Image 01 Image 03

L.A. Times outdoes even the language police — tosses “illegal immigrant” and “undocumented immigrant”

L.A. Times outdoes even the language police — tosses “illegal immigrant” and “undocumented immigrant”

I knew we lost “illegal immigrant” and “illegal immigration” to the language police.

The preferred and completely politically correct substitute term was supposed to be “undocumented immigrant.”

Even Colorlines, the group pushing the claim that “illegal immigrant” is racist, used the term “undocumented immigrant” in a recent story:

Hundreds of undocumented immigrants have been deported back to their country of origin by hospitals seeking to curb high costs. According to a recent report compiled by immigrant advocacy groups at least 600 immigrants were removed over a five-year period because they were ineligible for public insurance as a result of their immigration status.

But the L.A. Times is going beyond even Colorlines, and will no longer use “undocumented immigrant.”

L.A. Times updates guidelines for covering immigration (h/t @mlcaderone)

The Los Angeles Times has announced new guidelines for covering immigration.

The goal is to “provide relevance and context and to avoid labels.”

That means stories will no longer refer to individuals as “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented immigrants,” but instead will describe a person’s circumstances.

A memo from The Times’ Standards and Practices Committee announcing the change explains the move away from labels:

” ‘Illegal immigrants’ is overly broad and does not accurately apply in every situation. The alternative suggested by the 1995 guidelines, ‘undocumented immigrants,’ similarly falls short of our goal of precision. It is also untrue in many cases, as with immigrants who possess passports or other documentation but lack valid visas.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“That means stories will no longer refer to individuals as “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented immigrants,” but instead will describe a person’s circumstances.”

What does that even mean? Are they going to say that so and so was a resident of Mexico up until 2 weeks ago?

PLEASE – I hope the Koch brothers buy the LA Times, and then adopt the ‘true’ term: Spanish-speaking, ill-educated, 3rd-world craphole, felony-criminal, illegal aliens.

Not politically correct, mind you, but correct nevertheless.

Ragspierre | May 1, 2013 at 8:42 pm

Screw ’em.

They ARE illegal immigrants. (See the period?)

Hey, let’s just call them “utopian citizens”.

nordic_prince | May 1, 2013 at 8:54 pm

But I thought the proper term was “future Democratic voter”?


But the label “right-wing” will still be okay, right?

Sometimes I think that a Tito-like dictatorship over a relatively short time could do wonders with regard to the restoration of common sense, truth and the application thereof.

Unfortunately, the “low information” thinkers have taken over and not much makes sense anymore.

Or am I just being racist here???

Either you’re in the country legally, or you are not. There’s no ambiguity between legal and illegal.

BannedbytheGuardian | May 1, 2013 at 9:17 pm

Nothing bested the ALIEN line at American airports in the 80s.

Back then one could even have a photo under the sign. This was extra splendid when the movie was around.

In respect for this new wave of political correctness we need a new word to describe them.

Because being here illegally is a crime how about referring to them as poor, misguided crimigals?

(Does that sound too much like a sexy new drug?)

Oh wait…illegals, drugs?

Where have I heard about that connection?

I suspect “teabagger”, “Nazi” and “racist” will all still be acceptable as synonyms for Republicans.

How about “foreign-born criminals”?

In before somebody else mentions the Ministry of Truth. IngSoc used to be the only language in the world that was shrinking over time. Now the little Winstons in the blood-libel media are finally catching up.

Why by the way, is “illegal immigrant” not always correct for a non-citizen present in the country without permission?

Are some not immigrants, but instead illegal combatants?

Or just lost?

Is the special status that Obama has conferred on alien youth (illegally, it seems) confused things?

Why is this overly broad and misleading? Is there some status between legal and illegal, or they getting rid of “legal immigrant”, too?

“Illegal resident” would seem to cover all circumstances.

Benghazigate Update. Benghazi survivors threatened by Obama Administration:

They’re pretty much just fugitives.
Some time ago the public relations people were probably given money by the advocacy groups to give the term fugitive a positive spin. With ‘illegal immigrant’ they’re at least half-way to being a citizen – an immigrant not a fugitive. But no matter what pretty or kind label they’re given they are still trespassing and breaking the law. The annoyance here for me is the suggestion I lack empathy, have no understanding, am racist because I call it breaking the law.

Professor: You’re late to the party.

The correct term is “illegal alien”, that’s the legal term for their status.

Everything else is a euphemism.

You missed the ‘change’ from “illegal alien” to “illegal immigrant”.

stupid is as stupid does. Signed, An Illegal Aline

TO: LA Times

Stupid is as stupid does.

FROM: An Illegal Alien in America

They are invaders. Immigration which exceeds the rate of assimilation, and certainly illegal immigration, which is unmeasured by its nature, are both acts of a foreign invasion. It is groups like Colorlines and L.A. Times who are sanctimonious hypocrites when they support either but especially the latter. They provide cover for displacement of American men, women, and children, and protect the causes which prompted the invaders to leave their homes and nations. They provide a defense for corrupt governments, criminal cartels, and fanatical activists (e.g. environmental).

Has any civilization, ever, anywhere, enjoyed unqualified progress without suffering a dysfunctional convergence?

