Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

DOJ Announces They Aren’t Calling Illegals ‘Undocumenteds’ Anymore

Published

on

Once again President Trump is undoing the lunacy of the Obama Administration.

During the dark days of extreme liberalism of the Barack Hussein Obama administration the powers that be decided that it wasn’t good to call a duck by its name. So because of this they unilaterally decided that government officials weren’t going to be allowed to refer to illegal aliens as such, instead, the proper term to them as “undocumented immigrant” which makes it sound like these people were immigrants who just needed paper. Not lawbreakers who didn’t respect our nation’s sovereignty or their fellow man so they decided to cut to the front of the immigration line.

Here is more on this via The Daily Wire:

“The Department of Justice has ordered the reversal of an unofficial Obama Administration-era policy referring to illegal immigrants as “undocumented migrants,” according to a new report in The Washington Times.

Trending: Tucker Carlson’s Young Daughter Attacked By Vile Libs – Makes Tragic Announcement

The report likely doesn’t represent any significant change in how the DOJ treats border jumpers, but it does signal that Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ DOJ will be less accommodating to lawbreakers — and less likely to view illegal immigration as merely a social problem rather than a crime wave.

According to the Times, the DOJ told attorneys last week that they must refer to illegal immigrants as “illegal aliens,” the term used in the U.S. Code. Attorneys cannot replace “illegal” with “undocumented” so as to avoid stigmatizing border jumpers, a practice that has become popular in the pro-immigration movement.

The note, which went out to all of Sessions’ deputies, “was designed to clear up some confusion and to [help officials] be consistent in the way we draft our releases.”

The U.S. Code is one of the last remaining reference works that stipulates the use of “illegal immigrants.” Since the debate on immigration began, most stylebooks and guides suggest using “undocumented” as a way for journalists to subtly inject a political narrative into news stories.”

Now all this might seem trivial and of no consequence, but as Chicks On The Right have reported, it’s actually not. You see, this is how the left wins the argument. They seem to change the language. Just like they have done with the LGBT agenda. They sometimes rename things and make things seem different.

As an example just look at the left, they have gone from communist to socialist, to liberal, to progressive and now they have no problem going back to socialist since for some sick reason a 75-year-old retrograde from the cold war like Bernie Sanders all of a sudden made it cool again.

With President Trump and his administration, this madness is over and we are finally able to reclaim the correct terms. An illegal alien is just that and they don’t deserve the respect of being called an “immigrant” of any kind. We are the most generous nation in the world when it comes to immigration and taking in refugees there is no need to have to keep people in our nation who disrespected us by breaking the law to come here.

Here is more information as to why the Obama Administration had changed the language via AP:

“A number of people felt that 「illegal immigrant」 was the best choice at the time. They also believed the always-evolving English language might soon yield a different choice and we should stay in the conversation.

Also, we had in other areas been ridding the Stylebook of labels. The new section on mental health issues argues for using credibly sourced diagnoses instead of labels. Saying someone was 「diagnosed with schizophrenia」 instead of schizophrenic, for example.

And that discussion about labeling people, instead of behavior, led us back to 「illegal immigrant」 again.

We concluded that to be consistent, we needed to change our guidance.

So we have.

Is this the best way to describe someone in a country without permission? We believe that it is for now. We also believe more evolution is likely down the road.

Will the new guidance make it harder for writers? Perhaps just a bit at first. But while labels may be more facile, they are not accurate.

I suspect now we will hear from some language lovers who will find other labels in the AP Stylebook. We welcome that engagement. Get in touch at [email protected] or, if you are an AP Stylebook Online subscriber, through the 「Ask the Editor」 page.

Change is a part of AP Style because the English language is constantly evolving, enriched by new words, phrases and uses. Our goal always is to use the most precise and accurate words so that the meaning is clear to any reader anywhere.

The updated entry is being added immediately to the AP Stylebook Online and Manual de Estilo Online de la AP, the new Spanish-language Stylebook. It also will appear in the new print edition and Stylebook Mobile, coming out later in the spring. It reads as follows:

illegal immigration Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.

Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented.

Do not describe people as violating immigration laws without attribution.

Specify wherever possible how someone entered the country illegally and from where. Crossed the border? Overstayed a visa? What nationality?

People who were brought into the country as children should not be described as having immigrated illegally. For people granted a temporary right to remain in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, use temporary resident status, with details on the program lower in the story.”

What a difference an election can make!

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Trending Now on Right Wing News


Former Facebook Security Chief Just Blindsided Google CEO With Earth Shattering Claim

Published

on

...

* By

Many have been critical of Google’s plan to launch a censored search engine in China, now a former Facebook executive has called out Google’s CEO for lying about the company’s motives.
Facebook’s former security chief Alex Stamos took to Twitter recently to attack Google CEO Sundar Pichai for his comments defending the company’s decision to move into the China market with its censored search engine known as “Project Dragonfly,” Silicon Beat reports.

In a recent interview with the New York Times, Pichai stated that Google was “committed to serving users in China” and compared Chinese censorship laws to the “right to be forgotten” law in the European Union. Pichai received severe criticism for this comparison, both internally and from those outside of Google.

“Tech companies constantly walk a difficult path between complying with local law and protecting human rights,” Stamos tweeted Thursday. “For Sundar to compare the “right to be forgotten” (which I agree is problematic) with censorship in China is, at best, amoral and mendacious.”

Stamos further added that: “China’s censorship regime is a tool to maintain the absolute control of the party-state and is in no way comparable,” to the right to be forgotten law.

Google software engineer Colin McMillen tweeted: “It is extremely bad that Sundar appears to either think that RTBF is morally equivalent to government surveillance & censorship, or that he appears to think that nobody will notice this analogy is extremely inaccurate.”

Continue Reading…

Continue Reading

WATCH: Entire Eagles Offense Does Incredible Gesture For Veterans- Kaepernick Probably Pissed

Published

on

...

* By

The Eagles offense struggled on Sunday night, and put up their fair share of bad plays. However, their celebration game was definitely on point.

The defending Super Bowl champs hosted the Dallas Cowboys on Sunday Night Football. Which, also happened to be on Veterans Day. While the first part of the game brought forth precious little in terms of offensive output. The second half saw a burst of scoring from both teams and, a salute to our veterans from the entire Eagles offense:

The NFL has certainly done its fair share of damage in tarnishing the celebration of our flag, anthem, and military, by protesting during the national anthem. However, with those protests having all but disappeared, it would be good for the NFL to work towards resuming its former place as the primary celebrators of our flag and country, in American sports.

Sunday night was a good start.

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend