Both worlds, again

February 1 in the papers. Note that the Times continues to use bold rubrics that emphasize the danger of living in America nowadays, while the Post uses them rarely - some days they have none at all, and today only one, while the Times has one on every single story. Also, once again they do not share a single story, though the Post's picture links to a Hagel story inside.

WaTimes:

• NATIONAL SECURITY: Governor halts deal with bomb supplier in Pakistan; Indiana partners in Defense probe
• CABINET: Hagel roughed up by friendly fire; GOP colleagues blast Pentagon pick
• FEDERAL DEBT: Congress gets 3½ months to run up debt
• FOREIGN POLICY: Biden to use Obama's postelection 'flexibility' on weapons with Russia
• PENTAGON: Workers prepare budgets because Congress won't
• TERRORISM: Jihadist threat: Just website bluster? 'Earth-shattering' payback for Mali
• Their big picture: the Hagel hearing

WaPo:

• GUNS IN AMERICA: 2005 law frustrates shooting victims; NRA-backed measure shields firearms makers from liability suits
• Deal on migrants faces big obstacle; The Question Of Citizenship; Tensions rise in both parties at pivotal time
• VA study finds more veterans committing suicide; Iraq, Afghanistan wars no necessarily linked to increase in deaths
• A compelling canvas or a Kateastrophe? Duchess of Cambridge's official protrait draws save criticism, but artist believes in his work
• Johns Hopkins redevelops surrounding area, school
• Their big picture: Hagel 'in the hot seat'

I notice both papers are saying "migrants" when they mean "immigrants". Is this some new trend, perhaps trying to emphasize that many of them go back to their native lands, some even on a regular basis? Because to me, a "migrant" is someone who travels around, usually on a regular circuit, to do seasonal work.