Phrase “illegal immigrant” banished by Associated Press

It was noted in the April 3, 2013 Patriot Post that the Associated Press is banishing the phrase “illegal immigrant” from its famous stylebook, because the AP explains that it wants to stop labeling people. Really?

Excerpt from columnist Michelle Malkin:

“This is the same organization that employs journalists who have repeatedly shown naked bias against tea party members, gun owners and pro-life activists.

I propose that we banish the term ‘journalist’ when referring to members of mainstream news organizations who pose as neutral news-gathers while carrying out a blatantly ideological agenda.”

The Associated Press doesn’t say what term should be used for “illegal immigrants” and is this blog breaking the rule by simply referring to the AP banishment?



  1. Ted: Two things:

    1. The AP has not banished the term “illegal immigration.”

    2. Fox News and Fox News Latino are dealing with this story in much different ways, tailoring one version to a conservative audience and the other to a largely Hispanic audience:


    • Ted Biondo

      Pat, I heard this version on Fox’s “The Five” yesterday. The AP says the term “illegal” is not to be used to describe the alien who entered the country illegally but the act of entering the country. First, These people are not immigrants – they did not immigrate to the U.S. but entered the country illegally.

      So, AP is allowing the action of coming into the U.S. to have the term “illegal” associated with it, but not the person who enters illegally. More games being played with words by the AP – it’s a hair-splitting game played when the mainstream media wants to banish politically incorrect words – by their definition.

  2. monkey

    What crime is being committed by someone who enters the country without documentation? If something is “illegal,” that implies that a law is being broken, right? So, what law are they breaking by entering the country? Are they “trespassing?” There’s no sarcasm here. It’s actually not a crime to enter the country w/o documentation, hence the more recent description of “undocumented immigrants.”

  3. JRM_CommonSense

    Didn’t they also ban:

    “Ethnic Cleansing”

    and stated that:

    Pope Francis is the right name without a roman numeral. The numeral would be redundant.
    Web Site is now website
    e-mail is not email

    And why did someone chose to only complain about “illegal Alien”?

  4. readingmike94

    look you cannot have it both ways in the abortion debate you say it is not a fetus but a human being a life so .. in this debate the term should be undocumented or unauthorized immigrant the thought being people arent illegal once you reduce people to those terms illegal etc it makes it easier to dehumanize them and exploit them

  5. As Leno said just call them “Undocumented future democratic voters”

  6. JRM_CommonSense

    “But describing an immigrant as illegal is legally inaccurate. Being in the U.S. without proper documents is a civil offense, not a criminal one. (Underscoring this reality, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion on SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law: “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a movable alien to remain in the United States.”) In a country that believes in due process of the law, calling an immigrant illegal is akin to calling a defendant awaiting trial a criminal. The term illegal is also imprecise. For many undocumented people — there are 11 million in the U.S. and most have immediate family members who are American citizens, either by birth or naturalization — their immigration status is fluid and, depending on individual circumstances, can be adjusted.”

    Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/21/immigration-debate-the-problem-with-the-word-illegal/#ixzz2PbjVTMQX

  7. crim·i·nal
    1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
    2. Relating to the administration of penal law.
    a. Guilty of crime.
    b. Characteristic of a criminal.
    4. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.
    One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.

    If an (illegal alien) is in this Country, unless they were forced across the border, they DID break a law. They are here, without any documentation of how they entered, so obviously at least one law was broken.

    Aliens are required to carry documentation, so a second law has been broken.

  8. JRM,

    Is committing a civil offense an illegal activity? YES

  9. truth hurts

    JRM, illegal (lawbreaker) alien supporters, and liberals seem to be trying to repeat the same tactic their old friend former president bill clinton tried.

    Let me refresh everyones memory.


    How that work out for you?

  10. JRM_CommonSense

    For your edification:


    And it does depend on what the definition of something is! But, to use someone’s (Clinton’s) stupid comment as justification for taking an illogical position is rather funny.

  11. truth hurts

    Please JRM you can post legal sights and try to deflect till doomsday.

    But the analogy still is accurate (in showing silliness of a statement of definition) due to the fact you keep trying to say that they are not illegal or trying to stand on that it is a civil offence.

    Now while one can try to tie the term illegal to a well established difference between accused and convicted of some crime, the REALITY is that if you cross the boarder WITHOUT PERMISSION OR CORRECT PAPERWORK you are HERE ILLEGALLY.

    Thus the CRIMINAL CHARGE. Now you can be found not guilty but I defy you to prove a case of someone comming across the boarder at night being a “mistake”.

    Now the JOKE of those (like you) trying the like “its a civil offence” makes bill clintions statement on what “the definition of is is” seem reasonable.

    Last I checked the boarder patrol are FEDERAL law enforcement officers ENFORCING FEDERAL LAW. Not code enforcers.

