Last week I wrote about the battle for words and need to reclaim the language. We have to make sure words have meaning, no matter who how offensive a tiny slice of people find some of them.
No sooner had the ink dried on that piece than the Associated Press stepped up and declared the term “illegal immigrant” dead. “The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to describe a person. Instead, it tells users it assumes another option will “evolve.” Can’t you just imagine hundreds of “senior fellows” at various George Soros-funded Flying Monkey Brigade “think tanks” typing endlessly in the hope of creating a new, misleading term (before they write Shakespeare, naturally) to foist upon the public, through the media, to make what “is” what it is not?
The AP opted against (for now) the current preferred phrasing of progressives – “undocumented immigrant” – as imprecise because “A person may have plenty of documents, just not the ones required for legal residence.” In many cases, these illegal aliens have documents that are stolen from actual citizens and legal immigrants, which is part of the problem.
This move, cheered by those wishing to rid the United States of its horrible, horrible sovereignty and borders, begs a few questions for the AP and proponents of “comprehensive immigration reform.”
First, if “illegal immigrant” is an unusable, imprecise term, what do we call “legal immigrants?” Presumably “documented immigrant” would be acceptable since they both have the proper documents to show they’ve followed the law and the documents are in their name. But that seems unlikely because the converse of that would be the “imprecise” term the AP has rejected.
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, has dubbed illegal aliens “new Americans” and pushed for driver’s licenses and in-state college tuition for them, which begs the second question: Why would anyone bother to come here legally when you can get such benefits without the wait times and paperwork hassle?
Of course O’Malley, whom I “affectionately” call “Tommy Carcetti” from HBO’s The Wire (mutual acquaintances assure me it’s an accurate portrayal), is less interested in enforcing the law than he is in the 2016 Democratic Party nomination. But most Americans are interested in enforcing the law and, sadly, they have no champion or voice in the current debate happening in Washington.
Exposed: Dem Candidate's Misleading Statements on Spending, Borrowing for AZ Universities | Ky Sisson
Bombshell: Valerie Jarrett Helped Manage Fallout Over Eric Holder's Changing Fast and Furious Testimony to Congress | Katie Pavlich
White House: Ask DOJ About What's in The Fast and Furious Documents Covered By Obama's Executive Privilege | Katie Pavlich