INFLAMATORY RESPONSES TO "ILLEGAL" BLOG
by Leo E. Laurence, J.D., Member, San Diego "Pro" Chapter; Member, National Committee on Diversity
While I expected my personal blog on gay marriages to create the largest storm of protests of many blogs I've written, I was wrong.
My blog urging journalists, as a matter of law, to avoid using the phrase "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants" drew far more strong, and sometimes profane, responses.
When a person has to use offensive profanity to prove their point, I usually disregard it as the product of a crude mind. So goes the profane response by Jeff Barber and sent, not to me as the blogger, but to the SPJ's ececutive direcvtyor, Terry Harper.
Other responses, however, deserve a response.
"I was shocked when I discovered your article "AVOID THE PHRASE 'ILLEGAL' IMMIGRANTS. I was even more horrified when I found the website of the Society of Professional Journalists. The group should be named the Society for aiding the enemy" (sic), wrote Jeff (no last name or city).
"You are an enemy soldier," Jeff added. Considering Jeff's attitude, I consider his criticism a compliment.
While the blog is part of the SPJ's diversity committee's contribution to the SPJ's website, the blogs are the personal opinions of the blogger, and NOT necessarily a statement of position by the SPJ.
"This (blog) is one of the most misguided articles I have ever come across," wrote James (also, no last name) of Fort Collins, Colorado.
"Actually, as I ponder this silliness, I begin to understand the diminished role of journalists in our society.
"An immmigrant who is in this country illegally is an illegal immigrant (the term 'alien,' I agree, is unnecessary) The mere presence (sic) is an admission of guilt," James wrote.
As a matter of law, however, that argument has no merit.
A person, any person, does not admit to a crime simply by their presence at the scene of that alleged crime. That's not the way our criminal justice system works.
Again, we go to the basic issue that was described in detail in the original blog: that only a court of law can decide if a person is illegal or guilty of a crime; including our federal, immigration laws.
But, many of those who want to send all undocumented immigratns "back where they came from" don't want to bother with such important procedural protections as due process of law.
Indeed, even the president has repeatedly said that, as a pratical matter, there are so many people in this country who are undocumented immigrants, it would be impossible to process all those cases through our federal district courts.
There would simply too many. The flood of cases would mean that no civil cases could be heard because criminal cases always must be heard before civil cases.
Those who want to ignore the procedural requirements of due process of law for those horrible "illegal aliens," would also be the first to scream bloody murder if they wre treated the same way in our criminal courts. What hypocrites!
Mike Butler suggested that I use my spell-checker because he found misspelling in my blog. Then he accused me of being "a Latino lover, illegal immigrant disapprover (sic), non-Latino phobe (sic)." "Sic" is a literary term indicating that a gramatical error exists in the original quote.
Then there is Mike and Lese Meyer (no city) who believe people in America must "earn the right to be protected by American law."
Where do you find that crazy idea in the Constitution?
"Your comments such as 'all persons are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law' was only meant for American citizens," they wrote. Again, that statement has no merit in the law.
While I criticized use of the term illegal aliens, a word that makes it sound like our undocumented immigrants are coming from another planet; Stephen Bennet of mooresville, North Carolina, took the idea one step further.
"If you prefer, another term that would be just as correct to use is 'invaders.' I would consider the two (aliens and invaders) interchangeable," Bennet wrote.
So, now these "aliens" are from outter space and are invading us ???
Joe Nowlin wrote, "As far as I know, it is illegal for an immigrant to enter the USA without proper identification. If we can agree on that fact, than (sic) by definition an undocumented immigrant is an illegal immigrant . . . So, your undocumented immigrant term is equally politically incorrect and offensive."
The only problem with Nowlin's logic is that it is faulty, as a matter of law. It totally disregards the requirements of due process of law that must be satisfied before a court can rule that any person is "illegal."
A person who is in this country without proper documentation is an alleged illegal immigrant. They are not, in fact, illegal until a court so rules, as my original blog startes.
This obviously is a very HOT button issue.
But, I find it very sad and hypocritical that so many people, who would DEMAND all the procedural protections of due process of law if they were charged with a crime, as so willing to ignore those same legal protections for people with brown skin without papers.
_______________
For comment, contact Leo Laurence at leopowerhere@msn.com or at (619) 757-4909.