Reporters Banned from Using The Term ‘Illegal Immigrant’

Fact checked
WSJ reporters

The Wall Street Journal is banning its reporters from using the terms “illegal immigrant” and “illegal” when referring to illegal aliens living in the US.

In an update in ts style guide, the WSJ, which owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., stated that while it will allow reporters to continue using the term “illegal immigration” to describe the process of illegal aliens arriving and staying in the US, it will no longer allow reporters to describe individuals as “illegal” or “illegal immigrant”.

It is, they said, all in an effort to stop “labeling people.”

Breitbart reports: The Journal style guide revisions now state:

Illegal immigration describes the actions of people who cross borders illegally or remain in a country after their legal right to stay has expired. Use illegal to refer only to an act, not to a person or people: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant(s). When describing a broad category of immigrants, use alternatives such as immigrants who entered the country illegally … people living in the U.S. unlawfully or without the legal right…. When needed, the phrase lacking permanent legal status is accurate shorthand covering both those in the country illegally and those with a protected status that shields them from deportation. [Emphasis added]

Illegal immigration is a highly charged issue that must be covered with precision and sensitivity, without taking sides or resorting to pejorative labels or to euphemisms that avoid calling acts in violation of immigration law what they are—illegal. It is acceptable to write about illegal immigration as a process or issue: ThenPresident Donald Trumpmade illegal immigration a centerpiece of his presidency. But the shorthand phrases commonly used in the U.S.—illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants, unauthorized immigrants, illegal aliens—have become politicized or lack precision. Don’t use such labels except when quoting people or official documents. [Emphasis added]

The Journal is only the latest establishment media publication to ban the use of accurate terms that describe illegal aliens living in the U.S. In 2013, as Breitbart News reported at the time, the Associated Press (AP) banned its reporters from using the term “illegal immigrant” and “illegal” to describe illegal aliens.

Most recently, President Joe Biden’s administration has banned the use of the terms “illegal alien” and “assimilation” and has instead blanketed all foreign nationals in the U.S. as “noncitizens” and “undocumented noncitizens.”

House Democrats filed legislation in January to ban the use of the term “illegal alien” and “alien” in federal law and documents.

“Illegal alien” as a description for foreign nationals living illegally in the U.S. was codified into federal statute in 1986 by the Immigration Reform and Control Act and the term “alien” regularly refers to noncitizens or non-U.S. nationals in federal law.

The term “undocumented” to describe illegal aliens, however, incorrectly assumes that all illegal aliens are undetected by the federal government. On the contrary, there are a number of categories of illegal aliens who have been documented as entering the U.S. and not leaving, such as visa overstays or recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.


  1. We used to call them “tonks” in the border patrol. that was the sound that was made when hit them on head with our flashlights.

  2. Hes Catholic but his mum was Jewish .So theres something rather unusual about that situation for a start After that everything about hum us suspicious His power over politicians and his notoriety for the close personal friendships he has with politicians all over the world is newsworthy but gets almost nine Maybe that’s banned too. We certainly know almost nothing about him at all except that hes married with kids and has had several wifes That’s about it .Nothing really.

  3. Karen Miller Pensiero, the editor is more secretive than Murdoch .Trying to find anything about her or all of them at WSJ is like trying to find a needle in a stay stack. Nothing but bare bones background. Basics All a secret Anything else Says it all .That’s all you ever need is everything they wont tell or try to hide or conceal . That tells you everything you need to know

    • How ” private ” they are and how much people should ” respect their privacy ” tells you ezmxqcyky how SECRETIVE they are Nothing that is done in secret comes from God ,the Bible tells, and God does NOTHING in secret ,it adds So go figure Anywhere you see Secrecy Acts or Confidentiality clauses ,secrecy or ” privacy ” your seeing things that are not from God No matter how they’re disguised or camouflaged .

  4. an effort to stop “labeling people.”
    Let’s ban ALL adjectives. We will no longer report someone as Male or Female or ‘Other’, Republican or Democrat, Black or White, Alive or Dead, Young or Old, Gay or Straight, Murderer or Policeman, and the list goes on forever. This is selective Language Law that promotes a particular agenda and has NOTHING to do with “not labeling people”. Obviously, WSJ wants to label us “Stupid”.

  5. Here we are under attack by their government on our First Amendment Right to free speech. Battle lines are forming you Left Wing loons.


  7. Murdoch is major shareholder Murdoch owns Fox Murdoch is duplicitous Maybe he placated his conscience by pretending hes being balanced .An elastic conscience ot the amorality of money bags ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.