The latest dust-up occurred a few weeks ago after The Fresno Bee
published an seven-day series that took a nuanced, balanced and honest look at
issues surrounding illegal immigration in California's Central Valley. Despite
the tour-de-force reporting that exposed the stark contradictions defining the
issue from economic, personal, bureaucratic and political perspectives, the hot
story turned out to be that many readers were angered by the newspaper's use of
the term "illegal immigrant."

    
One particularly outraged reader called for a boycott and started a
social media campaign that went viral over the long Thanksgiving weekend,
spurring more impassioned pleas for news media to stop using the terms
"illegal aliens" and "illegal immigrants." Many advocacy
organizations and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists favor
"undocumented worker" or "undocumented immigrant," terms
that rile those who feel their overt political correctness masks their obvious
truth. Others are simply followers of the newspaper industry-standard Associated
Press Stylebook, or those who don't see what the big deal is.

    
Ferocious debates about the terminology sprung up when illegal
immigration once again became a divisive political issue after Wisconsin
Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner sponsored a bill in 2005 that, had it become
law, would have cracked down on those who assisted illegal immigrants.

    
The term "alien" went from being apolitical technical jargon
that originated in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act to one that some
now consider a slur -- because it has been used that way by many who are
against either illegal or legal immigration.

    
The AP has responded to the Fresno Bee incident, as well as to other
instances in which readers revolted against news stories or headlines using the
controversial terms, with the same long-standing guidance. The news cooperative
considers "illegal immigrant" neutral while discouraging
"illegal alien," "undocumented workers" and
"illegals," due to a lack of precision.

    
The "undocumented" descriptors are euphemistic, but at least
they aren't dehumanizing such as the term I most dislike: the free-standing
"illegals." Though it may be only shorthand to some, I've found that
people who use the term generally intend it to be an insult. Then there are the
federal terms "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant,"
which are the most common targets of readers' ire, because they are the most
widely used.

    
"Illegal" is the word the government uses to describe the
immigration status of people who don't have the federal documents to show they
are legally entitled to work, visit or live here.

    
"Alien," a term freely used in our current immigration laws,
owes its origins to the hotly debated Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which,
according to Aziz Rana, assistant professor of law at Cornell University and an
immigration historian, created the first government infrastructure for
criminalizing and deporting noncitizens. But at the time "alien" was
not thought of as an epithet or as demeaning because the term was closely
related to resident alien voting rights. Rana said, "It wasn't until the
1920s when the term became associated with repatriation based on race or
ethnicity."

    
Even the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services uses the terms
"undocumented," "without status" and even "lawful
permanent resident" instead of the formal and perfectly respectable
"legal permanent resident" in some of its written communications.
A  spokesperson couldn't recall
when the language softened -- there was no formal announcement in the past few
years -- but she said that when USCIS and its parent agency, the Department of
Homeland Security, speak officially, both rely on the terms used in the federal
statutes that determine agency policy.

    
Words do matter, but I wish those who have taken up this cause would
drop their headline-grabbing complaints about the technical terms "illegal
alien" and "illegal immigrant." The vile name-calling that tries
to pass for an immigration debate has taken some people to the ends of their
patience, but of all immigration-related issues this is the one least deserving
of anyone's passion and time. It's a distraction that takes much-needed
attention away from discussing real immigration law reforms that could greatly
benefit both new and existing citizens.

© 2010, Washington Post Writers Group