Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States

Edits Needed for Grammar, Clarity

I don't meet the requirements for editing a semi-protected article. Can someone please fix this for me?

In the overview (the first section, before the comments), the second-to-last sentence reads:

"Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being in the country illegally – have no statistically meaningful impact on crime or reduce the crime rate."

Logically speaking, it's redundant to say they have no statistically meaningful impact on crime and also that they don't reduce the crime rates. But first, just grammatically speaking, it should read:

"Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being in the country illegally – have no statistically meaningful impact on crime, nor do they reduce the crime rate."

This is still syntactically incorrect though, because as-written, this sentence means sanctuary cities reduce the crime rate, which isn't what the author was trying to say, because that is either incomplete or nonsensical. I'm pretty sure they were trying to indicate that sanctuary cities do not have different crime rates or lower crime rates (again, redundant) solely by dint of being sanctuary cities. Also, "statistically meaningful" is a weird way to say "statistically significant", so I changed that too. Finally, "designed to not prosecute" is a) awkwardly worded and b) confusing, so I fixed that too. All told, if I am interpreting the author correctly, a better way to put this is:

"Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to prevent the prosecution of people solely for being in the country illegally – do not have statistically significant differences in crime rates when compared to non-sanctuary cities with comparable traits."

BUT! If I'm wrong about what the original author meant and they were trying to say that sanctuary cities don't impact crime rates in the larger region they are in, though, it should be:

"Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to prevent the prosecution of people solely for being in the country illegally – do not have any statistically significant impact on regional crime rates."

AN ADDENDUM FROM ANOTHER VIEWER: I would like to know what type of statistical test and the significance level being employed to determine 'statistical significance/ non-significance'. Were the data employed fulfilling the assumptions of randomness, normal distribution and equal variances? If not, were they appropriately transformed? Simply failing to reject the alternative hypothesis does not necessarily mean the null hypothesis is correct - in conducting the test in this case, one has simply failed to reject the null hypothesis.

Please stop abusing inferential statistics to make political cases. The references provided are not academic, peer-reviewed papers. They are linked to think-tank and news agencies that have had political connections for decades and often employ poor statistical rigour or none at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.145.95.151 (talk • contribs) 18:05, November 30, 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on chart content and form

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus to favor Versions A, acknowledged by the creator of Versions B. Minor cooperative suggestions for improvement can be made separately, outside this RfC. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Encounters version A

Encounters version B

Expulsions version A

Expulsions version B

EA version A

EA version B

Please provide your preference for Versions A or Versions B for immigration-related Wikipedia articles, and beyond. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Disclosure: I (uploads) am creator of Versions A which are result of many discussions (mostly in the climate change area).
Newer editor User:Superb Owl (uploads) is creator of Versions B (which are more his personal preference) and peppers articles with them, sometimes replacing Versions A. Despite various interchanges (including this), Superb Owl remains unconvinced. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Versions A, for at least the following reasons:

— More comprehensive timescale — not cherry-picked, better quantifies the data, and provides context

— Division of time axis into segments that are meaningful to humans

— Judicious use of horizontal gridlines to make it easier for people to gauge height of bars (no need to label each gridline)

— Larger font for readability on par with surrounding prose text

— Inclusion of vertical axis, per most common chart formats

— More formal presentation for an adult encyclopedia article

— SVG is preferred over PNG

Prior indications:

— Here, User:JSwift49 favored Expulsions Version A.

— Here, User:Izno even suggested taking the creator of Encounters Version B straight to ANI.

I'm hoping to show Superb Owl how Wikipedia consensus works, what the consensus here is, and specifically to stop their replacement of Versions A with their Versions B. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Encounters: I only replaced the last version after you seemed to complain about maintaining it each month with updated data. If you are happy to continue to maintain it, then by all means replace it as it is the (very narrow) current consensus, but I would be curious to know if anyone else finds Craig09's gridlines overkill and choice of time scale redundant since there is already an Encounters chart covering FY 2020-2023, so the choice of a narrower time scale is to avoid redundancy.
EA version A also requires squinting to see 21st century trends and is confusing whether it is stacked or overlapping (otherwise I would prefer it) Superb Owl (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think with the first two, Version A are clearly better. The data in Encounters Version B is cherry picked and only shows the part where there is a decrease. Expulsions Version B is harder to read (smaller font and no grid lines) and not otherwise an improvement.
• I also support Version A with EA as I find it more informative re. historical trends and not confusing. There might however be a case for Version B in an article solely focused on that narrower timeframe. I think there should also be a chart showing the number of migrants released into the country if that data exists.

JSwift49 10:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Definitely Version A because they provide a more complete picture chronologically. For the first graph, a single year is not very useful at all and smacks of recentism. (Bot summons) Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Version A graphs are much higher quality. ~ HAL333 (VOTE!) 05:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Mixed. I prefer Version A for encounters and expulsions, primarily because it's easier to attach the data to the applicable year. For enforcement actions, Version A gives a much broader picture in terms of the time frame, but the differently colored bars in Version B are easier to read for the years it covers. Maybe doing bars like that for every year since 1900 is unwieldy? If so, it would often be useful to include both versions in an article, to get the broader chronological perspective and to make it easier for the reader to absorb the data for the most recent years. JamesMLane t c 22:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Version A for all three. A few principles should be applied to these sort of visualizations:

• Visual contrast for marks: General guidance on mark contrast for accessibility and ease of viewing is to get the ratio above 4.5:1^([1]), and higher is better. Version A uses colors
     

     
  with a contrast ratio of 5.09:1, meeting this standard. Version B uses colors
     

     
  with a contrast ratio of 2.87:1, falling short of the standard.
• Label legibility: Version A uses a font size that is consistent and legible, even at small sizes (i.e. without expanding the image). Version B's font size is inconsistent, with the expulsions title overly large and the axis labels too small to read at small scale. Additionally, the label font color chosen for B does not meet the contrast standard (
     

     
  2.30:1).
• Axis ticks and labels: For expulsions and encounters, version A has clearly demarcated years and gridlines, which make it easy to perform a bar-to-year or bar-to-quantity lookup. Version B simply labels the extrema as "Oct 2023" and "Sept 2024" -- maybe some people can perform the interpolation in their head, but I cannot. For the vertical axes, abbreviations such as "10K" for 10,000 allow for a larger font size and a more readable graph. For year axes, axis labels are not needed.

That said, while I'm offering comments, I shall say that while Enforcement Actions A is better than B, I might suggest a few changes. These are mostly nitpicky and just my personal taste, but I would remove the "million persons" label (unless there's a distinction being made -- do these numbers only count one action per person? But regardless that could be moved to the title), remove decimals and add "M" for million to the vertical axis ticks , and bring the title up out of the plot space. As for the X range of the plots as JamesMLane refers to above, that's gonna depend on the article in question. Srey Sros^talk 20:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, I should add, the first two version B plots look an awful lot like the default Google Sheets style, which, even if it the style was nice-looking (which I don't consider it to be), does not inspire confidence among readers (for better or worse, in my experience people tend to judge graph reliability at least partially by "production value"). Srey Sros^talk 21:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for weighing-in and helping to explain the various advantages to option A - there seems to be a clear consensus for option A across the board (except for some ongoing discussion on EA version A). I also join JSwift49 and JamesMLane in advocating for keeping a version that only shows the years since (maybe ~2010 or so?) Superb Owl (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The two editors you, Superb Owl, mention, favored a shorter timeframe only if the article focused on that shorter timeframe. Though a 4-year timeframe might be appropriate for Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration, that is not the case here. Clearly, there is no reason to maintain a one-year chart as it is cherry-picked, whether intentionally or not. It's sad that so many people had to be involved in this process, but I hope the time and energy expended will be learning experiences that you will put to use and that you will apply consensus rather than project your own personal preferences. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Open the article for public editing

This article is clearly written in a sympathizing tone by deliberately providing unnecessary, overtly forced information about the benefits and concerns of illegal immigration in the introduction section without adequate information about the harmful effects and law-violation nature in return. This is not neutral information, this is propaganda. 1.55.108.22 (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not propaganda, just because facts aren't on your side doesn't mean you need to vandalize the talk section. Jayson (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

At this point, the anonymous editor is simply trolling. He/she has not vandalised any text that I could find. Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

True, and if someone wants protection to be removed from an article, trolling will likely have the opposite effect. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

100% agree. The entire page switches from percentages & prior years rather than stating the truth in the enormous growth of illegal immigration from 2020-2024. U can read the border statistics in comparison. This is so unfortunate as i often come to this site for reference to facts. Looks like throwing ur opinion in there will be your downfall. 104.174.11.156 (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2025

In the article, only 4 categories of foreign-born people in the United States are listed. There is a 5th category, which is US citizens born outside the United States whose citizenship was attained by birth (i.e. who did not need to be naturalized or adopted).

