SAN ANTONIO - Adjective or adverb? More and more newsrooms are debating how best to use the word "illegal" when referring to residents who did not move to the United States with proper documentation.

From CNN to The Huffington Post, major outlets that have been trying to expand their Latino audiences are avoiding the term "illegal immigrant." The San Antonio Express-News, whose reach extends into Mexico, decided two years ago that the term was not consistent with how the paper described others suspected of breaking laws. Managing editor Jamie Stockwell says it's like calling someone accused of violating traffic laws an "illegal driver."

"So, the correct way to describe a person's immigration status - when that information is relevant - is to say that a person is in the country illegally. And then we cite the source of our information; for example, 'Police said the man is in the United States illegally.' "

The paper uses "illegal immigration" when describing the unauthorized movement of people across the border. Occasionally, reporters use the term "undocumented immigrant." Stockwell thinks recent immigration policy changes are accelerating the debate in newsrooms. Since the Obama administration announced last year it would stop targeting certain young immigrants for deportation, their status has become a gray area.

David Bennion, a Philadelphia-based immigration attorney, also prefers "undocumented" to "illegal." Although imperfect, he thinks it's less offensive within immigrant communities. He says identifying people who have lived and worked in the United States for large parts of their lives as "illegal" alienates them from society.

"It's designed to segregate people into a class of people who can be excluded from legal protections, from the political process, from economic opportunities."

Bennion says he rarely meets an immigration judge who uses the term "illegal immigrant." He thinks that's because it's jumping to a conclusion about them before giving them due process.

Stockwell says accuracy was not the only reason her paper decided to avoid the term. Labels, she explains, can change over time, according to the preferences of those being labeled. She says the views within immigrant communities are well known to staffers who helped shape the Express-News' current policy.

"People who'd been editing immigration issues for many years, people who had come from south Texas and covering immigrants - and crimes involving immigrants - for many years. So, it came from a respect for the people who we're covering, and just not feeling comfortable calling them illegal."

She sees pushback against the term gaining steam, and predicts someday the term "illegal immigrant" will rarely be used by news organizations. So far, "the newspaper of record" - The New York Times - is holding out, but immigrant advocates have been lobbying its editors to reconsider their policy.

Bennion's blog analysis is online at citizenorange.com. The New York Times' explanation of its policy is at publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com.


get more stories like this via email

Legislation in Albany would create the first right to counsel for people in immigration court.

The Access to Representation Act would provide immigrants the right to an attorney in their New York immigration cases, ending the tendency to represent themselves if they cannot afford one.

Estimates show a backlog of more than 330,000 immigration court cases, and fewer than half have attorneys. Studies show without legal counsel, migrants are less likely to remain in the U.S.

Marlene Galaz, director of immigrant rights policy for the New York Immigration Coalition, described what the bill would do.

"It has a six-year ramp-up to start implementing and building infrastructure," Galaz outlined. "Having a pipeline between law schools for law students to go into immigration practice, and getting to nonprofits and so on."

Galaz noted most opposition centers around the $150 million to fund the program but pointed out the total expenditure is less than 1% of the state's $229 billion budget. She added anti-immigrant rhetoric has also damaged support for the bill. Currently, it is in the state Senate Finance Committee.

The New York City Comptroller's office said enacting the bill would benefit the state financially. It could keep about 53,000 people from being deported, which would result in almost $8.5 billion in local, state and federal taxes over the next 30 years.

Galaz emphasized the influx of migrants has saturated the court system, leading to what could have been an avoidable backlog.

"I firmly believe that if these investments had been made when we first asked for them, I believe, like, three years ago, then we wouldn't be struggling," Galaz contended. "We would have had the infrastructure built to address an increase in welcoming our newest neighbors."

A Vera Institute survey showed 93% of New Yorkers across party lines and regions support access to attorneys for all people, including those in immigration court, and government-funded attorneys for them.


get more stories like this via email

Story has been updated to reflect late-night 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision.(8:01 a.m. MST, Mar. 20, 2024)


The U.S. Supreme Court handed Texas Gov. Greg Abbott a big but temporary win Tuesday in his battle to stop the flow of migrants crossing the Texas-Mexico border.

Late Tuesday night, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals put the law known as Senate Bill 4 on hold again. It would give state and local law enforcement the authority to arrest migrants as they cross into the U-S.

The Biden administration argued that the law would interfere with federal immigration law and is unconstitutional.

David Coale, an appellate attorney in Dallas, said if the state gets the authority to make arrests, he thinks it will move with caution.

"I think that Texas will want to make some very high-profile moves under this statute," Coale predicted. "But they also don't want to potentially expose themselves to massive civil rights liability if it turns out they're wrong."

Under SB-4, crossing the border illegally is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail. The appeals court hears oral arguments in the case today. Meanwhile, a Mexican government official said his country won't accept migrants deported under SB-4.

The Supreme Court justices did not issue a reason for allowing the law to go into effect and there's been no clear timetable for how or when Texas will start enforcing it. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down parts of a similar law in Arizona, saying an impasse in Congress over immigration reform did not justify state intrusion.

Coale noted if the law is ultimately upheld, it would give each state the right to make its own immigration laws.

"If you give Texas a pass, you know, New York will have a different policy and California will have a policy and Montana will have a policy," Coale pointed out. "And they will not be consistent."

All six of the court's conservative justices agreed with the decision to allow the law to take effect - a ruling that, at least for now, was in effect for only a few hours.


get more stories like this via email

Both chambers of the New York state Legislature have included coverage for all legislation in their respective budgets.

The bills would update the state's Affordable Care Act Section 1332 waiver to make coverage available for all income-eligible people, regardless of their immigration status. Studies show half of likely undocumented immigrants and around 18% of lawfully present immigrants are uninsured.

Arline Cruz Escobar, health programs director for the group Make the Road New York, said the challenges stemming from a lack of coverage make life harder for the undocumented population.

"A lot of these preventable illnesses are going undetected and so, unfortunately, people are getting sicker," Cruz Escobar pointed out. "It also means that a lot of people who currently are sick aren't able to actually access the medication that they need."

One of the biggest obstacles to passing the bill is anti-immigrant rhetoric spreading across the country. However, many groups across the state submitted testimony declaring their support and need for this bill.

Cruz Escobar argued the growing migrant population in places such as New York City makes the bill more necessary. The New York City Comptroller's Office found the number of migrants not living in New York City but still in its care grew from 276 last May to more than 2,100 last September.

Beyond helping immigrants, supporters said the bill will benefit the state financially. The New York City Comptroller's office estimates passing coverage for all will generate $710 million in annual benefits.

Cruz Escobar described other elements of the bill.

"We have also included in our legislation language around giving the Commissioner of Health the ability to set up guardrails to ensure that for this expansion we don't over-cede the amount of surplus that's available."

She added the commissioner would also ensure there would be no additional cost through state dollars. Estimates showed New York State plans to spend more than $4 billion between 2022 and 2026 on issues related to migrants. Current spending is estimated at around $690 million.


get more stories like this via email