As an undergrad, I worked many a job, often alongside people who were not born here in the United States. Some were here legally, some not. They comprised a variety of ages, life experiences, dreams, fears, etc.–just as you’d expect with any other group of humans.
They were not a uniform mass of humanity. Why then, do some Colorado journalists seem so eager to make them one?
Immigration has been a big story here in Colorado. All the more so lately as President Trump has ramped up enforcement of federal immigration laws. Many in Colorado’s left-leaning press have risen to the challenge of reporting on it. Breathless, dramatic stories abound, with an extra special focus on those who might garner the most sympathy. Not present, however, in much of this reporting has been the necessary care and precision of language.
Conflating all ‘immigrants’
Journalists lately have used blanket terms like “immigrant,” “new immigrant,” “immigrant friendly,” and “… deport tens of thousands of immigrants” in stories on Trump’s deportation efforts, with nowhere near the care that they should, the simple reason being that not all immigrants are the same.
Will Trump be deporting all immigrants, as the Colorado Sun seems to infer? Can we expect naturalized citizens to be sitting next to those that came here illegally on a bus headed South? Is the newly arrived green card holder to be shackled next to a gang member who snuck in here a year ago as CPR hints at? Are you still friendly to immigrants if you don’t want criminals or those who choose to not come via the proper channels as the Denver Post has it?
Out of curiosity, I sent emails out to the three reporters in question to see if there was some sort of editorial policy about the use of the blanket term “immigrants” in their articles. As of this writing, I have only heard from The Post’s Aldo Svaldi who told me via email: “We follow the AP style on modifying actions but not people with the term illegal. Per that rule, illegal immigration is allowed but not the phrase illegal immigrants. Likewise, someone hunting protected animals, out-of-season, or without a license is engaged in illegal hunting or hunting illegally but is not an illegal hunter. I could have gone with the phrase ‘cities with policies seen as friendly to illegal immigration.’ That is wordier and officials in those cities, however, might dispute that they support illegal immigration, but rather support immigrants, regardless of status. It is a complicated subject and we are open to hearing from readers regarding the language we use.”
Putting aside my own (informed) skepticism about reporters open to hearing things they don’t like, I wouldn’t wonder about other outlets following some sort of style guide. I can’t also help but wonder if no such policy exists, with individual reporters are left on their own (perhaps also with no editorial oversight?), to write it as they see fit.
After all, a later CPR article, by a different reporter had much more precise language characterizing Trump’s efforts as “… deporting immigrants in the country illegally.”
Whatever the reasoning, whether intentional or not, the language used to have discussions about immigration policy needs to be more thoughtful than what we’re getting now.
Language matters
When reporters are not precise with their language, they do more than just open themselves up to questions by readers. They stoke fears and concerns among people who by rights should have none. I’m sure (because I know of at least one case personally) that there are many here legally who have nothing to fear, yet nonetheless see news that Trump will be deporting tens of thousands of “immigrants” and become quite upset.
I also know (again, via personal experience) that many here legally bristle at being lumped together into one mass and labeled “immigrant.” They consider the difficulty, time, and expense of getting here the right way, and then look to see others who get here by jumping the line or not following the rules. They see article after article purporting to tell those stories, but find their own voices absent. Put yourself in their shoes and I bet you’ll have no trouble sympathizing with their alienation and frustration.
This equivalence-making by some in the progressive press may come out of good motives, or it may come about by a desire to influence readers, but the means don’t matter quite as much as the ends. Putting everyone in the group “immigrants” lumps together those that obeyed the law with those that didn’t, something hardly anyone would call reasonable in other circumstances.
As Mr. Svaldi alludes to toward the end of his response to my questions, there is a way in which the press could honor those who followed the rules and make it clear that being here legally is a very different thing than not.
Not doing so is a choice that informs you, the reader, about their perspective, and perhaps intent. You should be listening carefully.
Cory Gaines is a regular contributor to Complete Colorado. He lives in Sterling on Colorado’s Eastern Plains and also writes at the Colorado Accountability Project substack
