Letter to the Editor (website)

The National Association of Hispanic Journalists

March 7, 2007

In response to your article of March 5, 2007 decrying use of the term "illegal alien" we offer the following countervailing argument and comment.

As you acknowledge in your article, the term "alien" is defined by law (in Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as are most terms that relate to the subject of immigration).  Legally, "an alien is any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States."  It was clearly defined and well-understood  long before My Favorite Martian showed up on television. 

The law also provides that no alien may enter (a term also legally defined) the United States unless he falls within one or more of certain legally-defined categories, such as tourist or student.  Or immigrant, yet another term defined by law.  Even if an alien qualifies for one of those categories he still may not enter without official permission, nor remain in the U.S. outside the bounds established for his category by - that pesky law, again.

You accurately note that entering the United States by crossing the border and evading inspection by an immigration officer is a criminal offense. (We note for your information that someone who lies to an inspector at a port of entry to gain addmittance has also committed a criminal act). 

Then you go on to subtly mislead, though, by saying that someone who enters legally and then violates his status (such as a tourist taking a job) has committed a civil violation, but not a criminal violation.  You apparently would have your reader believe that the fact it is a civil violation somehow does not create an illegal status.  To the contrary.  While it may not be a criminal violation, a violation of status is still an ongoing violation of the law, and it results in deportation proceedings when discovered.  Thus, anyone who does any of those things has broken the law, and  is in the United States illegally.  That is not a quibble; it is the crux of the matter.

So a precise, legal characterization for that person is "alien illegally in the United States."  In the interest of brevity, then, an "illegal alien". 

Your desire to substitute the term "undocumented immigrant" is an attempt to deflect attention from the alien's actual status.  The point of it all is not documents; the point is lack of legal status.   The difference matters, unless, of course, the whole idea of nationality is anathema.

Furthermore, your desire to dismiss the term “alien” from public discourse leaves the national vocabulary without a term to describe someone from another country, as though such things are unimportant.  It’s a neat trick to achieve an end – George Orwell would approve. 

It is a sad commentary that an organization of professional journalists (and you aren't the only one doing this, of course) wants to abandon precision of expression and legal accuracy for a turn of phrase that is, at its heart, an expression of ethnic and editorial bias in favor of open borders.  You do your profession a disservice of the worst order when you allow your biases to warp to that degree any journalistic ethics you might have.

It would be better for you, more true to your calling, to adopt the term "illegal alien" as a matter of editorial policy.  You should encourage other journalists to do it, and explain to all why you have done so - because it is exactly, precisely, the accurate term.

Kent Lundgren

Chairman

National Association of Former Border Patrol Agents

(509) 961-7001

nafbpo@nafbpo.org