Talk:Illegal immigration

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is clear consensus agaisnt moving the page. (closed by non-admin page mover) TarnishedPath^talk 02:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Illegal immigration → Unauthorized immigrationUnauthorized immigration – Per previous discussions on talk page, this title is not WP:NPOV. Because it is an article that covers this subject worldwide, it should also be a more generic term, not a specific term that is used almost exclusively in the US/Canada, especially since many are moving away from the terminology in those regions. Edittttor (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: This appears to be the common name for the topic. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 07:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This article is about the worldwide phenomena, and local terminology varies greatly. The title being the US-centric term makes people believe that it is about the US, when Illegal immigration in the United States is already a separate article. Edittttor (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

You also didn't address the NPOV of it, which is the motivation for this move as per WP:NPOVTITLE. "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name..." There is not a single common name here. There are multiple, depending on where in the world the conversation is happening. Even in the US/Canada there is not a single common name, as many use "undocumented". Edittttor (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

How exactly is the title not neutral? Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 13:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Assuming this isn't a rhetorical question: many within the pro-immigration movement condemn the term "illegal immigration", arguing that it is dehumanizing because it insinuates not only that the immigration is illegal but the immigrant as a person is "illegal". They've had some success in getting organizations to change how the term is used, but if we can take at face value the numbers posted by Howardcorn33 below, results have been limited overall. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:GREATWRONGS. I have nothing against people whose only crime is entering a country illegally but it’s still a crime. Dronebogus (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Most people categorized under it are visa overstayers (civil violations). That's literally not a criminal offense at least in many jurisdictions particularly in America. So if you overstay your visa, are you an Illegal? No. Actions can be illegal but not people. Unauthorised is overall better in accuracy, and because it also doesn't dehumanise others as if they are purely criminals in their very being, and it's not surprising that many RS explicitly stopped using this term for lacking neutrality and being misleading. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Isn’t a civil violation still a crime in the sense of breaking the law? Dronebogus (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

No. A civil violation is not a crime, by definition. If you park your car incorrectly, you might get a parking ticket, and a fine because you have broken the law, but that is a misdemeanor, not a crime because you can't be put in jail for it. But if you kill somebody while driving your car, that can be a crime, because you can go to jail for it. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

A misdemeanor is a crime: A misdemeanor (American English,^[1] spelled misdemeanour elsewhere) is any "lesser" criminal act in some common law legal systems. Misdemeanors are generally punished less severely than more serious felonies, but theoretically more so than administrative infractions (also known as minor, petty, or summary offences) and regulatory offences. Typically, misdemeanors are punished with prison time of no longer than one year, monetary fines, or community service. Illegal parking is an administrative infraction. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This article isn't only about the US and the various nuances of the American immigration system are not the point here —blindlynx 16:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

AFAIK, the primary POV objection is about the term illegal immigrant (referring to a person), rather than illegal immigration (referring to a phenomenon or an action). Saying that a person's immigration is (or was) illegal is not saying that the person is illegal, but rather that their immigration is (or was) illegal. I have seen clear statements of objection to the term illegal immigrant, but not to the term illegal immigration. I can't think of any other terms that refer to a person as being illegal, although they may exist. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

One reason the term illegal immigration is problematic is that it's often shortened in public discourse to "illegals" which inaccurately labels people rather than actions. The full term itself can also be misleading, implying all such unauthorised immigration is criminal. In reality, most countries including the U.S, legally protect legitimate asylum-seeking - meaning that describing asylum seekers as "illegal" is factually incorrect. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

"Illegals" refers to people; "illegal immigration" does not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, just one of the many issues of inaccuracy raised by scholars in RS. Is asylum-seeking also illegal actions - when it's inherently protected by law? Not in itself, and so using the term “illegal immigration” for asylum seekers creates a semantic and factual confusion. Using the term "unauthorized immigration" avoids such misleading implications of criminality. One can't call an asylum seeker an Illegal or doing illegal immigration/acts when they are merely doing legally protected but unauthorized /irregular migration. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Well put. I was just pointing out for the sake of clarity that this term doesn't necessarily have quite the same problem as using "illegal immigrant", or using "illegal" as a noun referring to a person. Regarding asylum seekers, perhaps some people think that someone being a legitimate asylum seeker is a negligibly small possibility. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

