Immigration Reporter Julia Preston’s Views on ‘Illegal Immigrant’

NEW YORK TIMES (Blog)

By Margaret Sullivan

September 26, 2012

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/immigration-reporter-julia-prestons-views-on-illegal-immigrant/

Earlier this week, I opened up the question of whether the term “illegal immigrant” is disparaging or simply accurate. The response has been robust, and I’m paying attention to all of it – in e-mails, on Twitter, in comments on my blog posts and in conversations.

As one step along the way, I chatted with The Times’s immigration reporter Julia Preston this morning. Because she is such an important voice in this discussion, I want to present what she had to say as a separate post. Ms. Preston – who speaks Spanish, Portuguese and French — is a former correspondent in Mexico who has also covered the federal courts.

It’s worth noting that Ms. Preston had a story in Wednesday’s paper that uses the term in its lead paragraph. It’s also worth noting that she is not satisfied with the paper’s current stance on this issue and believes it should be more flexible.

I want to restate that, as public editor, I don’t make policy, but I’m hoping to be able to take an informed stand fairly soon.

Here is the gist of my interview with her this morning:

“I think we need a little more flexibility,” Ms. Preston said. “But we should use the term at times – it is accurate. It is a violation of law for a foreign-born person to be present without legal status.”

In many cases, she noted, that is a civil violation – for example, if a person has overstayed his or her visa. However, she said, “If you cross the border without inspection, that’s a crime – a federal misdemeanor.”

She said, “We don’t make the assertion that they are criminals,” but “a shorthand way to describe them is illegal immigrants.”

Ms. Preston called the current situation “a very dynamic debate that is putting a pressure on our language.”

“We are told we are tarring people as criminals. I don’t think that’s true. The majority of readers don’t go to that inference. If they do, they may already have a preconceived idea. The critics of the term are among the most active readers in drawing that inference.”

Ms. Preston, who has covered immigration for six years, tries to answer “every reasonable reader e-mail. I have an ongoing dialogue, and I think I understand how people are reacting.”

In short, her feeling comes down to this: “We could use more flexibility. Whether or not the term is accurate, there is a growing group of readers who are put off by it.”

In addition, she said, the political dialogue is changing and offers some additional options.

In the work context, a worker can accurately be called “unauthorized,” a term many prefer. “It can be useful,” she said.

“In many cases, people are calling themselves undocumented and prefer that term, and in some cases, they are right,” she said. She noted that there was a new federal program suspending deportation for those who were brought to the United States as youngsters 15 and under.

“These young people are saying: ‘I’m not illegal. I’m undocumented.’ ” So the term “has a new currency.”

The Times stylebook – the newspaper’s arbiter of language – “is quite stern on the term undocumented,” Ms. Preston said. “It says it is a euphemism and should be avoided.” Here is the language in the stylebook:

illegal immigrant is the preferred term, rather than the sinister-sounding illegal alien. Do not use the euphemism undocumented.

Ms. Preston disagrees with the ruling on the term “undocumented.” It should not be so strictly avoided. But, she said, neither should “illegal immigrant” be banned. “It’s accurate and it considers the broad terms of the debate. We shouldn’t be banning an accurate term.”

Ms. Preston is well aware that “there’s a constituency now advocating for the language to change.”

This is new, she said. “They have been ‘the other.’ They haven’t had a voice.”

“I’m acutely aware of this issue, and my purpose is to tell stories in a way that everyone can hear them.”