Trying to take the illegal out of immigrants This vehicle became stuck on top of the US-Mexico border fence as it tried to cross into the US illegally last year. As Customs agents arrived on the scene, two suspects fled into Mexico. Photo: US Customs and Border Protection LOS ANGELES: As lawmakers in Washington debate the possibility of legalisation for 11 million immigrants, a more basic question has emerged in the nation's newsrooms and beyond: what to call them. Most news organisations have long used the term "illegal immigrant," which some people find offensive. They prefer "undocumented," arguing that "illegal" is dehumanising and lumps border crossers with serious criminals. Some even view "illegal immigrant" as tantamount to hate speech and refuse to utter it, referring only to the "I-word." This week, Associated Press revised its influential stylebook and jettisoned "illegal immigrant," reversing a decision from six months earlier. AP did not offer an exact replacement, instead recommending that writers fully describe a person's immigration status. The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, which have been discussing the question internally for months, have indicated they will soon issue their own edicts. A stylebook update is typically an esoteric affair of interest only to journalists and linguists, but this one has prompted a wider discussion featuring claims of political correctness gone wild, relief over the banishment of a disfavoured term, and snarky Twitter asides. Murderer is out. The term 'accused of unlawfully ceasing the life of another' preferred," one Twitter user wrote, appending the hashtag NewAPStyle, which calls up mealy mouthed descriptions for subjects as diverse as tax increases and former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford's mistress. For immigrants, especially those who have lived without papers, the issue is personal. "When one is told that one is illegal, it really creates this identity of being a criminal," said Carlos Amador, 28, who works with young immigrants at the University of California, Los Angeles. But the reality is, myself, my parents, those in my community who are in this situation of not having papers - all we want is to contribute back into this country, to be accepted and welcomed. Instead of using "undocumented immigrant" or an alternative descriptor such as "unauthorised," the new AP stylebook entry recommends avoiding that sentence construction altogether. It's incorrect to describe a person as illegal, even if he or she has committed an illegal act, said Michael Oreskes, AP senior managing editor. Thus, "illegal immigration" is acceptable while "illegal immigrant" is not. "Undocumented" was rejected because people may have documents, just not the right ones. It's lazy to label people. It's better to describe them," Mr Oreskes said. The change was part of a routine stylebook update and was not influenced by developments in Washington, he said. Rinku Sen of the Drop the I-Word campaign called the revision a "really high-leverage decision," because most American newspapers follow AP style. "The common usage of the I-word has become heavily racialised and targeted at people of colour," said Ms Sen, president of the Applied Research Centre think tank, which produced the campaign. The Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, which supports deportation and opposes legalisation, reacted to the AP's decision by adopting a new term of its own: "illegal invader." "Immigrant" should be reserved for people who came to this country legally, said William Gheen, the group's president. "It's the most run-amok PC thing I've ever seen in my life," Mr Gheen said of abandoning the "illegal immigrant" usage. It's political correctness on steroids. At the Los Angeles Times, "illegal alien" was the preferred usage from 1979 until the newspaper's style guide changed in 1995, said Henry Fuhrmann, the assistant managing editor in charge of copy desks. Since then, writers have been directed to use "illegal immigrants" while avoiding "illegal aliens" and "illegals."