You have a point. But the way thew commonname is used these days does refer to humans. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Support. Unauthorized is more NPOV than "illegal" or "undocumented". Unauthorized avoids the US-centric terms altogether. Edittttor (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC) You can't add a vote here as you are the nominator of the WP:RM. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 20:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:RMCOMMENT, this can be allowed as a comment by the nom. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: Here is a simple check from Google Scholar for th search terms:

• "Illegal immigration" 137,000 results
• "Unauthorized immigration" 8,200 results
• "Unauthorised immigration" 493 results

Scholarly sources appear to highly favor the former above the latter two combined.

As for Global English usage, "illegal immigration" seems to be used in the UK too, see eg. Govt, BBC, The Guardian, The Times.

If you wish to know, the hits for "Undocumented immigration" are actually higher:

• "Undocumented immigration" 16,700 results

―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Whatever, but what the bigdomes say is of lesser interest than regular people. And this google ngram pretty much knocks for six anything other than "illegal immigration". Herostratus (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I lean toward support of the proposed move, largely for the reason explained by @Blindlynx: The article covers more than just unlawful border crossings. As is clear in the contents of the article, the immigration status of individuals is complex. An individual may legally cross the border, then overstay their visa and become an unlawful resident. Furthermore, some immigrants whose status is criminalized on the national level, such as asylum seekers, have rights to migrate under international law. "Illegal immigration" seems inaccurate for an article of this scope. Irregular migration seems to have a stronger case than the name proposed by @Edittttor, but I think either one would solve the inaccuracy issue and would therefore be fine. I'm not too concerned about the common name in this context, as this complex phenomenon is regularly misrepresented in public discourse. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Factual WP:COMMONNAME vs. euphemism Dronebogus (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Support: No strong opinions but if a move was made I would support Irregular migration. Illegal immigration could then be made a specific sub-section of the article. I agree the common name argument for using "illegal immigration" is strong, and I also agree that it presents possible issues owing to its accuracy regarding civil/criminal liability and whether or not it is appropriate in all cases. Putting "Illegal immigration" as a subsection of "Irregular migration" would make sense to me, along with any other forms of migration which would also have their own subsection as a facet of the larger trend of irregular migration. BootsED (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: The OP just claims that this is not the most used name, but has provided no data to back it. Illegal is something that is not legal, that's not judgemental, that's just basic English. "Unauthorized" is just a politically correct euphemism to avoid hurting feelings, but Wikipedia is not censored (meaning, we won't shy away from a common name just because someone may get offended). "Unauthorized" is also misleading, as it suggests that such an immigrant is someone who would have been authorized but forgot some minor paperwork, which is far from being the case. By the way, please stop saying that the term is "dehumanizing": that's a very serious accusation, close to incitement of genocide, but it's clearly being used here just to generate an emotional response. Dehumanization is to treat other people as less than human or lacking human traits (see Dehumanization); but even if "illegal immigration" was a partisan phrase used by anti-immigration groups (which it is not), just asking for the current laws on immigration to be strictly enforced is miles away from actual dehumanization. Cambalachero (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Do you have evidence to back up that the term unauthorised "suggests that such an immigrant is someone who would have been authorized but forgot some minor paperwork"? If not, that's also a claim, just like the nom's claim. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 19:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• move to 'Irregular migration' it gets get's 1,340,000 results on Google Scholar to Illegal immigration's 1,190,000 —blindlynx 14:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

And yet I have never heard that phrase. JayCubby 20:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay? It's common in academic scholarship, shown by a search of google scholar—blindlynx 21:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Understanding this topic requires awareness of how reliable sources currently use terminology, and why they avoid terms that imply criminality for actions that are often civil violations. Wikipedia should follow the terminology used by reliable sources, rather than popular usage that may be misleading, in accordance with WP:NPOV. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Exactly and high quality reliable sources tend to use irregular migration —blindlynx 18:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Is that the same thing? --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 20:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

technically 'Irregular migration' also includes unauthorized entry to a country in order to seek asylum, but that's already discussed by the article so if anything we have a slight scope problem with the current title —blindlynx 20:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Illegal immigration is still ahead on ngrams. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