    The laws to those who cross the boarder violate FEDERAL LAWS not CODES.

    The truth also is (as Teds initial post states) that the press has (for the most part) made it taboo to call them illegal aliens but undocumented (pick your next statement).

    Sorry if the truth they are here ILLEGALLY hurts someones feelings, political point of view, or subjects them to being punished for (gasp) BREAKING THE LAW.

    So JRM care to tell us what the definition of illegal again is in the liberal mindset?

  12. JRM_CommonSense

    Nope, do not care to tell you what it is againt. You didn’t get it the first time , nor did you get it the second time, so why should I waste my time again. The truth seems to be what you think it is, so I have to assume that there is no place to go in this discussion with you. Done!

  13. truth hurts

    Thats right JRM just follow the typical liberal rant when cornered by facts you cannot dismiss , no one believes you, and/or someone stands up to you using facts.

    Run away and claim its the other persons fault for failing to agree with your nonsense.

    Sorry that sneaking into the USA is a FEDERAL CRIME hence ILLEGAL.

    But if running away, stomping your feet and personal attacks make you feel better who am I to judge that.

  14. JRM_CommonSense

    I am glad to see that you have been able to support your position by reputable references and directed us to very convincing documentation of your opinion. Oh wait, you haven’t provided even one supporting expert opinion. Just your opinion. And that opinion, “Sorry that sneaking into the USA is a FEDERAL CRIME hence ILLEGAL” is supposed to convince us all that it is the absolute, unquestionable truth. I’m sold!

  15. truth hurts


    Links hmmmmm.

    so your saying (in a poor attempt to support your position) that crossing into the USA is not a crime?


    So the border patrol arresting people sneaking over the borders are inforceing an non-existant law?

    Sigh I see common sense is lacking in JRM.

    Next you will be telling us you need a link proving that water is wet?

    Typical liberal temper tantrum.

  16. It must be all those billy goats going trip-trop over his bridge.

  17. JRM_CommonSense

    Yup, why would you want to have any supporting documentation for your position. It would distract from being able to spount an unsupportable or incorrect position. This is a guy who wouldn’t hire a lawyer for anything because he already knows what the law says and all he has to do is repeat it 32 times and it becomes true. I hope he never gets that civil versus criminal law mixed up. He will have a new friend named Bubba teaching him the finer points of the law. That would be a fine example of the truth hurts.

    The saving factor for you t. h. is that at least you aren’t posting ridiculous youtube crap to try to support a bogus position or to draw attention to a “related” issue.

  18. BTW, I found some video of JRM, in his natural habitat:


    Back to the subject, what other phrases should the AP eliminate? How about “Liberal”, when referring to Leftist politicians? A TRUE “Liberal” would seek to reduce legislation that limits our activities using multiple thousands of rules and regulations. But Democrat “Liberals” create thousands of new rules and regulations every year, and rarely delete any of the old ones. This costs both individuals and businesses billions in complying, or legally challenging them.

  19. Sorry to go off-topic, but I found this video interesting, especially with how confused Liberals become, when faced with their own hypocrisy.


  20. SNuss,

    Liberals have changed. BAck in the 60’s liberals used to live by that old CSN&Y montra “rules and reulations, who needs them…”. Now they live by this famous quote “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

  21. truth hurts

    Yawn JRM really the best you can do is accuse me of not needing a lawyer?

    Along with a side of deflection throwing around the term civil law and criminal law.

    Stir with a laughable childish “bubba” criminal comment.

    Simmer in the old pot of “you did not give documentation”.

    Now you have the typical liberal temper tanturm.

    Ok JRM again let me ask the following questions.

    1. Are boarder code inforcement personal or federal law enforcement officers?

    2. Do they hand out summons tickets (like if your lawn is too tall) or ARREST you?

    3. Do you violate a non jail ordenance or are you arrested for a federal offence?

    Now JRM is correct on one small fact is that an illegal alien violates some civil laws.

    HOWEVER the truth he tries to hide in his diflection is crossing the boarder without following the proper laws is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

    Hence the reason we have FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT officers at the boarder and YOU ARE FEDERALLY PROCECUTED IN FEDERAL COURT.

    Again I ask for proof (something he keeps asking of others but not himself) that being an illegal alien is ONLY A CIVIL VIOLATION.

    Oh lastly JRM if you are sooooo versed in the law why not put out a shingle and represent illegal aliens?

    Excuse me while I pop more popcorn for the next round of temper tantrum.
    I love a good show

  22. truth hurts

    Oh I forgot to ask JRM this.

    Have you tried crossing the boarder illegally because it is “only a civil offence”?

    Maybe you need to check with a lawyer to know not to do that but fortunately some of us have common sense (or read the paper).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *