The Associated Press stopped using the term “illegal immigrants” in April 2013 to refer to immigrants here without authorization. The wire service reasoned — rightly, I think — that we should strive to describe and label actions, rather than people.
The change makes sense, though not every news organization has followed suit, as today’s Wall Street Journal headline shows.
The debate has two main strands: the discussion over accuracy and simplicity, and the ideological one (which most organizations refuse to acknowledge).
The first strand is essentially one of balance: What is more important, describing the immigrant quickly in a way most people get, or describing him or her with precision? This is more difficult than most non-writers probably realize.
The ideological strand — which is tied to this question of precision — is really one of creating meaning. One of the reasons that immigration advocates have been pushing to end the use of “illegal immigrants” or “illegals” is that the phrase carries negative connotations (or worse), which sends the signal to the hearer that the immigrant in question is a hardened criminal. He or she is “illegal,” after all, a lawbreaker on a par with a burglar or bank robber. Words are not just representative; they are generative, as well, when it comes to interpretation. They not only describe the world but tell the reader how to understand it.
That’s why AP ultimately opted to reserve the word “illegal” for specific actions and not for people. I’m hopeful that the rest of the news business follows suit.
Hank Kalet 