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html Elizabeth3000 (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's true that US citizens at birth born outside the US are not naturalized. Section 8 of the US Constitution states

The Congress shall have Power To...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Since US citizens at birth born outside the US acquire citizenship not directly through the 14th Amendment, but rather through an act of Congress, and the power granted to Congress is "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization", maybe they are naturalized. It's interesting that if such a person obtains documentation of citizenship through the State Department (passport and/or consular report of birth abroad) they don't have to take an oath of allegiance, but if they obtain a Certificate of Citizenship through United States Citizenship and Immigration Services they do. (But the oath is waived if the person is considered too young to understand an oath). Obviously citizens born in the US don't have to take an oath of allegiance. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This appears to be complicated and needs further discussion. LizardJr8 (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Terminology for people in the US who lack authority to be there

In the last day or two there have a number of edits switching between terms such as "illegal immigrants" and "unauthorized immigrants". I'll simply point out the most recent talk page discussion I can find about this is Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 13#Terms "illegal" vs "undocumented" vs "unauthorized" which started in December 2021. There does not appear to have been a clear resolution within the discussion, although there might have been a resolution documented elsewhere. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice your User:Jc3s5h post before I posted a new section below. I, also, couldn't find any resolution in the archives. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

"Illegal immigrant" vs "Undocumented immigrant" (somewhat) revisited

The narrow question I raise is Wikipedia's use of the term "illegal immigrant". The term, objectively and apolitically, is a misnomer since a person cannot be "illegal". Only acts or actions (such as immigration or immigrating) can be illegal. In a recent edit comment, User:Irruptive Creditor has referred to "undocumented immigrant" as a euphemism, which is a clearly political viewpoint.

I have no objection to the term "illegal immigration", as it refers to an act. I object only to use of "illegal immigrant", as it refers to a person.

Archive 3 does not seem to have resolved this specific issue. Editors: please post your concise, reasoned opinion on this specific issue. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

You are expressing a political opinion. "Illegal immigrant" is the correct term. 75.40.74.125 (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

According to whom? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The government of every country 2603:6080:A000:76BD:191B:F009:6396:B750 (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Terminology: "Illegal" immigrant vs "Undocumented" immigrant in article mainspace

The narrow question is which term to use in article mainspace: "illegal immigrant" versus "undocumented immigrant". The issue focuses on the adjective applied to the noun immigrant—the individual. (This issue is distinguished from using the term "illegal immigration" (the act of immigrating) which is not at issue in this RfC.)

Of course, this RfC does not affect discussion of the terms themselves in the article. I suggest that editors reply with Illegal or Undocumented or other specific adjective. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• both obviously, "illegal immigrant" and "undocumented immigrant" are not synonyms Cognsci (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Survey

• From what I can tell, undocumented is more accurate as the criminalization of undocumented immigration has historically been in flux. At times, undocumented immigrants have been tolerated and at other times they have been criminalized and persecuted. Some people such as asylum seekers or those who've had their visas revoked have immigrated legally but become undocumented when their documents are invalidated by a change in government policy. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• Insufficient publicity for RFC and Inappropriate page for RFC. The wording of the RFC indicates it isn't meant to apply just to this article, but rather to all of article space. As such, it should have been publicised at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), and maybe conducted there as well. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  I have notified "Village pump (proposals)" participants of this RFC. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  This is the issue I was going to raise. Regardless of the result, this is bound to be followed by endless discussions about when/where this applies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell "undocumented" is just a euphemism. Migrants that lost their passport would match that name, but that is not what the article would be talking about. If people attempted to enter illegally, then I suppose they are not yet illegal immigrants, until they actually enter the country. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Undocumented Unauthorized. Skipping the politics: "illegal" is objectively wrong as applied to persons: acts can be illegal but persons cannot be "illegal". "Undocumented" may not be the only term to describe the persons, but it's more accurate than "illegal". (original poster: —16:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)) Update after reading subsequent discussions: unauthorized is a term that can both be attributed to a person and captures nature of their act of immigration. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed on this point Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  And the term is referring to their act of immigration, so I don't see the problem. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Illegal immigrant because violation of rule of law is generally described as "illegal action", not as an "undocumented action". This is distinct from person with literally no documents (loss/theft/destruction) which obstruct identification of the person. Also distinct from statelessness. HudecEmil (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  • The proposal is not asking to change illegal [action] to undocumented [action]. Immigrant refers to the person, not the action, which is why it gets complicated to make it "Illegal person". I don't think anyone objects to using "illegal immigration". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

    The term "immigrant" is not a simple reference to a person, it refers to a person in the context of their actions. Just like wordz like "driver, "operator", or "arms manufacturer". All of which can be modified by illegal . --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

    Could be, but when I search for "illegal driver", I get results about a Driver (golf). When I search for "illegal operator", it's comp sci internals (plus one announcement from the US Federal Aviation Administration). When I search for "illegal soldier", I get a book title.

