On Tuesday, the AP announced that it will no longer use the term “illegal immigrant.” In a blog post, Kathleen Carroll, the AP’s executive editor and senior vice president, wrote, “The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that “illegal” should describe only an action.” Reflecting this idea that the term “illegal” should not refer to people, the AP has also changed the title of the Stylebook entry from “illegal immigrant” to “illegal immigration.”
The announcement was a victory for immigrants’ rights organizations like Define American and progressive news outlets like Colorlines. Much of the credit for pushing for the change goes to Jose Antonio Vargas, the founder of Define American and a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and activist who came out as undocumented two years ago. Last September, Vargas publicly called on the AP and The New York Times to drop the term “illegal immigrant.”
“It was kind of inevitable. It was going to happen. It’s just a matter of when. I’m surprised it took this long,” Vargas said over the phone. But that inevitability doesn’t diminish its significance. “The Associated Press just humanized undocumented people in this country,” he said.
The AP is not entirely dropping the adjective “illegal”; it will still refer to “illegal immigration” and people entering the country “illegally.” Vargas is fine with those usages because, he said, “that’s accurately describing an action.” The AP will also continue to use “illegal immigrant” with attribution, i.e. when quoting people or documents. So the phrase will continue to be used in AP stories, but it will no longer be treated as the acceptable and mainstream way to refer to immigrants who reside in the country illegally. As Director of Media Relations Paul Colford put it, “‘Illegal immigrant’ as an acceptable phrase is no longer acceptable.”
It was only last October (shortly after Vargas began his campaign) that Tom Kent, the AP’s deputy managing editor for standards and production, wrote in a blog post that the AP would be sticking with “illegal immigrant.” The AP, he explained, found alternatives to “illegal immigrant”—particularly Vargas’s favored term, “undocumented immigrant”—to be inaccurate, because many immigrants who entered the country illegally do have documents of one kind or another. “What they lack is the fundamental right to be in the United States,” Kent wrote. He also rejected the idea that the AP’s use of “illegal immigrant” offended the dignity of those who were in the country illegally.
What changed in the last six months? According to Colford, it wasn’t Vargas’s pressure campaign. “We weren’t pressured into it,” he said, while acknowledging that “the conversation continued even after we had affirmed ‘illegal immigrant.’”
“We continued to hear from various groups and individuals who felt pretty passionately,” Colford said, “[and] the Stylebook editors also sounded out any number of colleagues in the AP newsroom.”
The AP believes the new style will result in more accurate and precise reporting.
“The hope is that the reporter will be more specific as to the circumstances of one’s immigration status,” explained Colford, by using phrases like, “people who entered the country illegally” or “someone living in the country on an expired visa” as opposed to relying on the easy label “illegal immigrant.”
Vargas hopes the switch will lead to better immigration coverage in the AP and other news organizations that follow the Stylebook. “What this is about is the beginning of a conversation in newsrooms all across the country,” Vargas said. It’s a conversation that starts with a change in terminology, but extends to a re-examination of how news organizations cover immigrants.
The AP’s style changes serve as a useful gauge of news trends, but as a case study, nothing tops editorial decisions made at the Times. In October (again, shortly after Vargas began his campaign), Public Editor Margaret Sullivan wrote a blog post defending the Times’s use of “illegal immigrant.” Like Kent, she found alternatives like “undocumented immigrant” to be unclear and inaccurate.

As Director of Media Relations Paul Colford put it, “‘Illegal immigrant’ as an acceptable phrase is no longer acceptable.”
The purpose of this change is not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of leftism and its affiliates, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. The vocabulary is being constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a tribal affiliate could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This is being done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 3 Apr 2013 at 02:38 PM
The Rectification of Names (Chinese: 正名; pinyin: Zhèngmíng; Wade–Giles: Cheng-ming) is the Confucian doctrine that to know and use the proper designations of things in the web of relationships that creates meaning, a community, and then behaving accordingly so as to ensure social harmony is The Good ] Since social harmony is of utmost importance, without the proper rectification of names, society would essentially crumble and "undertakings [would] not [be] completed."
The Rectification of Names means that "things in actual fact should be made to accord with the implications attached to them by names, the prerequisites for correct living and even efficient government and that all classes of society should accord to what they ought to be". Without the rectification of names, different words would have different actions
#2 Posted by Publius, CJR on Wed 3 Apr 2013 at 02:53 PM
The AP has taken a very foolish and shortsighted action in denying the calling of a spade, a spade. Its decision to censor the use of the words "illegal immigrant" to describe illegal immigrants is an act of willful dishonesty and new-speak worthy of inclusion in Orwell's 1984. They attempt by this action to silence in public discourse the recognition that there is a difference between those that are legally and illegally present within the frontiers of the U.S. Although by this action they seem to have unequivocally proven their incapacity for shame, they nevertheless ought to be ashamed. This is clearly nothing more than a naked sop to the pro-amnesty, open borders, anti-American lobbies, and an abject sell-out of journalistic integrity.
The reasoning they offer to distinguish between entering the U.S. illegally and being an illegal immigrant is simply tortured beyond all possible reason, and has no basis in logic, fact, or the law of the United States.
"If there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant then there is no such thing as a legal one, or a meaning to the status of "lawful resident" or "citizen". By this, they seek to obscure rather than bring facts into the light. These are objectives of propaganda not journalism.
#3 Posted by Ernie Schnabel, CJR on Wed 3 Apr 2013 at 08:11 PM
Until they are legal it is what it is. To hell with feedings.
#4 Posted by John Wayne, CJR on Thu 4 Apr 2013 at 07:52 AM
If somebody breaks the law they are doing something illegal. If an immigrant is breaking the immigration laws by being here, they are an illegal immigrant. Period.
What does AP call murderers and killers and rapists? Have they found some warm and fuzzy politically correct names for those people that doesn't offend them?
#5 Posted by Taxed Enough, CJR on Thu 4 Apr 2013 at 10:58 AM
This wouldn't relate to AP's pending release of its first-ever Spanish-language Style Book, would it?
#6 Posted by SocraticGadfly, CJR on Fri 12 Apr 2013 at 10:02 AM
Does this statement also indicate that anyone who commits a crime should not be called a criminal? Crime should refer to the act, but maybe naming someone as a criminal is to offensive. Come on, this nation getting bogged down by political correct terms when it really should be focusing on more important matters.
#7 Posted by Joe M, CJR on Mon 15 Apr 2013 at 10:37 AM