Las Vegas newspaper caves in to the politically correct crowd and uses ‘undocumented’ instead of ‘illegal’

After seeing those double-barrel op-eds in the Las Vegas Review-Journal a couple of weeks ago by Fatma Marouf and Patricia Vázquez, saying the use of the term “illegal” was dehumanizing and inaccurate, I knew it was merely a matter of time before the paper’s current management would bend under pressure and change how it labels those in the country illegally.

Jump page for story that accedes to demands to use the term ‘undocumented’ for illegal immigrants.

As editor of the paper for more than two decades, I resisted the constant pleas from the politically correct types to drop the Associated Press style “illegal immigrant” in favor of “undocumented” immigrant or worker. The latter term is simply imprecise and misleading, suggesting misplaced paperwork instead of willful defiance of the country’s immigration law.

Today the PC crowd won. In Laura Myers’ story on the attorney general speaking at La Raza here, she twice uses the term illegal immigrants but also uses the terms “undocumented” immigrants, “disenfranchised” immigrants, “young” immigrants and just plain immigrants.

On the other hand, Glenn Cook’s column uses the term “illegal immigrant” and Charles Krauthammer uses the AP frowned-upon term “illegal alien.” So, there doesn’t appear to be a blanket ban, yet.

For years the AP Stylebook has stated: “illegal immigrant Used to describe those who have entered the country illegally, it is the preferred term, rather than illegal alien or undocumented worker. Do not use the shortened term illegals.”

Late this past year the AP weakened but did not knuckle under entriely by adding this language: “Acceptable variations include living in the country without legal permission. Use of these terms, as with any terms implying illegalities, must be based on reliable information about a person’s true status.”

In her op-ed in the R-J, Marouf argued, “Calling these individuals ‘illegal’ before an immigration judge has had the opportunity to examine their cases is like calling someone charged with a crime a ‘criminal’ before the outcome of the trial.”

A certain blogger I know blew major holes in that bogus argument with this rather amusing hypothetical:

Imagine that an FBI agent appears before Congress to report on an increase in bank robberies and some suggested changes to more easily apprehend the culprits.

“Last year we had to deal with 6,000 bank robberies in America,” the agent begins. “The bank robbers typically …

“Wait,” a congresscritter interrupts him. “Our country has a principle of respecting the presumption of innocence as a fundamental right. I cannot allow you to carelessly wield the word ‘bank robber,’ effectively passing sentence on the person before a judge has done so. After all, some of these people may have just gotten confused, tried to withdraw money in excess of their current account balance. So please let’s not demonize this entire class of people. Instead, in your testimony, I’d like you to refer only to ‘persons who withdrew cash from our banks in a context in which their account balance sufficiency was unknown or unclear.’ Could you do that for me, please, Agent Jones?”

Would this facilitate a clear and coherent discussion of possible means of reversing a growth in bank robberies? Of course not. Such a nonsense formulation could be designed only to CRIPPLE such a discussion.

If you think that one is ludicrous, just read this blogger’s depiction of Agent Jones trying to testify about pedophiles … or “youth romance mentors.”

This blogger recognizes the Orwellian concept: He who controls the language controls the debate.

By the by, gentle reader, both Cook and Krauthammer do an excellent job of following up on a previous posting here about the Imperial President issuing edicts instead of following the law.

Krauthammer is shocked into the use of an exclamation point:

Consider this breathtaking cascade: An administration violates its constitutional duty to execute the law by deliberately refusing to enforce it. It then characterizes its non-enforcement as simply establishing priorities. It then tries to strike down a state law on immigration on the grounds that it contradicts federal law — by actually trying to enforce it!

Cook then reveals what Obama did after the Supreme Court upheld a major portion of Arizona’s immigration law:

He announced federal authorities would not respond to calls to verify the immigration status of anyone detained by Arizona police — in violation of federal law — unless they’re violent offenders, fugitives or people who’ve been deported previously. Obama then terminated every 287(g) partnership in the state. The agreements allow local police to verify the immigration status of suspects in custody. Those 287(g) partnerships remain in force in more than 30 other states, including Nevada.

Talk about arbitrary and extralegal. Or are we allowed to talk about that? It might offend someone to use accurate and precise language.