    "Illegal arms manufacturer" turned up news articles about an arrest in Haryana, India. "Illegal buyer" has been used to describe unauthorized firearm sales. "Illegal seller" is mostly counterfeit goods or illicit drugs, and "illegal vendor" is mostly counterfeit goods. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Illegal immigrant; I believe that it is harmful to usurp a useful term for another purpose. The term undocumented immigrant should be reserved for persons who
  1. Entered in a period when there was no legal reqirement to apply for permission
  2. Entered legally but lost their papers.
  3. I'm not sure how to describe people who entered lawfully but then had their status revoked. They are neither illegal nor undocumented. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• The problems with "illegal immigrant" have been pretty well documented. It's not just about "feelings", but that it's often simply wrong. You can see this in our article's lead: visa overstays have accounted for a larger share of the growth in the illegal immigrant population than illegal border crossings. Here we're using "illegal immigrant" to refer to someone who legally migrated (then overstayed). They didn't migrate illegally, but they are no longer authorized to be in the country. Border crossing can be illegal, overstaying can be illegal, immigration can be illegal, not having proper documentation can be illegal, etc., but the person isn't themselves illegal. The counterpoint to this argument, putting aside the reactionary "stop trying to make language take feelings into account", is that in the United States, "illegal immigrant" is used in laws and a variety of federal policies/handbooks. For a US-specific article, that's not a bad counter argument, even if I find the argument not to use it more persuasive. Also, a lot of people just don't like "undocumented" and prefer something like "unauthorized" or "person in the country illegally" or actually differentiating between "person who immigrated illegally" from "person who overstayed a visa". I'll also say IIRC there have been multiple attempts to propose changing this language site-wide which have failed to find consensus in support. That's not to say there's consensus to use "illegal immigrant", but no consensus to mandate any change. Consensus can change, of course. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  My understanding of "immigrant" is a person who moved to a destination country permanently, or for a long indefinite time. If a person is lawfully admitted, especially in the US, and there is defined end date to the period the person may stay, the person isn't an immigrant; the person is a visitor. The defined end date may be a calendar date (September 28, 2025) or when a certain event takes place (maybe with a grace period). For example, a person on an F1 student visa may stay 60 days after the studies are completed (sometimes including related work experience). Jc3s5h (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• The community has consistently failed to come to a consensus on this, and I think it'd probably be wisest to just treat it as a WP:STYLEVAR rather than holding discussion after discussion. The closest thing I know to an NPOV/non-MOS:CONTENTIOUS label is "unauthorized", and that would be my first choice if this (problematically structured) RfC goes forward, but I think we should recognize that not every contentious issue can or should be unequivocally resolved one way or the other. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• Illegal — undocumented reads to me as a euphemism. I tend to roll my eyes at the "no human is illegal" argument because I read "illegal immigrant" as a derivative of the somewhat less controversial phrase "illegal immigration" as opposed to "illegal" referring directly to the person. Would also be open to "unauthorized"; while it's not as commonly used, it does seem like the most neutral option. (summoned from VP) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  That argument is more with regard to the use of "illegal" as a noun (e.g. "Those illegals are taking our jobs!"). JJP_Master (she/they) 01:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Illegal immigrant, per Chatul. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Undocumented -"illegal" implies government has investgated the case and made a legal decision--generally they have not done so. Rjensen (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• Undocumented. "Illegal" clearly implies that they have been charged and convicted of a crime, which isn't the case here. In particular, we generally cannot state that anyone who falls under WP:BLP an illegal immigrant unless they've been charged and convicted of this in a court of law per BLP's provisions discouraging statements of criminality without a conviction; that means putting a statement of criminality in the title of this article would functionally make it difficult to mention any living examples in it. "Illegal" is also misleading because the article covers the full history of undocumented immigrants and, at various points in history, being an undocumented immigrant was not criminalized and therefore not illegal. --Aquillion (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• Undocumented because of the objective reasoning that the article discusses undocumented immigration that wasn’t criminalized at the time as well as illegal undocumented immigration. I actually agree that “undocumented immigration” is basically a euphemism for “illegal” in contemporary times, and “illegal immigration” is probably the common name, but in this case it’s simply incorrect. Dronebogus (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Unauthorized, with a second choice of undocumented:

Illegal has a specific meaning that is not always applicable to the topic -- it generally implies criminalization, and as Aquillion points out, we cannot dub an action by a living person as either criminal or illegal without such characterization made through the proper judicial processes. This philosophy is also broadly held by RS's in general -- even for non-persons, most newspapers and other reputable publications will refrain from describing an action as illegal until and unless properly adjudicated as such.

Undocumented is better, as it doesn't connote criminality, but from a terminology perspective the term is somewhat imprecise -- some people have legal status but aren't in possession of documents proving such, and some people with status documents may not actually have legal authorization. However, it is broadly used by RS's to refer to all unauthorized immigration, so it would be acceptable for us to follow suit, as long as we are clear how we are using the term.

To draw an illustrative example: consider the hypothetical case of a legal permanent resident who, in retaliation for criticism of the US government, is captured and removed from the country without process by immigration enforcement. Such a person's administrative authorization has been revoked, but there has been no judgement of illegality, so we cannot say illegal, and the person does have documentation, so we cannot say undocumented.

I believe that unauthorized is the proper term to describe the subject of this article, and to generally describe what people tend to mean if they say illegal or undocumented in this context. It refers to all acts of entering or staying in the country without administrative authorization. Srey Sros^talk 17:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Undocumented Articles should reflect the terminology used in mainstream sources, which reject "illegal" as inaccurate and dehumanizing. COMMONNAME does not apply because it refers to article titles, but even it advocates not using common names if they are disparaging or inaccurate and alternative names are available. TFD (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose both The article should specify the precise reason why the immigrant's presence in the United States is unlawful. If the person overstayed a visa, it should state that. If they crossed the border illegally, it should state that. If they were denaturalized and stayed in the US anyway, it should state that. JJP_Master (she/they) 02:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• Mu. I think that the more effective solution is to use these/any labels as rarely as possible in this article. For example: In 2022, only 37% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico → In 2022, only 37% of these migrants were from Mexico, or Research shows that illegal immigrants increase the size of the US economy→ Research shows that illegal immigration increases the size of the US economy. I hope that reducing the article's attack surface will reduce the number of disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  While I love the attempt to make everyone happy, we want articles to be concise and specific. I don't really think it's possible to have a well-written article about an action ("illegal immigration to the United States") while studiously avoiding mentioning the actors ("illegal immigrants"/"undocumented immigrants"). Jbt89 (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RfC per Jc3s5h. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Follow the terminology of the source: If there are multiple sources follow the terminology of the highest quality source. Rolluik (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Illegal immigrant because:

Terms like “undocumented” and “unauthorized” can make a person’s illegal presence in the country appear to be a matter of minor paperwork. Many illegal immigrants aren’t “undocumented” at all; they may have a birth certificate and passport from their home country, plus a U.S. driver’s license, Social Security card or school ID. What they lack is the fundamental right to be in the United States.

This explains it Mast303 (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Undocumented is the correct terminology because, as others have already pointed out, human beings cannot be illegal. They can engage in unlawful acts, like illegal immigration, but they themselves are not illegal. So "illegal immigrant" as a phrase is incoherent. The idea that undocumented is misleading because a person may be documented in a different country is irrelevant. The point is that such a person is undocumented in the country they are residing in. Then, there is the argument that "undocumented" is a euphemism. What exactly is it a euphemism for? Most people above simply make this argument but don't actually explain what it is a euphemism for. There is one person above who says that "undocumented" is a euphemism for "illegal." But this is in the eye of the beholder. Using the same logic, it could easily be said that "illegal" is a dysphemism for undocumented, especially when a lot of people labled "illegal immigrants" have not been given due process. If someone has not stood before a court that has ruled that their actions were unlawful, then it may violate WP:BLPCRIME to refer to such a person as "illegal." Finally, there should also be the question of whether all of the people who enter the United States are necessarily immigrants. For example, a student from another country who comes to the United States for education but has no plans of residing long-term in the United States is not an "immigrant." An immigrant, according to Merriam-Webster, is someone who travels to a country with the intention of permanent residence. Because we're not mind readers, people who have not been given due process to explain their intentions should not be called immigrants. Instead, they should be called people. Thus, the correct phrase is "undocumented people," not "undocumented immigrants." So, a foreign student who overstays their visa but has not expressed an intention of permanent residence is not an immigrant, let alone an "illegal" immigrant.

Thus, if people are referred to as "illegal immigrants", it could violate WP:BLPCRIME because people who have not been given due process and have not been convicted in a court are being called "illegal" or otherwise being ascribed with unlawful activity despite a lack of court conviction. JasonMacker (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Undocumented, RSs prefer undocumented. In the UK at least, "illegal immigrant" is a far-right dogwhistle.

Politics and Prejudice: Using the Term “Undocumented Immigrant” over “Illegal Immigrant” (Callister et al, Springer, 2022):

On one side of the debate, conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation and the Federation for American Immigration Reform came out in defense of the change, calling the phrase “undocumented immigrant” a “politically correct, made-up term adopted by pro-illegal alien advocacy groups and liberal media outlets” (von Spakovsky, 2018) as well as a “sanitized” and “feel good” term (O’Brien, 2018). On the other side of this debate, pro-immigrant groups like Colorlines and Define American turned to their “Drop the I-Word” and “Words Matter” campaigns in an effort to persuade government agencies and news outlets to stop using the word “illegal” to describe immigrants living in the USA without documentation (“Words Matter” 2019; Rankin, 2018). Those against the use of the term “illegal immigrant” claim the word “illegal” falsely “implies that a person’s existence is criminal” and is used as means of maintaining power over people without documentation by implying that they are inherently “entitled to fewer rights and privileges” than are legal residents (Haque-Hausrath, 2008). Furthermore, pro-immigrant groups argue that the very word “illegal” has a dehumanizing effect on those it describes (Heath, 2018).

