the law that allows us to drive will pass,” Esquivel said. “It would be a great relief for me.”
Critics of the new immigration program say granting licenses to young immigrants like Esquivel would reward and accommodate illegal immigrants.
“We’re already paying for the costs of illegal immigration. Why should we pay for additional benefits?” said Bob Dane, spokesman with the Federation for American Immigration Reform in Washington D.C. “The driver’s license is a breeder document which opens up a full spectrum of rights and privileges” such as access to banking accounts, credit cards and mortgages.
But immigrant advocates say denying licenses to people approved under the new immigration program is illogical.
“This is a common sense issue,” said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the Los Angeles based National Immigration Law Center. “These are young people who will have valid work authorization and Social Security numbers. They will need to drive to school, to work, to medical appointments. From a policy perspective, granting them licenses makes sense.”
For Esquivel, a license would also mean fulfilling another wish: driving 200 miles north to Sacramento to visit grandparents she has not seen for years.
—–
Follow Gosia Wozniacka on Twitter at (at) GosiaWozniacka
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Author: KoreAm
Posted: August 7th, 2012
«Stewart Kwoh and Rep. Judy Chu. Photo courtesy of APALC.
by EUGENE YI
Young undocumented students seeking to remain in the United States can receive free legal assistance from the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC).
The APALC will hold its clinics from 2:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. every Tuesday and Thursday. APALC staff and trained volunteers will be on hand to answer questions and guide individuals through the process of collecting the necessary documents to apply.
“Thank goodness we have organizations like the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, which is here to provide legal advice for your individual situation, and you really need to get that advice before you submit your applications,” said U.S. Rep Judy Chu yesterday at a press conference at the APALC office near downtown LA.
On July 24th, undocumented members of Puente came out at the racial profiling trial of Sheriff Arpaio and were arrested in civil disobedience.
This summer, we are coming out of the shadows and getting on the bus. Our rights and our families are under attack and we’ve come too far to go back now.
Undocumented riders will come out publicly, support local people to build barrio defense, and perform peaceful civil disobedience to challenge the promoters of hate and set an example of love and fearlessness from Arizona to the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina.
Please click to donate for their bail fund.
You can get more info at www.NoPapersNoFear.org, also on facebook at: UnDocuBus
In Denver, you can contact Huy Ong of Jobs with Justice huy@jwj.org or Marco Nuñez of Centro Humanitario mnunez@centrohumanitario.org
In Austin, you can contact Sarahi Uribe at sarahi@ndlon.org
Last month’s Supreme Court decision in the landmark Arizona immigration case was groundbreaking for what it omitted: the words “illegal immigrants” and “illegal aliens,” except when quoting other sources. The court’s nonjudgmental language established a humanistic approach to our current restructuring of immigration policy.
When you label someone an “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” or just plain “illegal,” you are effectively saying the individual, as opposed to the actions the person has taken, is unlawful. The terms imply the very existence of an unauthorized migrant in America is criminal.
In this country, there is still a presumption of innocence that requires a jury to convict someone of a crime. If you don’t pay your taxes, are you an illegal? What if you get a speeding ticket? A murder conviction? No. You’re still not an illegal. Even alleged terrorists and child molesters aren’t labeled illegals.
By becoming judge, jury and executioner, you dehumanize the individual and generate animosity toward them. New York Times editorial writer Lawrence Downes says “illegal” is often “a code word for racial and ethnic hatred.”
The term “illegal immigrant” was first used in 1939 as a slur by the British toward Jews who were fleeing the Nazis and entering Palestine without authorization. Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel aptly said that “no human being is illegal.”
Migrant workers residing unlawfully in the U.S. are not — and never have been — criminals. They are subject to deportation, through a civil administrative procedure that differs from criminal prosecution, and where judges have wide discretion to allow certain foreign nationals to remain here.
