Levy suspect’s illegal status stirs media debate
It has become the dreaded “I-word” at many news organizations. Much of the press has shunned the terms “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” to describe Ingmar Guandique, recently charged by police and federal prosecutors in the 2001 slaying of Washington intern Chandra Levy. The designation of Guandique – who entered the U.S. illegally in 2000, was convicted of two nonfatal attacks on women and incarcerated – has reignited a debate over whether a person’s immigration status is relevant to the story. Journalists also are debating whether the words “illegal” and “immigrant” are too loaded to use in an already emotionally charged story. And maybe even racist.

The story goes on to quote a “media ethicist” (is that like “military intelligence” or “jumbo shrimp”?):

“This is a very complicated matter. The goal is to make sure that journalists are specific and precise in the use of words like ‘illegal,’ ‘immigrant’ and ‘undocumented.’”

Well, if we’re going to be specific and precise, let’s start with “undocumented”: The word has no meaning and was invented, as far as I can tell, by Leonel Castillo, Jimmy Carter’s INS commissioner, as a euphemism for illegal alien. And it makes no logical sense, because practically all illegal aliens have documents; it’s just that they’re fake or expired. And “illegal” isn’t the same as “criminal” and even if it were, it would apply to almost all illegal aliens — entering without inspection is a crime (which accounts for half or three-fourths of illegals), as is procuring and using fake documents.