Crucially:

Until only recently, the majority of news outlets preferred the term “illegal immigrant.” This preference started to change around 2013 when the Associate Press and the New York Times both changed their guidelines to instruct writers to stop using the word “illegal” to describe immigrants (Colford, 2013; Owusu-Sarfo, 2016, pp. 92–93; “What racial terms make you cringe, 2017). Although news outlets have started to shift away from using the term “illegal immigrant,” some argue that the popularity of the term in American media over the years has served to entrench a sense of acceptability around its use in public discourse (Owusu-Sarfo, 2016, p. 142).

Kowal2701 (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Kowal2701 — I can't speak on the UK specifically but far-right dogwhistle seems to me sharply divergent from how the term is used in the US. Do you think it would be more appropriate to make terminology dependent on WP:ENGVAR (much like how we avoid "colored people" in British/American English articles because of the term's racist connotations but acknowledged that "coloureds" is a common and accepted term in South African English)? DecafPotato (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  @DecafPotato Tbf, the BBC has used the term Are there 800,000 illegal immigrants in the UK? which says Pew's definition of an "unauthorised" migrant is anyone living in a country without a residency permit. Some politicians would refer to the same group of people as "illegal migrants". Others use the phrase "undocumented migrants". Scholarly sources also sometimes use the term when talking about the UK. I was wrong, quite surprised as hadn't heard it outside of that context Kowal2701 (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Support this per use in reliable sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Lean towards 'undocumented' for this article at least, with caveats. (Summoned by bot) First off, it unfortunately needs to be said that upwards of 2/3 of the responses so far (including the lion's share advocating for both options) have completely missed the point under policy. The idiosyncratic views of individual editors as to why one term or another makes more rational, moral, or socially pragmatic sense are all irrelevant. These are just WP:Original research arguments snuck in through the back door of the choice of one particularly relevant term for the article. Whether we as individuals find this or that term to be factually more accurate, or denigrative, divisive, euphemistic, or otherwise harmful or faithful, really does not matter in the least. What actually matters under policy is what the WP:Reliable sources use, on the balance/in the aggregate.
  Now, obviously with a topic of this nature--with sources that run the gamut from focused scholarship, to general circulation reporting, to media editorialization, to primary sources from the staid to most rabid corners of the culture wars--it is difficult to pin down this mean terminology with certainty. But as someone who has tracked the formal and informal discourse of this topic for a long time, my impression is that at least the sources which study the phenomena of unauthorized immigration in the west (and the U.S. in particular) tend to lean into "undocumented", be they statistical and policy analysis or focused on the activities and circumstances of the immigrates. But what I can tell you with much more certainty is that one field where you almsot never see "illegal immigrant" is within the actual U.S. legal system itself, where far more precise and contextually prosaic terms of art are used, such as "removable"; indeed, I would say you are far more likely to hear "undocumented" or "non-authorized" in the setting of actual detention or removal proceedings than "illegal", for a variety of reasons.
  It's also worth noting a) that this isn't a zero sum scenario and the differing terms may be appropriate in different contexts, even within the same article, and b) as WhatamIdoing cogently points out above, avoiding the more loaded and controversial terms is often viable and desirable.
  All of that said, there is a secondary policy/procedural question here (as has been discussed above) which arises out of the discontinuity between the prompt suggesting this standard should be applied to multiple articles, but the discussion being held in this namespace. I don't think that the effort to publicize this discussion at the Village Pump after the fact (good faith though that effort clearly was) corrects for these infirmities in process, because trying to apply a conclusion reached here, under the influence of the regular editors of this article in particular, clearly violates WP:CONLEVEL and numerous other considerations for how we make such broad decisions. In order to make any decision binding on all articles discussing unofficial immigration, a WP:PROPOSAL for a change to a relevant WP:PAG or Manual of Style page would be ideal. A kind of soft policy preference could also be created via a community consensus at VP as well, as mentioned by others above. So any result here should be, at most, applicable to this page. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Undocumented per Aquillon's comments about potential BLP violations. Given current political conditions in the United States, it is particularly risky for us to state something misleading or incorrect about a non-citizen's legal status, especially on articles that could be scraped or aggregated elsewhere. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Illegal immigrant is the correct term. Technically illegal alien is the legal term. As others mentioned, undocumented is a euphemism. These immigrants do have documents that prove who they are, and are documented in our federal databases, they just dont have permission to be here, thus they are illegal immigrants. Moebiusdad (talk)

  For articles about the United states, "an alien is any individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national." This applies even if the alien has never entered the United States. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  +1. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Lean towards illegal, with caveats - I was in the process of working on an extensive explanation of my stance on this issue; however, I unfortunately accidentally exited out of the page, and my work was not saved. I am too tired at this point to start over, and would strongly appreciate if I could get a chance tomorrow to restate my extensive rationale for my position. However, I'll go ahead and give a TL;DR summary of my stance: I am generally opposed to "undocumented" because I think there is strong evidence that it is euphemistic and inaccurate. I am in support of terminology that acknowledges the fact that individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States are indeed unlawfully present, regardless of how their status came to be. I am also at this time opposed to deprecating or restricting the use of any terminology used to describe illegally present people, whether it be "undocumented" or "illegal". Bneu2013 (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment ngrams gives "undocumented immigrant" a massive lead over other options

Kowal2701 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Update - here's my full rationale. First off, as others have pointed out, this might be a malformed RfC. But since the requester is asking which terms we think should be used, I'm going to go ahead and share my stance. As multiple people have already pointed out, both terms are far from perfect. But I'm going to start out with why I think "undocumented" is problematic. The main problem I have with this term is similar to the problems I have with the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life": it is terribly euphemistic, misleading, and usually inaccurate. Some of the people who advocate for the use of this term do so for the sheer reason that they find it offensive. But if they were to pull this argument on Wikipedia, not only would it fail WP:EUPHEMISM in an honest discussion, but it would be laughed off as someone trying to force their own personal opinions on everyone else. If I break a law and don't like being called a "lawbreaker", then why should I have the right to force everyone to use my preferred terminology? Which brings me to my next point: since we are discussing something that is in fact a violation of a law, I think it is important that we use terminology that reflects this, whether we agree with those laws or not. Now there are some people who prefer euphemistic terminology to describe people whose presence in the United States is in violation of federal law because they want to obscure this very fact or they don't agree with the laws. To be fair, I don't think that's most people, even the vast majority of people who prefer the term undocumented. But I feel that using this terminology lends undue weight to a certain point of view that seeks to obscure the illegality of some people's presence in the United States, even if that's not the intention. While "illegal immigrant" isn't always perfectly accurate, it does acknowledge the unlawful presence within the United States of the person in question. And there are some vulgar slurs for people illegally present that we shouldn't use; I don't need to say what they are. Many of the sources that prefer "undocumented" do indeed acknowledge that their decision to do so isn't without controversy.

