An editorial question.
In this article I found this sentence:
Part of being “presidential” and “uniting the party” involves grinning and bearing a wide variety of grievances — in Mr. McCain’s case, from anti-immigration activists, right-wing talk show hosts and the many lawmakers and lobbyists Mr. McCain has crossed, undermined, annoyed and overshadowed over the years.
Why wouldn’t they instead write “anti-illegal immigration activists” or “pro-border activists?” Is there no distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration? Isn’t it possible to be in favor of immigration and opposed to illegal immigration? Personally, I have to wonder if the NYT prefers the more inaccurate term because it sounds more evil.
