No One Is “Illegal,” Tell The Associated Press

I don’t need to signal my bias, I’ve never hidden it – I deplore the word “illegal” when used in referenced to undocumented workers in the United States. I use it only in specific instances in my writing: in a direct quote, in which case it’s once-removed, attributable and at arm’s length; or as a reference when I’m writing about the word, specifically, as I did in the first sentence of this post.

I wouldn’t use it if I didn’t have to. And that’s part of the problem – the fact that I have to. It bothers me that the word has become ubiquitous, that when people say it in reference to a person everyone knows what they mean. It bothers me that I can’t stop it – at least not outside my immediate circle of influence, small as that may be.

At the same time I’m fascinated at how words change with use. How does a word go from being an adverb to become an adjective? See, activities are illegal, not people. It’s usage that does that, so that  now it has a meaning that denotes a quality of being. And everyone seems okay with that, except, how can a human being be illegal?

All other states of being require modifiers: you can be a doctor, a criminal, a mother, a student, an undocumented worker. You can modify a condition of being: sick, moody, persnickety. But a human being cannot be legal or otherwise because legality is a condition imposed on property or activity. 

You can describe the condition of the activity of the worker or the resident as illegal, but it’s the work that is not in compliance with the law, not the person doing the work.

There is no such thing as “an illegal,” unless you’re talking about a left turn.

Here’s why I bring it up. Journalists across the country use the Associated Press’ Stylebook as their reference, rule book and bible of written journalistic word correctness. If the AP sytlebook says reporters should use a certain term or abbreviate a word in a certain way, then every editor worth their chops will crack a whip to make sure it’s done that way.

Wouldn’t it be good if the AP set a standard that went far enough to correct the usage of the word “illegal” in the media, and from there to correct it in our everyday speech?

There is a style rule that goes a long way toward correcting the problem – this from the AP Stylebook Facebook page:

We’ve updated our style on illegal immigrant. The term is used to describe someone who has entered a country illegally or who resides in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Acceptable variations include living in the country without legal permission. Use of these terms, as with any terms implying illegalities, must be based on reliable information about a person’s true status. Unless quoting someone, AP does not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or the term undocumented.

It doesn’t go far enough.  Again, the act may be against a specific legal code, but not the person.  Is there such a thing as an illegal doctor? An illegal teacher? An illegal wife or son? An immigrant is an immigrant, although he or she may be undocumented.  Granted, “an immigrant who entered the country illegally” is too wordy for print, but that doesn’t justify calling an immigrant illegal.

Ther are two things you can do to change way we say what we say. One is to not use the term “illegal,” ever, in reference to a human being. Another is to go to this site, to chime-in as to how you think the AP should change their rule here.

The AP is asking for suggestions for the 2012 version of their rule book. The deadline is November 15.

Pardon the urgency, but if you can, let them know what you think! Y gracias.

[Image by Associated Press]

Subscribe today!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Must Read