>Two of Ice’s largest immigrant detention centers in California
Can somebody explain to a legal immigrant why The Guardian keeps omitting the illegal part over twelve times throughout the article?
Can somebody explain to a legal immigrant why The Guardian keeps omitting the illegal part over twelve times throughout the article?
2) Are you an illegal driver for driving over the speed limit? Illegal usually implies something criminal. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor--no more than 6 months in prison. That is criminal strictly speaking, but within a certain grey area where we very often refrain from branding people as criminals.
I'm not really hung up on the phrase. I understand both sides, which really come down to wanting to emphasize different aspects of the situation to highlight different political priorities.
I'm curious, though, if newspapers have style guides regarding usage of "illegal". If I Google 'site:theguardian.com "illegal immigration"' I find many hits, so perhaps at least for The Guardian it's at the discretion of the particular journalist.
>Illegal usually implies something criminal.
No, illegality does not usually imply something criminal. These are two different concept that have precise definitions in court. Nor does your "usually" carry any weight, for else we should abide by this probabilistic distribution and call them asylum seekers.
[1]: https://www.dhs.gov/topic/immigration-and-customs-enforcemen...
If you find the language games obnoxious, so be it. I wouldn't dispute that sentiment because I can understand it, I just don't openly espouse it because I personally also find it a little obnoxious to be rancorous with people who are clearly just trying to be empathetic.
This is an ongoing and growing challenge for our immigration system. In FY 2017, as instability in Central America’s Northern Triangle showed few signs of ending, immigration judges decided over 30,000 asylum cases, a considerable increase over the roughly 22,300 asylum cases decided in FY 2016, and the most [since] FY 2005. (source: https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-u-s-asylum-p...)
20,000 granted asylum to the US in 2016.
70,000 granted asylum to Sweden in 2016.
A more accurate label would be “arbitrary detention facilities”.
I'd be curious to hear more about these cases as well as their proportion relative to the illegal immigrants detained at these facilities. I'm not aware of lawful residents being detained in such proportions that this would suddenly warrant tipping the terminology on the side of indetermination.
Regardless, the statement as written is accurate. How many modifiers are necessary?
By that logic, how do you even know they're immigrants to begin with, then? All it takes is flashing your visa or any documentation proving your status which you are required to carry at all times, just like I am. You were not expecting bartenders to give you a free pass in your teenage because you left your ID at home, did you?
>Regardless, the statement as written is accurate
Accuracy by omission is deceit, not journalism.
>How many modifiers are necessary?
One: illegal immigrant. Now I re-iterate my question: why is it so hard for The Guardian to use the correct terminology?
ICE actually has detained citizens in the past - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/23/francisco-e...
I'm a citizen and I don't usually have my passport on me. If someone asked me to show that I was a citizen, I would have no way to prove it to them.
> Immigrant detainees
> immigration detention facilities
> undocumented immigrants
> immigrant rights advocates
> immigration attorney
Which of those offends you and needs the illegal part?
Can you explain why it's so important that the word be included even if it's detrimental to objective truth?
Its also expressed and used quite a lot in legal documents and written law.
Neither mean to use it as a racist term.