'U.S.-born' does not equal 'U.S. citizen'
Mexican, Hispanic, immigrant, illegal immigrant. Each of these words has a specific meaning, but in the discussion on illegal immigration, many particants continue to use the terms as synonyms - or misuse them in other ways. This blog previously addressed the topic, but today a new term came to mind: American-born.
The context I most often discover is "Illegal immigrants..., as opposed to their American-born counterparts...." "Illegal immigrant" is not the opposite of "American-born." People who are American-born are most likely U.S. citizens, but there are also U.S. citizens who were born neither as Americans nor in America. Two examples: People born abroad to American parents, and people who are born abroad but become citizens later. I, for example, was born in Japan to U.S. parents. In the second category, one can estimate that approximately 100 percent of legal immigrants, naturalized Americans, are all born abroad. Therefore, American born does not include all U.S. citizens, even though that is what media sources seem to be trying to say.
Here's the Associated Press, in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, using American-born as the opposite of illegal immigrant.
Here's the BBC, doing the same.
Here's Reuters via the Scotsman.
Here are some alternatives, which are more likely to be actually correct: citizen, U.S. citizen, legal citizen, naturalized citizen, American-born citizen, etc.
Point two: "illegal immigrant" vs. "immigrant"
On the subject of what some might interpret as semantics (though I don't think it so minor), many people have also pointed out that members of the media seem to use immigrant and illegal immigrant synonymously. While it is true this does happen, one must also realize that part of the mix-up comes from simple space issues. As a person who writes headlines for a living, I must point out that space issues particularly exist in headlines. Furthermore, calling illegal immigrants simply "immigrants" is actually correct - just not specific. And if a protest (such as the ones last month) involve both illegal and legal immigrants, then immigrants is the best term to use. But, of course, it is ideal to be as specific as possible.
Hopefully all media sources - not to mention politicians, etc. - will start to be as accurate in their definitions as possible as the debate continues.
On a lighter note, this cartoon comes after 76 suspected illegal immigrant workers were arrested in my area:
The context I most often discover is "Illegal immigrants..., as opposed to their American-born counterparts...." "Illegal immigrant" is not the opposite of "American-born." People who are American-born are most likely U.S. citizens, but there are also U.S. citizens who were born neither as Americans nor in America. Two examples: People born abroad to American parents, and people who are born abroad but become citizens later. I, for example, was born in Japan to U.S. parents. In the second category, one can estimate that approximately 100 percent of legal immigrants, naturalized Americans, are all born abroad. Therefore, American born does not include all U.S. citizens, even though that is what media sources seem to be trying to say.
Here's the Associated Press, in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, using American-born as the opposite of illegal immigrant.
Here's the BBC, doing the same.
Here's Reuters via the Scotsman.
Here are some alternatives, which are more likely to be actually correct: citizen, U.S. citizen, legal citizen, naturalized citizen, American-born citizen, etc.
Point two: "illegal immigrant" vs. "immigrant"
On the subject of what some might interpret as semantics (though I don't think it so minor), many people have also pointed out that members of the media seem to use immigrant and illegal immigrant synonymously. While it is true this does happen, one must also realize that part of the mix-up comes from simple space issues. As a person who writes headlines for a living, I must point out that space issues particularly exist in headlines. Furthermore, calling illegal immigrants simply "immigrants" is actually correct - just not specific. And if a protest (such as the ones last month) involve both illegal and legal immigrants, then immigrants is the best term to use. But, of course, it is ideal to be as specific as possible.
Hopefully all media sources - not to mention politicians, etc. - will start to be as accurate in their definitions as possible as the debate continues.
On a lighter note, this cartoon comes after 76 suspected illegal immigrant workers were arrested in my area:
posted by bp at
8:21 AM
3 Comments:
The problem is that for all their "PC-ness", many (but not all) liberals have the same kind of prejudices as the people they denounce. By conflating "Mexican" w/ "immigrant" w/ "illegal immigrant" etc the media shows that they have the same kind of reductionist views on race & immigration as many of the "un-PC" crowd. So I've never really been surprised when the media does that.
But you are right to notice it. Thanks for being one of the good guys!
By
Miguel Centellas, at 8:03 PM
Speaking of American-born v. other kinds of citizens. Here's a constituitonal law question:
Say someone like me (or you) were elected to Congress. Say he/she became Speaker of the House. Say the president & vice president were to die. Could the Speaker of the House constitutionally become president?
By
Miguel Centellas, at 5:07 PM
That might be your one opportunity to become president! Give it a shot, and have the Supreme Court decide. : ) Seriously, though, that is a great question.
By
bp, at 8:36 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home