If we restrict google scholar results to 2022 and on (after ngram data ends) 'Irregular migration' has 50,500 hits to 'Illegal immigration's 19,300 —blindlynx 19:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you get when you compare Google scholar for 2020-2022 to ngrams for the same years? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

'illegal immigration' is used moderately more in that range....using quotes on google scholar show that 'irregular migration' overtook 'illegal immigration' in 2024 but they we're basically even with a slight edge to 'illegal immigration' in 2022 and 2023—blindlynx 16:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support - Even within the US it is more complex than "illegal". Look at all the asylum seekers and those with pending applications being arrested when they do the right thing and appear for mandatory check-ins. And how many of these people have actually been judged guilty of a crime by a court of law? Then there are refugees who came in legally but are suddenly determined in to be in the US illegally. Let us use a less charged word in a title. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  False accusations of illegal immigration are not a reason to change the term though? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  Look at the terminology section of the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  The very phrase illegal immigration is commonly associated by the public with detention centres and criminal punishment. In reality, most cases under this term consist of visa overstays or other administrative breaches, which in many jurisdictions are treated as civil violations rather than criminal offences. Asylum seekers may still be called as illegals by some outlets like Fox News but that can be misleading as it implies criminality. In reality, seeking asylum is permitted under both U.S. and international law and is legally protected. The more accurate and neutral term would indeed be unauthorised immigration. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  The current title is not Criminal Immigration it is Illegal Inmigration. Civil violations are illegal they are not criminal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  The article covers -- and in fact the term 'illegal immigration' -- covers a lot of stuff that is legal though namely entering a country irregularly to seek asylum —blindlynx 12:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The word illegal means unauthorized by the law; unauthorized is not specific enough. While it's not necessarily criminal immigration, civil violations are illegal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

AFAIK, the word illegal ordinarily means contrary to the law / forbidden by law, not merely lacking explicit authorization. Perhaps it's a subtle difference. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Would you call someone with an air freshener hanging from their rearview mirror an illegal driver because they broke a law? O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think "Unauthorized driving" works any better. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose "Unauthorized Immigration" but support "Irregular Migration" per blindlynx. If google scholar counts should be a deciding factor (which isn't entirely unreasonable) then we should not be using the suggestion the term is used less outside academia against it. Simonm223 (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• Noting for posterity that approximately 70 editors have been notified of this discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  Was notified of this discussion, just curious what the rationale for these specific 70 editors was? BootsED (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  I invited everyone from recent threads about moving similar topics regardless of the editor's opinion (to avoid accusations of WP:canvassing) from articles: Illegal immigration in the United States, Undocumented youth in the United States, and Undocumented immigrant population of the United States. I checked similar pages from other countries, but there wasn't much talk page discussion and thought this was already plenty of editors. Edittttor (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  That looks like canvassing. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  I should note that I wasn't notified of the discussion but so many editors on my watchlist got notifications that I might as well have been. LOL. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller, I think I was notified due to participation in Talk:Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Terminology:_"Illegal"_immigrant_vs_"Undocumented"_immigrant_in_article_mainspace, which isn't the best way to select an audience (bringing American editors), but I don't think !voters were selected based on past stances. JayCubby 16:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  I invited everyone from recent threads about moving similar topics regardless of the editor's opinion (to avoid accusations of WP:canvassing) from articles: Illegal immigration in the United States, Undocumented youth in the United States, and Undocumented immigrant population of the United States. I checked similar pages from other countries, but there wasn't much talk page discussion and thought this was already plenty of editors. I agree that American editors wasn't the best, but I didn't have a better idea and there was almost no discussion on this move. Edittttor (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  What is this accusation based on? Edittttor (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any change at this time. Yes, we have to make sure to continue and watch for people using dehumanizing language involving people who have migrated illegally, but for the article itself, "illegal immigration" has a massive advantage over others in recognizability and naturalness. A typical person, who is not a scholar, is almost certainly not going to look for "irregular migration," and may in fact have to read a good bit just to figure out that this is the article they were looking for. I'd be happy to see this change happen in the mainstream, but I think, like in most cases, Wikipedia should be a laggard, not a trailblazer. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support move to "Unauthorized immigration" or anything less aggressive than "Illegal immigration". Gugl does not own the world, and should not be allowed to own the language or wikipedia per WP:SPONSOR. Plus Donald Duck Trump is not king of the world. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: This is the correct, legal, commonname for illegals illegally entering a country, to change it would seem absurd. Undocumented is vague, non-uniform and weaselly. Illegal is clear in law and regular parlance. Halbared (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This nomination is not for renaming this to "undocumented"... Edittttor (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Responding to a ping on my talk page from Edittttor. Not seeing a convincing argument that "unauthorized" is actually the common name here, or that the POV concerns are so compelling as to require this move. I am intrigued by User:blindlynx's case for "Irregular migration", though I've never heard that term before myself. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 21:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• OpposeIn addition to the good arguments already presented, it would change the meaning from the subject. The topic is by definition specifically actions that break a law. If a situation does not involve immigration that violates a law, it is not the subject of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  The topic is by definition specifically actions that break a law. If a situation does not involve immigration that violates a law, it is not the subject of the article.