As others have pointed out "undocumented" is rarely an accurate description of persons present in the United States; just because someone is here illegally doesn't mean there's no record of it. A huge share of the people who are in the United States illegally entered through lawful means, but remained after their authorization expired. This means that they had to apply and be accepted by DHS, which was most certainly documented in their records, and were granted some kind of identification. Furthermore, if they worked (which practically all of them do), then they paid Social Security, Medicare, federal, and state income taxes, if they lived in a state that has the latter. This means the IRS and their respective state agencies have plenty of records of their earnings and what programs they are eligible for. This doesn't just apply to visa overstays either; many people who cross into the United States illegally surrender to the Border Patrol, and are then released with paperwork and in some cases temporary work authorization, and ordered to appear in court. This means DHS has plenty of records of their presence in the country, even if they don't know where they are at all times.

Now as some have pointed out describing some people unlawfully present in the United States as "illegal immigrants" is inaccurate if you take this to mean that people who overstayed their visas entered the country illegally. This is why I think it is important to elaborate and distinguish between different situations that can result in one's presence within the United States being in violation of federal law (and most people don't do this). Although I'm not proposing any major policy changes here, I think it's best that when we elaborate when describing people who are in the United States illegally. For example, in a recent edit I made to an article, I refer to a piece of legislation that would "authorize school districts to refuse to enroll students who are illegally present or unable to prove legal residence in the United States". This specifies that this refers to everyone who is illegally in the United States, regardless of how their status came to be. Whereas when describing someone whose visa expired, we should avoid language that implies that they entered the country illegally. This brings me to my next point: while I don't buy the argument that "illegal immigrants" implies that someone's existence per se is illegal, there are plenty of terms we can use that are not euphemistic and acknowledge the illegality of people who are in the United States in violation of federal law. Does anyone have a problem with something like "immigrants illegally in the United States cannot vote" as a substitute for "illegal immigrants cannot vote"? I want to reiterate that I'm not suggesting that we change every such instance on Wikipedia to this particular terminology or make some drastic guidelines change here, but I am asking if others would object to such a compromise. Many sources commonly used this kind of language.

Finally, I must admit from my personal experience that I don't see that the phrase "undocumented immigrant" has caught on with the general public as much as by, say, the media, politicians, advocacy groups, etc. While I confess that I do come from a conservative part of the country, I honestly can't tell you the last time I heard someone say "undocumented" in a casual conversation. I do know that I have heard people from all over the political spectrum say "illegal immigrants". I certainly don't have the best memory of everyone who will contribute to this discussion, but I think this may be a case of where a particular terminology hasn't caught on with the general public.

I would also like to emphasize that at this time, I am not advocating for the deprecation or restriction of any term used to describe persons illegally present in the United States, whether it be "illegal immigrant" or "undocumented immigrant". I think this needs more discussion and input before a consensus can be reached on this complex issue, although I realize coming to such a consensus will not be easy. I short, though, I think we should lean towards commonly used terminology that acknowledges the illegal presence of persons who are in the United States without authorization. I don't think "undocumented" does this. I also don't think we need to make up so new term as a compromise either. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Depends on context Per above discussion, undocumented better reflects the person, while illegal better reflects the action. I would support the terminology of "undocumented immigrant" to describe individuals, while I would support the current title of the page as "illegal immigration" to describe the actions. The page for Illegal immigration explicitly mentions that "Some news associations have in their style guide discontinued or discouraged the term illegal immigrant, except in quotations" and that "the Associated Press continues to use the term illegal immigration, whereby illegal describes the action rather than the person." So when describing an immigrant, we should call them undocumented, whereby we describe their actions as illegal immigration. BootsED (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Illegal immigrant, at least for articles about the United States. I can't comment on other regions and am not opposed to making an WP:ENGVAR distinction in preferred terminology. To resolve WP:BLP concerns, we should not refer to specific individuals as "illegal immigrants" (saying they immigrated illegally, only if applicable, is neutral and accurate). But I don't see any such concerns in using the term to refer to the general group of people that have committed the act of illegal immigration, much like how we can use the term "murderers" to refer to the general group of people who have committed murder without running afoul of the WP:BLPCRIME violation that is describing a specific individual as a "murderer".
  It should be noted that the AP Style guidance on the issue, while it says not to refer to individual people as "illegal immigrants", says the term "illegal immigration" is fine and in fact specifically deprecates use of the term "undocumented" as well. (They seem to give no guidance on the terminology appropriate for the general group except for "people who immigrated illegally" which both requires extra qualification — e.g., "immigrated illegally" to where? — and sounds more clunky). As for options like "unauthorized", I find it to be somewhat inaccurate. There are many people, for example, whose immigration to the United States was authorized but was also, at least now in the eyes of the current government, illegal. Saying, for instance, that an executive order targeted unauthorized immigrants is therefore incorrect.
  And while the AP's older guidance is now outdated in that it then affirmed the use of illegal immigrant to describe individuals, it provides the organization's rationale for avoiding undocumented immigrant(s) entirely (which the AP still does). And for the record, this quote was what convinced me of the term's unsuitability whenever I first found it years ago:

Terms like “undocumented” and “unauthorized” can make a person’s illegal presence in the country appear to be a matter of minor paperwork. Many illegal immigrants aren’t “undocumented” at all; they may have a birth certificate and passport from their home country, plus a U.S. driver’s license, Social Security card or school ID. What they lack is the fundamental right to be in the United States.

DecafPotato (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Depends on context Agree with RCraig09 that this discussion is not mooted by WP:COMMONNAME since we are debating the term for immigrants, while the page title is on immigration. I disagree with the opening arguments that because the term is dehumanizing and undocumented immigration was tolerated during earlier periods, we should uniformly use "undocumented immigrants." While we are not bound by the AP Stylebook, the above references to it explain why the reliable sources cited in this article use both terms depending on the context to maximize accuracy. When referring to DREAMers under deferred action or those granted permanent resident status under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, we seek to communicate that these are people who arrived through the process of illegal immigration but now possess the documentation to remain. In demanding uniformity, we risk losing the accuracy to explain such cases. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 15:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Illegal immigrant: Basic English. A person who emigrates is an immigrant, and a person who emigrates by illegal means is an illegal immigrant. Cambalachero (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• Unauthorized immigrant per Library of Congress in 2022.[2] This sounds official and neutral and not euphemistic. Undcoumented may be appropriate in certain contexts. My second choice would be to preserve the status quo. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• As per my comment in the discussion section it should be Unauthorized Immigration.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Illegal migration is the correct phrase, if we are discussing migrants who have entered a country without a visa or who have not applied for asylum in English. Migrant, as per Oxford dictionary, states: person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. Immigrant, according to the same dictionary: a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country. However, the legal statutes in the US call it unauthorised immigrants.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Unauthorized avoids the alleged stigma of "illegal" and is more accurate than the grossly misleading "undocumented". -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  Ngrams has "unauthorised immigrant" also beating "illegal immigrant" Kowal2701 (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not finding that at all, but rather the opposite. Herostratus (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• No rule. They are understood to be pretty much the same thing. Let the writer decide how to put it. We don't need a rule for this. The special cases mentioned above are probably rare. If there's an unusal case, you have to explain it anyway, e.g. "these people had valid visas but were nevertheless in America illegally because ______" or vice versa. Like, if someone overstays their visa to work in the USA, "illegal" and "undocumented" and "unauthorized" are both understood and hair-splitting on semantics isn't necessary. Herostratus (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• No rule Users such as Chatul and Rhododendrites have given concrete examples of how usage of either term can be misleading. On the one hand, using "undocumented immigrants" where you would have otherwise said "illegal immigrants" can sometimes be incorrect because it is possible for someone's entry to have been documented, but their continued presence to nonetheless be unauthorized and/or against the law (e.g. a visa overstay or fraudulent visa). On the flip side, "illegal immigrant" can sometimes be incorrect because it leaves the implication that everyone who has entered illegally has no legal basis for being in the country or is themselves "illegal". Someone can enter a country without authorization, for example, thus seemingly bringing them into the category of "illegal immigrant", but actually still be entitled to legally remain in the country after that illegal entry pending the outcome of an an asylum claim. For a person such as this who has entered via an illegal border crossing but has not yet filed the asylum claim, it is therefore a (harmful) oversimplification to call them an "illegal immigrant", even though you could accurately call them an "undocumented" or "unauthorized" immigrant for the duration of that interim period. All this to say, a sweeping rule is inappropriate and it must always be context-driven. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 19:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  No rule per above. The more we just follow the sources on a topic-by-topic basis, the betetr we are; the more we generate our own standards for how to treat topics, the worse we are. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Undocumented. Like others have pointed out, humans cannot be "illegal". Undocumented immigrant - illegal immigration. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  @TurboSuperA+, this about a person in relation to their activity, and nobody has asserted this sort of tenuous reasoning inasmuch regarding persons like an illegal arms dealer. As others and I have pointed out, this is the common name used as demonstrated through its long presence in literature, in laws such as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and so forth. This fact (which is inconvenient to you) is also confirmed by corpus linguistics, with one study making the following findings:

