OT "Undocumented" immigrant kills NFL player while DUI

Driver who hit Colts linebacker was an undocumented immigrant, police say
By Kimberly Hutcherson, CNN

Aside from the concept that anyone driving drunk in America today, especially 3x the limit, should be pretty harshly dealt with the first time it happens (get a damn uber!), I don't quite understand journalism rules on this. The article says:

The byline says that "Police say (he's) undocumented"
I understand that CNN is generally lefty-leaning at this point, but when did "illegal" become "undocumented"? Like, he left his license in his other pants or something? Can they just editorialize a quote like that? (I mean, I guess the answer is "yes", b/c it happened, or there's a quote in someone's notes or something that says that)

I mean, even the WaPo says he was here illegally.

Note, I'm not using this to point out that we should snatch up every brown-skinned man in the ATL area and send them to a shithole country. I'm not even wondering how a twice-deported person with a DUI even gets to stay here after "multiple other misdemeanor criminal convictions and arrests in California and Indiana." I'm saying, how is it helping anything to say that this (allegedly) multiple-offending criminal is "undocumented", vice "illegally here", and does what CNN does speak to you?

 

Sounds like another conservative snowflake complaint about someone using the "wrong word" to describe a group of people.

Well, we have freedom in this country, mister, and we can use whatever words we want!

I didn't spend 4 years fighting my way up to the keg in college just to have PC police take my right to express myself away.

Or something like that.

barfo

 

You do that.

barfo

 

I feel like your analogy is off. This is more like barfo saying "Obama broke the ceiling as the first black president" and FoxNews running a story headlined "Uppity N***er becomes President, barfo says". It's false, and false in order to editorialize. It seems they can editorialize if your name isn't attached. Or they can quote you with your name attached. But afaik, (which is kind of where the question came from) a newspaper can't "express itself" and then put your name on it.

-By Ben Golliver.

 

I think I misunderstood your first post then. I didn't realize your objection was about misquoting. I don't think they misquoted, because they didn't quote the police.

I see that later in the article, they say

Detectives said Orrego-Savala is a citizen of Guatemala who is in the United States illegally

so I don't think calling him undocumented is some sort of attempt to twist the story. My guess is that the writer thinks of illegal and undocumented as synonyms.

barfo

 

c'mon man, I put in a "note" and everything...

Then there's our disagreement, as I think the writer/editor making the byline is trying to twist the story to not have the term "illegal" on CNN's list of stories. Which, again, I understand, but the police didn't say "undocumented", as the byline says. The police (as you point out) said "illegal".

 

I think you mean headline, not byline.

We don't know (from the text of this story) what word the police used. They are not quoted. They are only paraphrased. They might have said illegal, they might have said undocumented, they might have said both, they might have said wetback or some other slur.

Undocumented and illegal are both used in the body of the story, neither usage is in quotes.

Edit: to me personally, the two words mean the same thing when applied to immigrants. So I suppose I'm naturally inclined to believe the writer had that view too. You asked when undocumented came to mean the same thing as illegal. I don't know the answer, but I've seen them used interchangeably for some time now.

2nd Edit: Reading the WaPo story now, I see that they quoted a police statement, which does use the word illegal. It is probably fair to assume that the CNN story was written based on the same statement, so - if they had quoted it, it would have been "illegal".

barfo

 

This is kind of what I was getting to, and if you've already (consciously or unconsciously) "made the connection" then it makes sense that you could see the author doing so as well. I think it's kind of insidious to minimize the illegality to make it sound as if you didn't have your registration in the car when you got pulled over or something (which, incidentally, can still get you a hefty fine and tow).
I know I'm in the minority on this one, maybe because I've seen up-close-and-personal what other countries' border policies are like, but violating the sovereignty of a nation by illegally crossing its borders, disrespecting the immigration process and those trying to do it the right way and squatting is more than just not carrying proof of insurance with you. And it opens up the illegal immigrant to a much harsher life, even if they're trying to do the right thing and get a good-paying job to send money back home or to escape a war-torn area, than going through the process.

 

Murdered is a subset of the class of people who have passed away.

Undocumented is not a subset of the class of people who are here illegally - it is the full set. The only difference is in the word used - unless you have a different understanding of what undocumented immigrant means? If so, what is your definition of undocumented immigrant?

barfo

 

Seems like that would be a very small set of people, but ok. That is a logical definition (except from the point of view of the US, they are immigrants not emigrants). But, I don't think yours is a very common definition.

Isn't crossing the border without your paperwork illegal? I'm pretty sure it is. So your undocumented immigrants are also illegal immigrants.

barfo