I received an email this week from a group called “Drop the I-Word” urging journalists to reconsider the words they use to describe illegal immigrants. It was not the first time I’ve heard about this issue. In the debate about those who enter the U.S. without permission, the labels used in politics and the media are hotly debated.
The issue is too complex to boil down to two sides, but folks tend to line up in one of two camps: one stressing sensitivity to individuals (usually favoring the labels “undocumented immigrant” or “undocumented worker”) and the other stressing the unlawfulness of their actions (favoring “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant”).
Passions run so strong that journalists discuss this issue regularly. In fact, one organization, the Society of Professional Journalists, in September called on news organizations to ban the use of “illegal alien.”
“Those two words are ugly words,” said Rebecca Aguilar, a freelance reporter who made a passionate speech during a society meeting. She said she spoke as a proud daughter of a former undocumented worker and not as someone taking a political position.
Aguilar said she understands that the debate is about the law, and so “illegal immigrant” is acceptable to many, including her mother, who became an American citizen in 1979. (SPJ did not take as strong a position on “illegal immigrant” but urged more discussion about that phrasing.)
But “illegal alien,” Aguilar said, is dehumanizing and insulting. Many groups have been the subject of racial or ethnic slurs. “To Latinos or immigrants or children of immigrants, it is that exact thread,” she said.
Kent Lundgren, chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, disagrees. “The term ‘alien’ is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act as “any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States,” Lundgren said, and adding “illegal” to that makes it clear the discussion is about aliens who enter the country without permission. Lundgren says that if the term is considered dehumanizing or insulting, it is because the media and others have allowed it to be defined that way.
Lundgren argues against substituting “immigrant” because, as he notes, not all come here to settle permanently, as “immigrant” implies. He says “immigrant” also softens the issue and blurs the distinctions between those who came here legally and those who have broken laws.
Jennifer Sclafani, a visiting professor of linguistics at Georgetown University, argues that both descriptions fall short because of reasons stated above and specifically because of the reference to illegality. “Illegal — meaning not authorized by law — does not technically modify a person,” she said. The act of crossing the border might be illegal, she said, but the person is not.
Sclafani suggests “undocumented” as the most neutral term, but others disagree. Suggesting the debate is over paperwork minimizes its importance, they say, and some illegal immigrants have fake documents.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution follows the practice of The Associated Press, which uses “illegal immigrant.” It is not a decision made on a case-by-case basis; it is a common “style” adopted by many newspapers.
“Our position is that illegal immigrant is a neutral, fair and accurate term. It refers to civil law rather than criminal law,” said David Minthorn, deputy standards editor for the news service. He said AP avoids “undocumented” except in direct quotations and specifically avoids “alien” because of pejorative connotations and because that phrasing can also be unclear.
We use AP style for practicality — we don’t have to update or change every reference that moves in an AP story if we match our style to theirs — but also because it seems the best solution among imperfect choices.
Our practice could evolve as the debate continues, but it would not be a change we would make lightly.
As I hear from readers and experts, I’m even more convinced those arguing so passionately have good points and strong rationales. But when some dismiss other views as wrong or even ridiculous, it’s clear they don’t understand the newspaper’s desire to use neutral language. Instead, they want the AJC to support their own position.
We know how much labels and descriptions matter; we’re in the words business. But our role is not to convince one side or the other. Our job is to provide readers all views on an important topic, a goal best served by using language as neutral as we can.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wants to explain openly to readers what we do and why. Public editor Shawn McIntosh writes a column every other week to provide insight into newsroom operations, the newspaper’s role in the community and the industry. Write McIntosh at insideajc@ajc.com or join the conversation on editor Kevin Riley’s Facebook page,
About the Author
