What Should We Call Immigrants?

Last year the conviction rate for rape prosecutions that went to court in England reached an all time high. In 2007/8 58% of cases that went to court ended with a guilty verdict last year the rate was 63%. The conviction rates for domestic violence also increased, in 2005/6 it stood at 60% and last year it had jumped to 74%.

That still means that last year 38% of the people who go to court claiming they were raped saw the person they were accusing walk free. And for people who claimed they were victims of domestic violence a quarter of them saw the person they thought had subjected them to domestic violence found not guilty.

I have a special term for those people who unsuccessfully accuse people of rape; “Fake Sex Victims”, my name for unsuccessful domestic abuse claimants; “Cry-Wolf Partners”.

OF COURSE MY LAST SENTENCE IS COMPLETE NONSENSE.

Labelling unsuccessful accusers as “Fakers” or “Cry-Wolf’ers” would be offensive and objectionable. But what it illustrates is how we label people (or don’t label them) is important. We wouldn't dream of emotively naming possible rape victims because they had an unsuccessful legal experience. But are we as sensitive or as aware when it comes to other groups of people who are unable to convince a court of their story? 

A quiet battle has been raging in America in the last few months over the labelling of some immigrants. The big question is what do you call someone who has immigrated to America but does not have the legal right to be there?

In April Associated Press decided to stop their journalists from using the term “illegal immigrant”. They told everyone writing for them to “use ‘illegal’ only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant.” I think the thinking behind this is that it is hard to report objectively and dispassionately on someone if the first word you use about them is the emotive word “illegal”. Almost by definition an “illegal” anything is a bad thing. Soon after Associated Press updated its style guidance the L.A. Times did the same.

In a memo to its newsroom they said:

Immigration is one of the most contentious and compelling subjects of our time. In our coverage, we aim to report with authority and balance — to be fair, nuanced and precise. We know that language matters and that our word choices must likewise be fair, nuanced and precise… "Illegal immigrants" is overly broad and does not accurately apply in every situation. The alternative suggested by the 1995 guidelines, "undocumented immigrants," similarly falls short of our goal of precision. It is also untrue in many cases, as with immigrants who possess passports or other documentation but lack valid visas.

A few weeks later and the New York Times also sent out a new directive to their journalists. They didn’t go as far as AP and the L.A. Times in banning the term “illegal immigrant” but they discouraged it and said careful consideration should be exercised when using the term.

Words have power and how we describe people from marginalised and minority communities is extremely important. For anyone interested in issues of diversity in television how we cover immigration and immigrants must be of importance. In Britain immigrants are one of the most marginalised groups in our society and one only has to look at UKIP’s recent poll ratings to realise immigration is easily one of the most politically charged issues right now.

Before the recent actions by certain sections of the American media I had never even thought about the use of the phrase “illegal immigrant”. American culture and politics are different from British culture and politics and so I am not arguing that we should necessarily follow in the footsteps of our cousins across the pond. But we should be very careful when reporting on people from diverse backgrounds that might not have the same access to the media as other people. And we must recognise that labels are powerful.

Now where’s that headline about “Bogus Asylum Seekers”?

UPDATE: Since writing this blog post my friends on twitter have pointed out that the debate surrounding illegal immigration is not confined to the States. Cecelia Malmstrom the European Commissioner for Home Affairs feels that all official EU documents should follow Associated Press' lead and drop the term "illegal immigrant". So far I have not found any major UK newspaper or broadcaster seriously considering re-labelling "illegal immigrants" but I trust my readers and twitter friends will let me know if they have any examples.

UPDATE 2: The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford published a study on 8th August 2013 showing that the UK press are most likely to use the word "illegal" when describing immigrants. The report is a fascinating read for anyone interested in this subject http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/reports/migration-news