  The article currently discusses asylum, denaturalization, and a whole section on "Legal protections and exceptions." Edittttor (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as the current term is the most common term where I am (Australia). "unauthorized" is a possible term, but not common, and "unauthorised" may be alternate spelling outside USA. "irregular" is certainly unsuitable, as it changes the meaning in a vague way. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  Why is 'irregular' unsuitable? It is extensively used in in scholarship and has a clear definition —blindlynx 02:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Graeme Bartlett I'd argue "Unauthorised" is a very commom term - eg. Most Australians are going to be famiiiar with tbe term "Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals" as it relates to immigration processing and detention. Dfadden (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support Use commonly recognizable names suggests we consider the "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources." A search of google scholar shows a preference for "illegal immigration," but an increasing use of the term "undocumented immigration." I used google scholar instead of google search because the online debate attracts a vocal discussion in blogs among anti-immigration contributors.

I would therefore consider Neutrality in article titles. The term illegal immigration is almost entirely used in reliable sources by anti-immigration activists and is judgmental toward people whose immigration is unauthorized.

TFD (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support, current title may have been common a decade ago, that's increasingly untrue today as reliable sources now explicitly avoid this term to remain accurate and neutral - a standard that Wiki should ideally reflect. Because in reality, most actions under this term are civil violations and not criminal offences, and some aren't even forbidden by law. An Important example: Seeking asylum is protected by international law, per 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. In this context, unauthorised immigrant is more accurate than illegal immigrant, which can misleadingly suggest it's illegal to do lawful asylum-seeking. As a result, to avoid wrongfully implying inherent criminality and to improve accuracy, many top reliable sources have shifted toward acceptable terms such as unauthorised immigration, with a number of big outlets explicitly stating that they will no longer use illegal immigration both present and in the future as a matter of editorial policy. This shows that the terminology itself is contested and evolving within high-quality sources. Ultimately to remain accurate and neutral, Wikipedia should use descriptive language and acknowledge the terminology that's preferred by reliable sources today, rather than relying on contested or potentially misleading terms no longer used by high-quality sources.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. This google ngram says that "illegal immigration" is far and away the common term, and that is pretty close to case-closed I think. Also FWIW I hate this limousine liberal woke stuff. Just stop it, it's killing us. We're trying to reach out to regular people who talk like regular people. Herostratus (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, that's just enough. I've been dying to let people know this about the word "regular" ever since I started reading through this. I haven't been regular for about seven months now. And I hope that, uhm, that concept shows just how vague the word "regular" is. It can have just too many meanings to be viable for just about anything, doncha think? I think people mean something more like "equable" in most of these use cases here, am I right? ({{humor}}, so sorry, I'm such a bad... :>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Irregular for seven months? Have you tried adding more fiber to your diet? j/k Herostratus (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I have, yes, and it helps. It started last summer when my doc increased one of my meds. And I also have a challenged circadian rhythm. But hey, I'm still breathin' and my heart's still beatin' – I'm thankful for that! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

wp:NPOVNAME has specific instructions for this. When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria).

