[blancheneige]

>Two of Ice’s largest immigrant detention centers in California

Can somebody explain to a legal immigrant why The Guardian keeps omitting the illegal part over twelve times throughout the article?

[wahern]

1) Because they're not necessarily all illegal immigrants. AFAIU, ICE puts asylum seekers who are otherwise following the letter of the law into these detention centers--show up at the border, request asylum, get put into detention while awaiting disposition of your case.

2) Are you an illegal driver for driving over the speed limit? Illegal usually implies something criminal. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor--no more than 6 months in prison. That is criminal strictly speaking, but within a certain grey area where we very often refrain from branding people as criminals.

I'm not really hung up on the phrase. I understand both sides, which really come down to wanting to emphasize different aspects of the situation to highlight different political priorities.

I'm curious, though, if newspapers have style guides regarding usage of "illegal". If I Google 'site:theguardian.com "illegal immigration"' I find many hits, so perhaps at least for The Guardian it's at the discretion of the particular journalist.

[blancheneige]

I am referring to the terminology used by the department of homeland security [1] and other legal institutions that oversee their cases. If they are predominantly asylum seekers, then why not refer to them as asylum seekers?

>Illegal usually implies something criminal.

No, illegality does not usually imply something criminal. These are two different concept that have precise definitions in court. Nor does your "usually" carry any weight, for else we should abide by this probabilistic distribution and call them asylum seekers.

[1]: https://www.dhs.gov/topic/immigration-and-customs-enforcemen...

[clarkevans]

Many immigrants (especially those from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) in ICE detention facilities presented themselves at the border and legally requested asylum. For more information on "northern triangle" and why these immigrants are fleeing their homeland, read https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/central-americas-violent-no...

This is an ongoing and growing challenge for our immigration system. In FY 2017, as instability in Central America’s Northern Triangle showed few signs of ending, immigration judges decided over 30,000 asylum cases, a considerable increase over the roughly 22,300 asylum cases decided in FY 2016, and the most [since] FY 2005. (source: https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-u-s-asylum-p...)

[jacobush]

Wow.

20,000 granted asylum to the US in 2016.

70,000 granted asylum to Sweden in 2016.

[blancheneige]

The article makes no mention of asylum seekers. This is pure speculation on your part.

[dragonwriter]

Because the detention facilities don't house exclusively illegal immigrants (in fact, given the fact that US citizens have been detained in them for extended periods despite clear proof of citizenship, even calling them immigrant detention facilities is somewhat misleading.)

A more accurate label would be “arbitrary detention facilities”.

[blancheneige]

> given the fact that US citizens have been detained in them for extended periods despite clear proof of citizenship

I'd be curious to hear more about these cases as well as their proportion relative to the illegal immigrants detained at these facilities. I'm not aware of lawful residents being detained in such proportions that this would suddenly warrant tipping the terminology on the side of indetermination.

[mikestew]

Has the legality of their immigration been determined at that point? Or is the detention center used to hold them until that has been determined?

Regardless, the statement as written is accurate. How many modifiers are necessary?

[blancheneige]

>Has the legality of their immigration been determined at that point?

By that logic, how do you even know they're immigrants to begin with, then? All it takes is flashing your visa or any documentation proving your status which you are required to carry at all times, just like I am. You were not expecting bartenders to give you a free pass in your teenage because you left your ID at home, did you?

>Regardless, the statement as written is accurate

Accuracy by omission is deceit, not journalism.

>How many modifiers are necessary?

One: illegal immigrant. Now I re-iterate my question: why is it so hard for The Guardian to use the correct terminology?

[arcturus17]

> battle with Trump over treatment of immigrants

> Immigrant detainees

> immigration detention facilities

> undocumented immigrants

> immigrant rights advocates

> immigration attorney

Which of those offends you and needs the illegal part?

[throwawaysea]

The 'undocumented immigrants' part, which is simple semantic bleaching.

[moate]

Because it houses both "legal" and "illegal" immigrants.

Can you explain why it's so important that the word be included even if it's detrimental to objective truth?

[spoiledtechie]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The term illegal is expressed in Oxford and Merriam Webster.

Its also expressed and used quite a lot in legal documents and written law.

Neither mean to use it as a racist term.