  1. "Unlike illegal alien and illegal immigrant, the term undocumented immigrant did not begin use until 1994 and was not used more than three times a year until 2006, and was not used consistently until 2010" (Nelson and Wiley 4);
  2. "[b]ased on the data gathered from COCA, it is clear to the authors that illegal immigrant is a term of choice in the media as a whole..." (Nelson and Wiley 5); and
  3. "[the r]esults of this study found that the terms illegal immigrant and illegal alien have been used significantly more in American media than the term undocumented immigrant, although that trend appears to be shifting. While there was little difference in the presumption of criminality with illegal immigrant and undocumented immigrant, contexts using illegal alien assumed criminality twice as often as the other terms" (Nelson and Wiley 1).

  As shown, the term 'illegal immigrant' is far more commonly used than undocumented immigrant and that such term has little difference with respect to it being any more loaded than undocumented immigrant. Unless you can credibly dispute the above, or provide anything to show that undocumented immigrant (and by-extension, undocumented immigration) is a more common name, your mere assertion that 'no human is illegal' holds no weight in this discussion and is without any basis in law or fact. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  I posted in the "Discussion" section by accident. I was simply echoing what @RCraig09 said and others agreed to. According to Google's ngram the use of "illegal immigrant" has been steadily declining in favour of "undocumenter immigrant". On the other hand, if we compare "illegal migrant" to "undocumented migrant", then "undocumented" is used far more often. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  @TurboSuperA+, here you have made an error of perspective and mistaken the forest for its trees. The observation that undocumented immigrant is being more widely does not refute or otherwise diminish the fact that "illegal immigrant is a term of choice in the media as a whole..." (Nelson and Wiley 5). Worse still, you haven't even shown that this trend is statistically significant, so no broad conclusions can be drawn from it. As for the latter, in addition to possessing all the defects of the former, it is also off-topic (since migration would encompass emigration and like phenomena). This discussion is not concerned with whether usage for illegal immigrant has recently declined relative to undocumented immigrant, but rather whether that is the common name, and nothing you or @RCraig09 have said suggests that it isn't. Until then, pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  The study you linked (Nelson and Wiley) was published in 2018 (7 years ago) so I don't know why you think it reflects current usage. Furthermore, the title/scope of the study is "An Analysis of Immigrant Terminology in Contemporary American Media". Was it decided that we should look at usage of the word in American media rather than the whole Anglophone world? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is an article about illegal immigration to the United States of America and not about illegal immigration within the broader Anglosphere, so such should use its variety of terminology. Even then, this is the common terminology used by the broader Anglophone world. You may perhaps want to take a look at the article aptly entitled "illegal immigration", and which has resisted attempted moves in 2007, 2011, 2013, and 2015. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• No rule If these terms have the same meaning, this conversation is moot. If they have different meanings, we should use the meaning appropriate to the context. In either case, following the sources/using individual editorial discretion is sufficient for the purpose, and we don't need to feel obligated to use euphemisms. I also agree with User:WhatamIdoing that in many cases the best solution is to use neither term and reduce the attack surface of article. -- LWG ^talk 18:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Unauthorized is the proper term to describe the subject of this page. As many editors have pointed out, the reasons individuals are in the nation unauthorized differ. But I also agree that we should not regularly use either term, and use the word migrant or other more precise term throughout the article (per WhatamIdoing). --Enos733 (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• No rule I raised a separate discussion on this topic a few months ago on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 15. I initially advocated for "unauthorised" but I realize no term is perfect. Each creates their own value judgements that is not Wikipedia editor's job to decide on. Instead, the article should follow the common term used by its sourcing. Or better yet, avoid the term altogether and replace them with more specific descriptors. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Unauthorized I agree with others that this term is more neutral and accurate. Furthermore, currently some people's visas with time remaining on them are being revoked suddenly or even retroactively, without any grounds prespecified in law, and then those people are deemed to be in the country illegally. The legality of such a proceeding itself is questionable, and in some cases is being litigated. Various other kinds of proceedings that make the immigration status of a person indeterminate are occurring at scale. WP can avoid taking a position on such practices. They are being carried out by relevant authorities, so it is accurate to say that the person is an "unauthorized" immigrant, regardless of any ultimate determination as to legality (which might or might not happen). Aurodea108 (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  That's a whole other can of worms. What is the proper nomenclature given that ICE has detained native-born US citizens? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

A native-born US citizen isn't an immigrant of any type, so they are outside the scope of this conversation. -- LWG ^talk 15:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Undocumented A person cannot be "illegal". Immigration can be illegal. The immigrants can be "undocumented". The AP Stylebook, as noted above, stopped using "illegal immigrant" because it is dehumanizing and not neutral. "Undocumented" is neutral. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  The AP also rejects “undocumented” as imprecise. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Where? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Almost all !votes above argue whether one term or another is better from legal or logical perspective. This makes for interesting reading, but our policy is WP:COMMONNAME. It would be good to see data-based arguments on which term is more common. Alaexis_¿question? 21:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, even if this RfC has any weight to it (which is in question), the !votes so far are based on editors' personal interpretations and aren't going to be very helpful in weighing policy-based consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Talking about commonname, then illegal immigrant is by far the most common use in Australia. Even visa overstayers, would be called that. But since this would be an American English subject, we probably need to to have Democrat or Republican English subtypes to pick one use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is moot because the topic isn’t illegal immigration, it’s undocumented immigration. Those are actually two different things. Dronebogus (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Even if it's technically right, are you arguing for using a different term in the title and in the body of the article? Alaexis_¿question? 20:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME relates to article titles—which here is immigration and not immigrant. Reading the original RfC above, the issue here is about describing immigrants and not describing immigration. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I think this is a political debate - right-wing vs. left wing. Mast303 (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

No, I am on the left for most issues and consider undocumented immigrant to be an abomination unless applied to persons who lost their documentation. If we are to abandon illegal immigrant then we should replace it with something accurate, possibly distinguishing different cases, e.g., entered illegally, overstayed, revoked. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Really, it's not very hard to tell wether someone is writing from a political view. As long as someone doesn't scour Wikipedia to find left/right wing friends, the discussion is still valid and useful. Algerbra (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

While I voted that the terminology depends on context, I want to provide a heads up that Wikipedia does not sidestep stylistic discussions simply because they present a political question. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 16:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the policy we should be considering is WP:BLPCRIME. Accusing people of unlawful activity in Wikivoice without any due process is in violation of Wikipedia's standards. By that metric alone, the vast majority of people referred to as "illegal immigrants" are those who haven't been given due process, and articles would violate WP:BLPCRIME (and WP:NPOV) if they describe such persons as "illegal." JasonMacker (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The BLP policy only applies to specific and named individuals, not to generic concepts such as illegal immigration when explained as a whole (and that includes the "illegal immigrant" if used as a generic idea). Cambalachero (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