There is not a single common name - there are several just in the US alone ("illegal", "undocumented"), plus internationally people also use "irregular" and "unauthorized". So in that case, we should stick to a name with NPOV that also is less US-centric. Edittttor (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Move to irregular migration to expand scope and per blindlynx. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 07:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per NPOV issues mentioned, JaredMcKenzie. Also you can't just count Google Schoolar that way. It doesn't account for the age of the source or its quality. Sadly GS has a lot of junk in it (don't we have an essay or something similar about using it?. Doug Weller talk 09:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Age matters, but the area under the line matters too. People come here to find info on concepts they are reading about from books written in 2025, and from books written in 1980. And I mean quality has little to do with anything here. We are judging popularity of terms generally, and for the average reader who is mostly coming to this article from popular books, magazine articles, Internet or TV news, personal conversations, etc. and not so much from scholarly journals. This is why I posted the google ngram. It'd take some heavy lifting to move this article in the face of that ngram, and I haven't seen it. Herostratus (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

As i mentioned above: if we restrict google scholar results to 2022 and on (after ngram data ends) 'Irregular migration' is the clear favourite on gscholar—blindlynx 19:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

And here is the google trends data. It says that for every person who googles "unauthoriz/sed immigration", 21 are googling "illegal immigration". Unless google trends and google ngram provide grossly false or misleading info... people are overwhelmingly going to come to this article by looking up "illegal immigration". Why take them to an article with a different name. Principle of least surprise. Honestly, I can't think of any counter argument against these data that comes close to being a winning argument.Herostratus (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose move to Unauthorized immigration or Unauthorised immigration as this overlooks the possibility that entry into the country may have been authorized but the migrant remains unlawfully in the country because they fail to exit the country when required. The terms irregular or unlawful migrant/migration would seem to capture that the migration is against the law, without it necessarily being criminally illegal. Not opposed to moving to those other terms. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Mnmh, but couldn't "irregular immigration" be referring to cases where immigration is coming in spurts or waves, with pronounced highs and lows, rather than a more or less regular flow? In the minds of some readers, I mean.Herostratus (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe that's how "Irregular migration" is generally used in academic literature. That would be more likely something like periodic migration. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Trying to find a consensus here. Seems like most agree that illegal is problematic and should be changed because of NPOV. Do you feel that unauthorized is at least a step up from illegal? Edittttor (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we should adhere to the lexicon used in academic WP:BESTSOURCES to determine how we refer to sociological phenomena. This one is challenging because a lot of lower quality sources, like journalists and politicians, have their own preferred lexicon but Wikipedia has a WP:ACADEMICBIAS and we should follow that. Also, @Edittttor it's generally seen as bad form to reply to every oppose vote in a structured discussion. Maybe dial down the rate of response a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Is there a term that includes overstaying an expired or cancelled visa, is factually correct and appears in an RS? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  That is called unauthorized. Those individuals are no longer authorized to stay. Edittttor (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Staying where you were previously allowed is may be unauthorized but it is not unauthorized immigration. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Wondering tho... would those people be "undocumented" (which I think is one of the terms being suggested)? I mean they have documents, valid (at the time) to get them into the country legally. It's just that they've expired. Maybe at that point they can be considered just so much scrap paper... I don't know. But possibly a reason to be a little leery of "undocumented" asa blanket term?Herostratus (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

