The missing "I" word

By Chip McLean

A funny thing happened on Monday, May 1st 2006. All across the country in major cities, thousands of people protested the proposed laws that would make it tougher to enter the country illegally. And all across the country, the mainstream media reported these protests, but there was something missing.

That something was the "I" word — "illegal." Somehow, headline after headline declared that the demonstrations were about "immigration," never about illegal immigration. As far as the eye could see, from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times, demonstrations were being conducted by those who wanted "immigration rights."

Headlines such as "Immigration Dissent Sweeps L.A. and the Nation" were the order of the day. Another wonderful euphemism for "illegal" was "undocumented."

I suppose the writers and editors of these articles who describe illegals as "undocumented" believe that doing so somehow removes the onus from these folks and places it back on the government — sort of like it's not Jose's fault that he's "undocumented," it must be the fault of some bureaucrat down at the INS office who screwed up and forgot to give Jose his papers. Never mind the fact that Jose broke the law in the first place when he came across the border in violation of our immigration laws — he's simply a victim of circumstance.

What happened to the "I" word in the MSM? Did they suddenly develop a deathly allergic reaction to its use? As Brent Bozell pointed out in a recent column, they certainly never had a problem describing the President's wiretapping program as "illegal" wiretapping, or reporting on the "illegal" leaks of Valerie Plame's name. Somehow, when it comes to those who have unquestionably broken the law by defying our immigration laws, the press has suddenly developed a horrific case of "the cat has got our tongue" and is apparently unable to utter the dreaded word, "illegal."

Political correctness has been a staple of the liberal leaning press for some time of course, but the coverage this past week concerning illegal immigration has reached new heights of absurdity. If one didn't know better, one would think that these "undocumented workers" were the victims of some nefarious plot. Indeed the MSM has painted this as the next civil rights movement.

But "civil rights" don't apply to those who entered the country illegally. Forget the notion that the illegals do the work that "Americans won't do" (not true), or that they "help the economy" (they do, but it is Mexico's economy, not the US's that they help). Even if the illegals brought nothing but wine and roses rather than a drain on our hospitals, welfare system and social services, the fact remains that they are here illegally — and while I can certainly understand that people want to come here, we can't allow lawbreaking as a means of doing so.

True immigration means going through the legal process. It also means respecting the culture, and yes, the language of the nation to which you are immigrating. I have nothing but respect for those who have done so, as it was done for many, many years.

In the meantime, all of these protests have backfired on those opposed to tougher enforcement. Polling data clearly shows that Joe Six-Pack, who may not have paid very much attention to this issue previously, has apparently awakened from his slumber of barbeques and American Idol to the reality of the invasion of our borders. By strong majorities, the public wants something done — and that something has much more in common with the House bill that would emphasize enforcement, and less in common with the Senate version which would provide amnesty for illegals (that would be "guest worker programs" for those who are "undocumented workers" for the PC crowd).

The "I" word may have been missing this past week in the MSM, but most Americans see through the PC nonsense. To paraphrase The Godfather's Michael Corleone, "it insults our intelligence, and makes us very angry."

© Chip McLean