“As the Loyola University Chicago community grieves over the ruthless murder of an 18-year-old freshman, the campus newspaper is focusing on not offending the suspected murderer,” reports The College Fix. “On Monday, prosecutors charged Jose Medina-Medina with murdering freshman Sheridan Gorman.” Medina, an illegal alien from Venezuela, “killed Gorman while the student was hanging out with friends at a nearby beach early on the morning of March 19.”
The university newspaper The Phoenix originally covered the charges in an Instagram post titled: “Immigrant Man Charged in Murder of Sheridan Gorman, DHS Involved.”
That post also described Medina as an “illegal immigrant.”
But after a woke backlash, “the student newspaper edited the post to remove the term ‘illegal immigrant,’” reports The College Fix. “The newspaper refers to Medina as a ‘Rogers Park Resident,’ referring to the Chicago neighborhood where Loyola’s main campus is located.”
“In a lengthy editor’s note that is almost as long as the original article itself, the newspaper apologizes for its transgression,” stating,
On March 23, a post on The Phoenix’s Instagram page carried the following headline: “Immigrant Man Charged in Murder of Sheridan Gorman, DHS Involved.”
That headline didn’t reflect the most important elements in the story, and it was taken down minutes later to prevent any further harm to affected community members.
Additionally, in the body of the original post, we described the man who was charged as an “illegal immigrant,” using language provided by the Department of Homeland Security. That language does not align with Associated Press style, nor does it align with the values of this newspaper.
To avoid “being insensitive to the suspected murderer, the newspaper added: ‘No human’s existence is illegal, and we quickly changed our wording to reflect that.’”
In short, the newspaper thinks its “language,” not the killing of an innocent girl, caused “harm.”
“We deeply regret these errors, and we’re committed to continuing the high standards we hold for ourselves as journalists and members of the Loyola, Rogers Park and Chicago communities,” The Phoenix added.
The Chicago Tribune has also peddled the false claim that “illegal immigrant” is at odds with legal terminology, in spite of the fact that statutes and regulations use the words “illegal alien” and “illegal immigrant.” As LU contributor and lawyer Jerome Woehrle noted in 2019:
[T]he Chicago Tribune was criticized by readers because it falsely claimed that the term illegal alien isn’t “used in statutes and in legal circles.” It approvingly quoted a professor wrongly claiming “The term illegal alien isn’t a term that comes up in our laws,” in discussing New York City’s threat to fine people up to $250,000 for using the word “illegal alien” in workplaces, rental housing, or public accommodations.
But “illegal alien” is a term that comes up again and again in federal and state laws and regulations. Two examples of laws using the words “illegal alien” are 8 USC 1365 and 6 USC 240.
In response, the Tribune thumbed its nose at those readers. It reposted the article prominently on its web site [on October 9], so that a fresh crop of readers could read it and be deceived by it. “The quote claiming that ‘illegal alien isn’t a term that comes up in our laws’ is still there,” notes Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review. … At the same time, it added the word “frequently” before the words “used in statutes and legal circles.”
The claim that “illegal alien” isn’t used “frequently” in statutes and legal circles is just wrong. Experts on immigration law have pointed out that it is used many times in the U.S. Code. The Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh has written about immigration law for years. He testified before Congress, and favors allowing more immigrants and refugees into the country. As he notes, the term “illegal alien” is frequently used in the law, more often than competing terms like “unauthorized alien” and “undocumented alien.” He reviewed the federal “laws on citizenship, nationality, and immigration” — and found that “illegal alien” is the most commonly used term for people in the country illegally:
The term “illegal alien” was mentioned most of all – 33 times. … The second most common term was “unauthorized alien,” which appeared 21 times or about a quarter of the time. Interestingly enough, “undocumented alien” was the third most common with 18 uses. My preferred term of “illegal immigrant” was used only six times.
Contrary to the Chicago Tribune’s claims, the term “illegal alien” is frequently used in legal circles. The Justice Department routinely uses the term in its court briefs. It is the term used by the Supreme Court in cases such as Arizona v. United States. The term is also used by judges in lower court rulings, such as Texas v. United States. Judicial use of the term “illegal alien” is well known. It was cited in the past by the Heritage Foundation’s Hans Von Spakovsky, and more recently by lawyer John Hinderaker when he took issue with the Chicago Tribune’s claims at Powerline.
As Woehrle points out, the Tribune made these false claims in its slanted coverage favoring New York City’s controversial “immigration guidance.” That guidance restricts the use of the term “illegal alien” in workplaces, housing, and schools, threatening those who use it with $250,000 fines. Lawyers have criticized such restrictions, saying they violate the First Amendment. One of their many objections is that “illegal alien” is simply legally accurate terminology that the government lacks a valid interest in targeting based on its viewpoint. As Woehrle observes, it “is easier to defend such restrictions” if you falsely assume that “‘illegal alien’ is not a legal term” than if you admit it is indeed a commonly-used term found in laws.