>"The BLP policy only applies to specific and named individuals"

Where does it state that? Show me where WP:BLP states that it only applies to specific and named individuals. (Spoiler: it doesn't). The word "specific" is only used on that page four times, and none of the uses are referring to people ("...subject-specific notability guidelines...", "...specific crime...", "...specific incident..." "...subjerct-specific notability guideline..."). The word "named" doesn't even appear in the BLP article. BLP applies to ALL living persons, whether notable or not, whether a public figure or not, whether named or not. MOS:LABEL also applies here. Wikipedia should maintain a neutral point of view and not use value-laden labels for people who have not been given due process and have not been convicted of a crime. JasonMacker (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"Illegal immigrant" is not value-laden. It has a precise definition, and does not depend on someone's opinion. As for due process, that's usually not needed to aprehend a criminal caught in flagrante delicto. And if you are in a country not your own without being authorized to be... yes, you are a criminal, even if you don't wear a mask and rob banks. Cambalachero (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

What makes it value-laden is that it ascribes criminality to people who have not received due process or stood trial, in violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Are you abandoning your view that WP:BLP only specific and named individuals? You didn't respond to my point that such a view is not supported by the policy. You say due process isn't needed to apprehend a criminal... but the only people that can be apprehended during the commission of a crime are suspects who are then judged in a court of law. Your presumption of guilt is directly contradicted by longstanding precedent of presumption of innocence in US history (see Coffin v. United States, 1895). It is up to the courts to determine the facts and figure out if the suspect accused of a crime is actually guilty or do they have a defense (necessity, duress, mix-up, etc.) that was not immediately seen by the arresting officers.

>if you are in a country not your own without being authorized to be...

It would require due process to determine whether a person is residing legally or not. Thus, there is a presumption of innocence. And that means that ascribing criminal activity in Wikivoice to people who have not been given due process is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. JasonMacker (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

That's all lawyer's talk nonsense. When you talk about the presumption of innocence, you are by default talking about an individual: John Doe may have commited a crime or not, so we don't say he did until a court says so. But when we talk about the crime itself, as a generic concept, that doesn't apply. The crime exists from the moment the criminal commits the crime, not from the moment he's sentenced. A criminal that manages to get away with it is still a criminal, when we talk on the generic and non-specific level.

Also, have in mind that just because the state decides to turn a blind eye and let criminals get away with their crime, that doesn't mean that their crime is not a crime, not unless they take an extra step and change the laws about it. So, an illegal immigrant that is not being ordered to leave is still an illegal immigrant.

And in any case, what does "undocumented" would actually mean here? That those immigrants are actually legal immigrants? Or that they are still illegal immigrants, but we call them something else because the word "illegal" is ugly and hurts their feelings? Call a spade a spade Cambalachero (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

>But when we talk about the crime itself, as a generic concept, that doesn't apply.

This section of the talk page is literally about using the phrase "illegal immigrant" to refer to human beings. It's not merely a discussion about the crime itself as a generic concept.

>That those immigrants are actually legal immigrants

So, this is where the idea of due process is important. The whole point of due process is that before a conviction in a court case, people can only be suspected of crimes. Thus, the correct terminology is "suspect" and not "criminal." As I've stated multiple times, the phrase "illegal immigrant" as commonly used, refers to people who have not been convicted in court or even given due process. Thus, it ascribes to them criminal activity without justification, and thus it violates WP:BLPCRIME. And so, due to violating Wikipedia policy, articles on Wikipedia should not refer to "illegal immigrants" in Wikivoice. Instead, the correct terminology that can be used in Wikivoice is "undocumented people" because that doesn't violate Wikipedia's policies. JasonMacker (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@JasonMacker, I will not tire myself with nit-picking each and every false claim you have made in this discussion, nor do even need to, since I can address most of them by refuting their underlying false premises:

1. First off, as @Cambalachero and others have already stated, you assume as though "illegal immigrant" is a nominalized adjective. This is false, such is an attributive noun that modifies what immediately precedes it. A business meeting is not a meeting that is a business, nor is an illegal immigrant an immigrant that is illegal. Moreover, it has been found that there is little practical difference in presumed criminality between illegal and undocumented, so accusations of loaded language for illegal immigration have no substance.
2. Second, you falsely assume that illegal equals criminal, yet this is not always the case. Unlawful activity can be subject to criminal, civil, or even administrative sanctions. Removal of an alien under United States law is not criminal in nature, nor is deportable punishment, so WP:BLPCRIME isn't applicable (in addition to the lack of biography), see Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 US 698, 730 (1893) (“the order of deportation is not a punishment for crime"); see also Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 538 (1952) ("deportation is not a criminal proceeding...no judicial review is guaranteed by the Constitution").
3. Finally, and at the root of the problem, you seem to operate under the assumption that immigration to the United States is anything other than a privilege, something stated as "no person is illegal" or a "presumption of innocence" (both implicitly assuming an alien has any general right to be in the United States). In truth, no such right or presumption has ever been recognized under United States law, see United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950) ("an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right"); see also Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 660 (1892) ("to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law").

In sum, none of your arguments make sense unless one is to assume that the United States has no power as a country to decide who is or isn't a countryman, or that those who lack so much as the mere right to be in the country may possess a full panoply of rights, both assumptions long rejected in U.S. law], see Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 603 (1889) ("If [the United States] could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power"); see also Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762 (1972) ("an unadmitted and nonresident alien, had no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise"). United States immigration law and policy is "a domain where ordinary constitutional rules have never applied". Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The straightforward interpretation is that an "illegal immigrant" is a person who has immigrated to the United States illegally. This means that, in violation of WP:BLPCRIME, living persons are being described as engaging in criminal activity. "Improper entry" and "improper reentry" are crimes, per 8 U.S. Code § 1325 and 8 U.S. Code § 1326, according to this ("...makes it a crime..."). As I mentioned above, the situation is different for those who enter the United States legally but overstay their visa. However, the article is using the phrase "illegal immigration" to describe a broad category that includes both improper entry and visa overstay. So, referring to someone as an illegal immigrant may be an allegation that the person has committed a crime, so long as "illegal immigrant" is understood to include both improper entry and visa overstay. The reference you cite is comparing usage of the phrases illegal alien, illegal immigrant, and undocumented immigrant. But, I'm discussing the use of the phrase "undocumented person" in order to be inclusive of those who are not immigrants. You didn't address this point whatsoever.

Then you mention how the removal of an alien is not criminal. I'm not sure how that's relevant. Obviously, the US government's lawful actions are not criminal. I've already addressed this above. If a living person is being accused of the crime of improper entry, then WP:BLPCRIME certainly applies. If "Illegal immigrant" is understood to include people who engaged in improper entry, then it directly accuses people of criminal activity. The court cases that mention how deportation is not punishment or deportation proceedings are not criminal proceedings are irrelevant when speaking broadly of "illegal immigrants." Because, again, the phrase broadly includes those who are accused of criminal activity and not just those who overstay their visa.

I don't know what to make of your talk of immigration to the United States regarding rights or privileges. I haven't stated my stance on those, nor is my stance relevant. I understand "No person is illegal" to be a response to referring to people as "illegals" or implying that an "illegal immigrant" refers to an immigrant who is illegal. But as you said, that's only one interpretation.

