4 ms·

>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

>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?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mikestew 7y ago
Has the legality of their immigration been determined at that point? Or is the detention center used to hold them until that has been determined? Regardless, the statement as written is accurate. How many modifiers are necessary?
- blancheneige 7y ago
  >Has the legality of their immigration been determined at that point? 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?
  - nabnob 7y ago
    >By that logic, how do you even know they're immigrants to begin with, then? All it takes it flashing your visa or any documentation that 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? ICE actually has detained citizens in the past - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/23/francisco-erwin-galicia-ice-cpb-us-citizen-detained-texas/ 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.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
arcturus17 7y ago
> battle with Trump over treatment of immigrants > Immigrant detainees > immigration detention facilities > undocumented immigrants > immigrant rights advocates > immigration attorney Which of those offends you and needs the illegal part?
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  The 'undocumented immigrants' part, which is simple semantic bleaching.
dragonwriter 7y ago
Because the detention facilities don't house exclusively illegal immigrants (in fact, given the fact that US citizens have been detained in them for extended periods despite clear proof of citizenship, even calling them immigrant detention facilities is somewhat misleading.) A more accurate label would be “arbitrary detention facilities”.
- krapp 7y ago
  >A more accurate label would be “arbitrary detention facilities”. And "concentration camp" would be even more accurate.
- blancheneige 7y ago
  > given the fact that US citizens have been detained in them for extended periods despite clear proof of citizenship 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.
clarkevans 7y ago
Many immigrants (especially those from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) in ICE detention facilities presented themselves at the border and legally requested asylum. For more information on "northern triangle" and why these immigrants are fleeing their homeland, read https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/central-americas-violent-northern-triangle https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/central-americas-violent-no... 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-process/ https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-u-s-asylum-p...)
- blancheneige 7y ago
  The article makes no mention of asylum seekers. This is pure speculation on your part.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Wow. 20,000 granted asylum to the US in 2016. 70,000 granted asylum to Sweden in 2016.
moate 7y ago
Because it houses both "legal" and "illegal" immigrants. Can you explain why it's so important that the word be included even if it's detrimental to objective truth?
wahern 7y ago
1) Because they're not necessarily all illegal immigrants. AFAIU, ICE puts asylum seekers who are otherwise following the letter of the law into these detention centers--show up at the border, request asylum, get put into detention while awaiting disposition of your case. 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.
- blancheneige 7y ago
  I am referring to the terminology used by the department of homeland security [1] and other legal institutions that oversee their cases. If they are predominantly asylum seekers, then why not refer to them as asylum seekers? >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-enforcement https://www.dhs.gov/topic/immigration-and-customs-enforcemen...
  - wahern 7y ago
    But not all people are using legal terms. Nobody who objects to the phrase "illegal immigration" disputes the fact that illegal immigration and illegal immigrants exist as a technical matter. There's no 8 USC § 1325 truther movement. They're very up front about their reasons for objecting to the use of the phrase, and while perhaps extreme you can draw analogies to colloquial distinctions we've always made regarding terms like "criminal". 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.
spoiledtechie 7y ago
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The term illegal is expressed in Oxford and Merriam Webster. Its also expressed and used quite a lot in legal documents and written law. Neither mean to use it as a racist term.

>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?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mikestew 7y ago

Has the legality of their immigration been determined at that point? Or is the detention center used to hold them until that has been determined? Regardless, the statement as written is accurate. How many modifiers are necessary?

blancheneige 7y ago
>Has the legality of their immigration been determined at that point? 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?
- nabnob 7y ago
  >By that logic, how do you even know they're immigrants to begin with, then? All it takes it flashing your visa or any documentation that 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? ICE actually has detained citizens in the past - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/23/francisco-erwin-galicia-ice-cpb-us-citizen-detained-texas/ 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.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

arcturus17 7y ago

> battle with Trump over treatment of immigrants > Immigrant detainees > immigration detention facilities > undocumented immigrants > immigrant rights advocates > immigration attorney Which of those offends you and needs the illegal part?

throwawaysea 7y ago
The 'undocumented immigrants' part, which is simple semantic bleaching.

dragonwriter 7y ago

Because the detention facilities don't house exclusively illegal immigrants (in fact, given the fact that US citizens have been detained in them for extended periods despite clear proof of citizenship, even calling them immigrant detention facilities is somewhat misleading.) A more accurate label would be “arbitrary detention facilities”.

krapp 7y ago
>A more accurate label would be “arbitrary detention facilities”. And "concentration camp" would be even more accurate.
blancheneige 7y ago
> given the fact that US citizens have been detained in them for extended periods despite clear proof of citizenship 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.

clarkevans 7y ago

Many immigrants (especially those from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) in ICE detention facilities presented themselves at the border and legally requested asylum. For more information on "northern triangle" and why these immigrants are fleeing their homeland, read https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/central-americas-violent-northern-triangle https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/central-americas-violent-no... 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-process/ https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-u-s-asylum-p...)

blancheneige 7y ago
The article makes no mention of asylum seekers. This is pure speculation on your part.
jacobush 7y ago
Wow. 20,000 granted asylum to the US in 2016. 70,000 granted asylum to Sweden in 2016.

moate 7y ago

Because it houses both "legal" and "illegal" immigrants. Can you explain why it's so important that the word be included even if it's detrimental to objective truth?

wahern 7y ago

1) Because they're not necessarily all illegal immigrants. AFAIU, ICE puts asylum seekers who are otherwise following the letter of the law into these detention centers--show up at the border, request asylum, get put into detention while awaiting disposition of your case. 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.

blancheneige 7y ago
I am referring to the terminology used by the department of homeland security [1] and other legal institutions that oversee their cases. If they are predominantly asylum seekers, then why not refer to them as asylum seekers? >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-enforcement https://www.dhs.gov/topic/immigration-and-customs-enforcemen...
- wahern 7y ago
  But not all people are using legal terms. Nobody who objects to the phrase "illegal immigration" disputes the fact that illegal immigration and illegal immigrants exist as a technical matter. There's no 8 USC § 1325 truther movement. They're very up front about their reasons for objecting to the use of the phrase, and while perhaps extreme you can draw analogies to colloquial distinctions we've always made regarding terms like "criminal". 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.

spoiledtechie 7y ago

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The term illegal is expressed in Oxford and Merriam Webster. Its also expressed and used quite a lot in legal documents and written law. Neither mean to use it as a racist term.