1. The ” headline didn’t reflect the most important elements in the story” because it falsely and deceptively referred to an illegal immigrant as just an immigrant. The fact that Medina-Medina was here illegally is vital information, as it adds one more victim to the blood and carnage the Biden administration’s irresponsible open borders policies inflicted on the American public.
2. What possible “harm” does an accurate description of an accused killer cause? And what “affected community”? The murderous, criminal, illegal immigrant community? The legal Venezuelan community? The paper exists to serve the Loyola community, and an innocent member had been murdered; isn’t the paper’s first obligation to students and not to whoever it is that identifies with law-breakers that murder students?
3. The Associated Press is now a full-fledgde Axis hackery machine, and its politically-correct “style” has no jurisdiction over any other publication.
4. What “values” were violated? Oh, right: the moronic trope that there is no such thing an an illegal human being. Except calling someone who has immigrated here illegally, that is to say, in violation of U.S. law, an illegal immigrant does not state that the individual’s “existence” is illegal, but that his manner of immigration was illegal, hence the term, “illegal immigrant.” The paper’s editors are illiterate, or willing to appear so in order to signal their woke bona fides.
It may well be that this coast-to-coast campus rot will only subside when employers begin actively refusing to hire graduates of schools that render their students so cognitively disabled.
_______________
Source: College Fix
Ethics Alarms 
I am increasingly detesting the “No human is illegal” slogan. I wonder how many of adherents actually believe it, and how many know it is just a tactic to put conservatives on the defensive. No human is illegal only makes sense in an existential context. Mere being is not illegal. But actions can be illegal, and speaking of illegal immigrants is entirely about describing actions, not being. It is not dehumanizing to speak of someone as an illegal immigrant, because one is not intrinsically illegal or an immigrant. Both terms only apply once some takes an action, one to immigrate, and two to choose to do so against the laws of the land.
I know that many try to insist that referring to someone as an “illegal immigrant” is reducing them to this single aspect, and that reduction is somehow wrong. But any time we try to describe someone, we end up reducing them to what ever few descriptors we choose to apply. Picking the most pertinent details for a situation helps to identify one individual over another, and picking certain details help to emphasize the important aspects of the topic at hand. When speaking about someone who committed a crime, referring to his criminal history is pertinent information (except in Virginia).
When an undesirable event occurs, we conduct an investigation with two thoughts in mind. First: how did it happen? Second: how do we prevent it from happening again? For example, there was just this week a fire at a Valero refinery in Port Arthur, TX. Fires are unfortunately a regular experience in the refining industry, and refineries want to get to the root cause of the fire so they can correct whatever deficiency allowed the fire to occur. Often such investigations find multiple reasons leading up to a major incident. A critical sensor was not maintained and did not detect an aberrant condition. The board operator was flooded with alarms due to a unit upset and missed the critical alarm that would have prompted him to shut down the unit. A project existed to install an automated response, but due to lack of funding and lack of prioritizing the project, it was never implemented. Someone left an engine idling on a unit, providing the spark needed to ignite a vapor cloud.
There are many preventative measures refiners use to protect their assets. These layers of protection are often referred to as slices of Swiss cheese. One slice has a number of holes in it, but you can cover up some of those holes with another slice of Swiss cheese. The more slices of Swiss cheese you have, the more holes you cover, until hopefully all of them are. But when all the holes align, you have an avenue for an incident.
With murder, we have a number of layers of protection. The legal consequences of being convicted of murder is one such layer. Social disapproval of murder is another. Other layers can be personal: choosing to avoid certain neighborhoods, choosing not to be out at night, not getting involved in gangs, not cheating on your spouse, carrying protective equipment like a taser or firearm. But another layer we can consider is immigration enforcement. Some people have tried to make the argument that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes (after their illegal entry) than regular citizens. I have heard some people attempt to debunk those claims, but really it comes down to how well crimes and immigration status are reported and reported together, and there are gaping holes in the federal database. Those holes might hide an explosion of crimes by illegals, or they might show the same trend as anywhere else. We simply don’t know. But there is weight to the argument that if an illegal immigrant had been turned back at the border, or deported when discovered, or somehow otherwise detained, he wouldn’t have committed the additional crime he did end up committing. What we can conclude, though, is that once someone has shown himself willing to break the law for his own benefit, that leaves him susceptible to further lawbreaking. After all, it is human nature to repeat actions from which we derive some benefit without experiencing sufficient consequences.
All that being said, in the case of Medina-Medina, I could make an argument for not wanting to call attention to his immigration status, but has nothing to do with the “no human is illegal” argument. The problem is potentially poisoning Medina-Medina’s defense. If he did not actually commit the crime, calling out his immigration status could be prejudicial. However, I don’t find that argument particularly compelling myself, and I think it is pertinent to call out someone’s criminal history when accused of another crime.
Those people can get back to me when they discover a way to detach those persons from their acts and/or physical location.
This instance is just another example of the way the left (and MSM, but that’s redundant) attempt to control debates by making up and enforcing rules for “acceptable” terms and language that can be employed, and thereby metaphorically tying the hands of their opponents. We have to accept their feelings, identities, fears, definitions, and perceptions as valid, but they can’t accept our adjectives.
8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) provides the following:
(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
8 USC § 1325(a)(emphasis added). Title 18, USC, §§ 1, et seq, define crimes and punishment for certain crimes under federal law. Whether prosecuted for illegal or unauthorized entry to the U.S. is not the determining factor. Unauthorized entry to the U.S. is still considered a crime under federal immigration law. so, referring to someone like Medina-Medina as an “illegal immigrant” or more properly, “illegal alien” is correct regardless of the Associated Press definition of Medina-Medina’s status.
jvb
This is based on this ideology that has Designated Victim Classes®™, and people in those classes, regardless of whether they were personally victimized, are not responsible for their actions, and get to commit crimes against others, and by crimes I mean something other than paying off porn stars.
“No Person is Illegal” is what James Lindsay calls a “thought terminating cliche.”
If you are not browsing his work at New Discourses you are really missing out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhPbefqbTkc
charles w abbott
rochester NY
Notonly is the AP a word police but also are many of tese AI dictation algorithims. In my rpofessioanl context I write reprots about failed marriages. often these marriage fail due to pornography. Using the dictation function of WORD that particulalr word gets transcribed as ***********, in red.