News: For immigrants and opponents, court’s ruling hits their real lives
Another misconception is that the vast majority of migrant workers currently out of status sneak across our southern border in the middle of the night. Actually, almost half enter the U.S. with a valid tourist or work visa and overstay their allotted time. Many go to school, find a job, get married and start a family. And some even join the Marine Corps, like Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, who was the first combat veteran to die in the Iraq War. While he was granted American citizenship posthumously, there are another 38,000 undocumented soldiers defending our country.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and three other justices, stated: “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.” The court also ruled that it was not a crime to seek or engage in unauthorized employment.
As Kennedy explained, removal of an unauthorized migrant is a civil matter where even if the person is out of status, federal officials have wide discretion to determine whether deportation makes sense. For example, if an unauthorized person is trying to support his family by working or has “children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service,” officials may let him stay. Also, if individuals or their families might be politically persecuted or harmed upon return to their country of origin, they may also remain in the United States.
While the Supreme Court has chosen language less likely to promote hatred and divisiveness, journalists continue using racially offensive language.
University of Memphis journalism professor Thomas Hrach conducted a study of 122,000 news stories published between 2000 and 2010, to determine which terms are being used to describe foreign nationals in the U.S. who are out of status. He found that 89% of the time during this period, journalists used the biased terms “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien.”
Hrach discovered that there was a substantial increase in the use of the term “illegal immigrant,” which he correlated back to the Associated Press Stylebook’s decision in 2004 to recommend “illegal immigrant” to its members. (It’s the preferred term at CNN and The New York Times as well.) The AP Stylebook is the decisive authority on word use at virtually all mainstream daily newspapers, and it’s used by editors at television, radio and electronic news media. According to the AP, this term is “accurate and neutral.”
For the AP to claim that “illegal immigrant” is “accurate and neutral” is like Moody’s giving Bernie Madoff’s hedge fund a triple-A rating for safety and creditworthiness.
It’s almost as if the AP were following the script of pollster and Fox News contributor Frank Luntz, considered the foremost GOP expert on crafting the perfect conservative political message. In 2005, he produced a 25-page secret memorandum that would radically alter the immigration debate to distort public perception of the issue.
The secret memorandum almost perfectly captures Mitt Romney’s position on immigration — along with that of every anti-immigrant politician and conservative pundit. For maximum impact, Luntz urges Republicans to offer fearful rhetoric: “This is about overcrowding of YOUR schools, emergency room chaos in YOUR hospitals, the increase in YOUR taxes, and the crime in YOUR communities.” He also encourages them to talk about “border security,” because after 9/11, this “argument does well among all voters — even hardcore Democrats,” as it conjures up the specter of terrorism.
George Orwell’s classic “Nineteen Eighty-Four” shows how even a free society is susceptible to manipulation by overdosing on worn-out prefabricated phrases that convert people into lifeless dummies, who become easy prey for the political class.
News: For immigrant graduates, a ‘leap of faith has been answered,’ educator says
In “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” Orwell creates a character named Syme who I find eerily similar to Luntz. Syme is a fast-talking word genius in the research department of the Ministry of Truth. He invents doublespeak for Big Brother and edits the Newspeak Dictionary by destroying words that might lead to “thoughtcrimes.” Section B contains the doublespeak words with political implications that will spread in speakers’ minds like a poison.
In Luntz’s book “Words That Work,” Appendix B lists “The 21 Political Words and Phrases You Should Never Say Again.” For example, destroy “undocumented worker” and instead say “illegal immigrant,” because “the label” you use “determines the attitudes people have toward them.”
And the poison is effective. Surely it’s no coincidence that in 2010, hate crimes against Latinos made up 66% of the violence based on ethnicity, up from 45% in 2009, according to the FBI.
In his essay “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell warned that one must be constantly on guard against a ready-made phrase that “anaesthetizes a portion of one’s brain.” But Orwell also wrote that “from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase … into the dustbin, where it belongs” — just like the U.S. Supreme Court did.
Local police & sheriffs need to stop working with ICE! Tell Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod to vote YES on AB 1081. The “Trust Act” will prevent everyday people from getting deported after interacting with police for small traffic violations & other small things. Call her Sacramento office (916) 651-4032 and her Montclair Office (909) 621-2783 NOW! The Senate vote may be this Thursday! Assembly is later.