In sum, my main concern here is WP:BLPCRIME, which is not actually about only biographic articles, but any description of a living person in any article. "Illegal immigrant" is commonly understood to include people who are accused of improper entry, a crime. Thus, WP:BLPCRIME applies. Referring to people as "illegal immigrants" implies that the person is in fact seeking permanent residence in the United States, when in most cases there has been no due process to ascertain that. Per MOS:LABEL, we should avoid contentious labels, let alone contentious labels that are factually inaccurate. The most accurate & neutral description is "undocumented person." This avoids violating WP:BLPCRIME but also doesn't falsely purport that the person has the intention of being an immigrant. JasonMacker (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@JasonMacker, this isn't a biography of a living person, though. Your same argument was made during the 2013 move discussion for illegal immigration, where it was rejected. Moreover, legal liability accrues upon occurrence of proscribed act, not when the person was prosecuted. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't only apply to literal biographies. Read the policy. It applies to any page that mentions living persons. The 2013 move discussion you linked doesn't even mention WP:BLP. I prefer "undocumented person" as the accurate terminology. That phrase is not found in the move discussion you linked. Thus, it can't be "the same argument." Also, your point doesn't even make sense. Just because some argument was rejected 12 years ago in some random move discussion doesn't mean that's the way it ought to be forever. JasonMacker (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You are mistaking my point; namely, this article isn't biographical, there is no "account of somebody's life", but rather an account of an unlawful activity, and as such this article is no more biographical than illegal drug trade, illegal logging, illegal dumping, or illegal file sharing. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a big difference between apprehend and punish. After the police allege that they caught a suspect in flagrante delicto, the prosecutor still has to convince a jury. And, yes, police do sometimes perjure themselves. Due process is there to protect those falsely accused, no matter how certain you may be of their guilt. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no doubt when some group of human scum has violated the laws of the führer. How could there be any reasonable doubt? Tito Omburo (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the euphemism "undocumented immigrant" is often strictly incorrect. On the other hand "illegal immigrant" could be seen as value-laden and dehumanizing, and often equally incorrect. I would argue that instead the problem is lumping together groups of people as if they were in the same situation, when in fact they are in very different ones. (E.g., asylum seekers, people crossing the border unlawfully without seeking asylum, people overstaying valid visas, people whose green cards or protected status were revoked by the fuhrer, people who have been rendered stateless by having their birth right citizenship revoked by the fuhrer, people who are otherwise stateless, etc.) Tito Omburo (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Dehumanizing? That's a very strong term, used for a very trivial case (dehumanizing is to go to the extreme of treating others as non-human or less-than-human, not just hurting their feelings). Either a trivialization of dehumanization, or an appeal to emotion. Cambalachero (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's literally dehumanizing by identifying individuals as members of a class ("illegal immigrants"), not entitled to the same basic "inalienable" rights as other humans. (Individuals of this class can, presumably by virtue of being "illegal", be subject to deprivation of liberty, removal from the jurisdiction of US courts, and other complaints enumerated in the US declaration). Tito Omburo (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Under that weird logic, the legal system itself would deshumanize each time it sentences that someone is guilty of something. Not a great argument. Cambalachero (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Firstly, yes, by the standards of the United States, criminals sentenced to a deprivation of liberty (or life) *are* less than human (and often subject to dehumanization with the class identifications of "criminal", "criminal *classes*", etc). Secondly, this is even true under ordinary conditions of judicial due process, in which the violation of law is determined by a jury. Tito Omburo (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Illegal immigrant, here I will consolidate my reasoning insofar as WP:COMMONNAME is concerned, and list the following points I believe support this position:

1. First, despite the unfounded assertions of naysayers, "illegal immigrant" is an attributive noun. It attaches an attribute that qualifies the particular noun (in this instance, immigrant) and (unlike a nominalized adjective) does not aim to quantify something (an immigrant either immigrates legally or illegally, there is no illegalest immigrant). Therefore, the assertion that it conveys that any person is malum in se lacks merit. It is simple and precise, one doesn't have to wonder whether an immigrant with forged documents qualifies as undocumented, unauthorized, or irregular. Are they acting in violation of the law, yes or no?
   1. Also, the negative connotation that proponents of "undocumented" claim exists with "illegal" is not statistically significant:

      "While the term 'illegal immigrant” is generally used in more negative contexts than the term 'undocumented immigrant,' using one term over the other had little to no effect on how our study participants viewed immigration policy and immigrants themselves" (Callister et. al, 2021).

   2. In addition, when the press publishes negative coverage about immigrants it has been found to be semantically agnostic and unconcerned as to particular terms used for those immigrants, so the concerns about dehumanization are once more proven frivolous:

      "However, the negative aspect of the media’s coverage was found more in the content of the stories than in the wording used to describe immigrants. Thus, we have shown that negative framing of immigrants transcends the adjectives used to describe undocumented immigrants. Whether the articles used 'undocumented' or 'illegal,' the content of the coverage largely remained negative (Alvord and Menjivar, 2022)

2. Second, "illegal immigrant" is recognizable and natural, it is far-better reflected in literature, in laws such as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and that status is confirmed by corpus linguistics, like Nelson and Wiley (2018) and Callister et al. (2021):
   1. "Unlike illegal alien and illegal immigrant, the term undocumented immigrant did not begin use until 1994 and was not used more than three times a year until 2006, and was not used consistently until 2010" (Nelson and Wiley, 2018);
   2. "[b]ased on the data gathered from COCA, it is clear to the authors that illegal immigrant is a term of choice in the media as a whole..." (Nelson and Wiley, 2018);
   3. [the r]esults of this study found that the terms illegal immigrant and illegal alien have been used significantly more in American media than the term undocumented immigrant, although that trend appears to be shifting. While there was little difference in the presumption of criminality with illegal immigrant and undocumented immigrant, contexts using illegal alien assumed criminality twice as often as the other terms" (Nelson and Wiley, 2018); and
   4. "[i]mmediately apparent from the graph is the fact that the term 'illegal' is used much more frequently than the term 'undocumented' when describing immigrants. This graph also shows that usage of the term 'illegal' has been generally increasing since 1990 with a spike in usage in 2006. Less apparent from this graph is the fact that usage of the term 'undocumented' has also been steadily increasing since 1990" (Callister et al., 2021).
3. Third, "illegal immigrant" and "illegal immigration" show consistency across articles in a manner that "undocumented" does not, consider that illegal immigration does exist as own article and has resisted attempted moves in 2007, 2011, 2013, and 2015.

Illegal immigrant -- the unambiguous option. What's an undocumented person? Is it someone whose presence is not known Not officially facilitated? Something else? Unless sources use a euphemism for specific reasons, illegal should be the default. Contrary to what some above are claiming, labeling someone an illegal immigrant doesn't mean they have been charged with a crime, simply that the process by which they immigrated was illegal. JayCubby 16:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Illegal Immigrant appears to be by far the more common terminology, per ngrams [3]. It's also more specific: all illegal immigrants are undocumented, but not every immigrant without documents is an illegal immigrant. Jbt89 (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

There is clearly confusion among voters as to whether this RfC seeks to set a standard for just this article or all over mainspace. If it's the latter, this needs to be at MOS, not here. I also don't see any BEFORE for the latter proposal. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. This entire thread has just steam-rolled forward, apparently carried by the weight of the intensity of perspectives on this contentious issue in the broader world, without the obvious WP:CONLEVEL implications of the placement and process of this discussion being resolved--or even considered by most participants. Even more concerning, the vast, vast majority of !votes continue to be based exclusively in views that are constituted 100% of WP:original research, without reference to outside sources to add any WP:WEIGHT to our determinations here. I'm going to be perfectly blunt: this is definitely the single most concerning heavily-attended community discussion I have ever seen in my time with the project, when it comes to what it seems to imply about the current state of matters in our community with regard to basic understanding of our established editorial and consensus principles. It contains immensely worrying signs about our current onboarding practices regarding said standards, and the breakdown of our most basic and vital community norms. When I review and reflect upon the above discussion, I find myself deeply troubled about the implications for the future of this project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)