    Juba Doobai! in reply to n.n. | May 2, 2013 at 12:27 am

    Hmm. John Kerry might like this. It will give him another chance to say Jenjis, er Genghis, Khan.

      Yeah, some people find it difficult to understand the hard/soft “G” juxtaposition. It’s an individual character flaw when this peculiar chauvinism is persistent.

      The invasion (i.e. excessive and unmeasured immigration), like our genocide (i.e. abortion), is elective. It’s a choice. I think it’s a bad choice. The first sponsors corruption, in America and other nations. We should not offer incentives for converged migration, which is the cause of overpopulation (i.e. exceeding or straining natural and societal carrying capacity) problems. While the latter sponsors a general devaluation of human life. Both should be rejected with extreme prejudice.

I will be amazed if the LA Times is still in business if they keep this kind of crappy newspeak as the norm.

Perhaps we should just refer to people who are in this country illegally as “Criminals.” And leave out immigration completely?

    Estragon in reply to Paul. | May 2, 2013 at 12:26 am

    They are going out of business anyway, it is only a question of when. The whole flap over the Kochs perhaps bidding for the paper obscures the fact they wouldn’t be on the chopping block if they were making money.

Juba Doobai! | May 2, 2013 at 12:25 am

They won’t call them foreigners either be ause they might consider that xenophobic and Amerigocentric. What will they call them?

Maybe they will describe their circumstances thusly: “tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, wretched refuse, homeless, tempest-tossed.” Hmm, that’s problematical since all cultures are equally valid, it would be inconceivable to describe the circumstances in other countries as producing these. Besides, those people to whom that description applied in times past came here legally. S, that’s no good.

How about this, since there are two continents called America, maybe they will just call them this: Americans from another part of America who are demanding rights and privileges in another part of America in which they were not born. That sounds sufficiently open borders, covers the arses of Marco Rubio and other GOPE who are squealing about reforming, instead of upholding, existing immigration law, and makes Democrats rub their hands in glee because it means, hey, anybody can vote without voter fraud being an issue.

BTW, Canadians, none of this applies to you!

i’m going to stick with two things for sure:

calling them illegal aliens and NOT subscribing to the LA Slimes.

at least not until the Koch brothers buy them and all the lieberals who currently w*rk there quit in protest. %-)

What’s the ‘LA Times?’

This is the kind of quality editorial policy that would be lost if barbarians like the Kochs take over the LA Times.

If someone broke into the LA Times, thereby trespassing and breaking and entering and he or she stole property -it wouldn’t be intellectual property at the LA Times – wouldn’t the perpetrator’s actions be considered “illegal”?

    pilgrim1949 in reply to Sally Paradise. | May 2, 2013 at 9:15 am

    I think that as long as the stolen property was given to some politically-correct group — say, the homeless — that we could rightly demand to be extolled and feted as Champions of the the Downtrodden for providing “FREE” goodies (which, of course, cost nobody anything, they just magically materialize out of thin air).

    Sounds good to me.

pilgrim1949 | May 2, 2013 at 9:11 am


Let me take a stab at it (this former collegiate saber-fencer is double-checking to see if my verbal mightier-than-the-sword pen is “registered” — Nope, still not. Good!)…

How about:

As-yet-unincarcerated law-breaking criminal?

Future non-ID-carrying voter and jury member?

    Juba Doobai! in reply to pilgrim1949. | May 2, 2013 at 9:21 am

    Criminal is a racist value judgment that dismisses the idea that American citizenship s a civil right f all men. In fact, a human right, therefore those who are seizing their rights are not criminal, and that makes you racist.


Those who entered our country illegally should be called criminals or possibly, leaches.

I still like “crimmigrant”

That’s weird. I was on a plane yesterday, coming from Phoenix to Denver, and a young woman got on the plane with a t-shirt which said “I am Undocumented”….guess she didn’t get the message. Brazen, yes, wish I’d taken a pic for the good professor.

Geographically challenged?

How about “non-legal immigrant”?

How about “Not Supposed to be here, law breaking immigrant”?

The leftists at the LA Times are well behind other MSM leftist propagandists. For example, in both of Arizona’s d-cRAT socialist papers (the Tucson Daily Star – better known as the Daily Insult – and the Phoenix Arizona Republic – better known as the Arizona Repugnant) the only term used for ILLEGAL immigrant criminals is “MIGRANT.”

One valid way of describing a person’s “circumstances” is to clearly state whether or not they are in the country legally. So not using the term “illegal immigrant” is actually hiding the person’s “circumstances”.

This is straight-up Orwellian speech they’re advocating. Let’s all practice our goodspeak instead of our realspeak.

I’m willing to give up “illegal immigrant”, since illegal ususally applies to objects, and suggests a lack of choice by the subject.
I far prefer “criminal immigrant”
(a drug is illegal, a person is a criminal)

    Juba Doobai! in reply to wpngjstr. | May 3, 2013 at 12:49 am


    Illegal is made up of a prefix ‘il’ which means ‘not’ and ‘legal’ meaning according to law.

    So, illegal merely means not by law or not according to law. Criminal, yes. But you’re hair splitting on drugs and people.If the law says you should have a legal document that says you’re legally allowed to be here and you don’t have it, you’re illegal.