No one has suggested considering "undocumented" in this thread. This thread is about the term "unauthorized." Please stay on topic. Edittttor (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not a fan of the current title but this one isn't it. PackMecEng (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate? Edittttor (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  sure thing, I dont particular care for the current title because its demeaning and politically charged, but it is the common name while the purposed one does not appear to have a lot of use behind it yet. I would be open to something else if it was a little more widely used. PackMecEng (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  Unauthorized/Unauthorised have been widely used in scholarly articles, as evidenced by Google scholar. It is also used in mainstream sources, though less than "undocumented" and "illegal" which have some problems of their own. Curious what your threshold for widely used is needs to be that anything else NPOV could achieve. Edittttor (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah from what I can see it has about 8,200 hits while Illegal Immigration has 138,000 hits. If I had to ballpark a vibe, around 20k to 50k would be a minimum to unseat something with over 130k. PackMecEng (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  See the 'irregular immigration' numbers above —blindlynx 14:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's kind of where I am too. Irregular Migration seems to be the academic standard for discussions of this topic. Other terms are politically loaded. While one might argue that it is making a political choice to avoid those more loaded terms it is one that fits with WP:ACADEMICBIAS which I think is a very good way for Wikipedia to remain neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment -- what are people on about "academic sources" and "reliable sources"? This is a general encyclopedia. What we want are notable sources. To explain: suppose you have a very rigorously fact checked magazine, but it has a tiny circulation, but of educated and important people, and that source uses "persons of undocumentation" or whatever. Then you have a mass-market tabloid with poor fact checking, but hundreds of thousands of readers, who are dolts, and that publication uses "illegal immigrants". Which one is more important for our purposes here? The latter, right? Is this not self-evident? Sure, for reffing a fact in an article, the first source would be excellent and the second useless. But we're not doing that here. We are trying to determine the most common and least surprising term for a title. Very very different thing. Let's not put our various different needs into a Procrustean bed. Herostratus (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Read WP:ACADEMICBIAS instead of complaining some people prefer not to wade through the muck of tabloid nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per common name. Also, very different scope, much illegal immigration was authorized and they simply overstayed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:NDESC policy: "In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim "made with little or no proof" and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations".)"

  Hard to argue that calling something "illegal" in the title does not imply wrongdoing and is not "an actual accusation of illegality under law". Edittttor (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose It is still the common name in English and most other languages. Irregular or undocumented migration have more use than unauthorized. I also looked at the other language wikipedias because I was curious (I know this is the English wikipedia): Portugese uses "clandestine". Esperanto "contra legal". French, German, Dutch and Italian use illegal. Spanish and Swedish use irregular. Rolluik (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose — I agree with the editors above who argue that illegal is both more common than unauthorized as well as more descriptive. But I'd also like to point out that, even if that was not the case (which it is), illegal would still be preferable under WP:TITLEVAR, which allows for a less common but non-nation-specific term is selected to avoid having to choose between national varieties. That avoids the need to choose between the various euphemisms (unauthorized/undocumented/irregular/etc.) used throughout the West, as well as ENGVAR differences of unauthorized/unauthorised. DecafPotato (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per above WP:COMMONNAME arguments. I am responding to a ping on my talk page from Edittttor, presumably for participation at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States#Terminology: "Illegal" immigrant vs "Undocumented" immigrant in article mainspace. As for "irregular migration" to cover asylum seekers, the article already makes it clear that asylum is like decriminalization whereby the border crossing or visa overstay remains illegal, but no penalty is applied. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 18:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. We shouldn't speed up the euphemism treadmill. No evidence this is the common name. Alaexis_¿question? 14:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree here, especially if "Illegal immigration in the United states" is a article , i strongly support this change. TheWarriorsfan (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Support Australian here for an international perspective. Under our Migration Act, there is certainly reference to an "illegal entrant", in this category, there is absolutely a distinction between lawful (eg. Asylum seeker) and unlawful (eg. Breach of visa conditions) "non-citizens" - the latter which could be argued fits the common understanding of an illegal immigrant and may be reported on as such in media. But this doesnt account for arrivals by boat. This has been a consistent focus of public debate and internationally significant news coverage for the last 25 years (eg. see Tampa Affair). There is a widey understood term "Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals" that is used to describe this group in place of "immigrants". This is because Australia has a long standing policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers and resettlement in 3rd party countries. Put simply, using the term "illegal immigrant" to describe this high profile cohort is simply incorrect as it is extremely unlikely these people will actually make it ashore in Australia. Thus while they are migrants, they never become immigrants. I think that "unauthorised migration" is a more accurate description of this situation, but unauthorised immigration is still a better fit that covers all asylum seekers, maritime arrivals and unlawful non-citizens. Dfadden (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Very, very clear WP:COMMONNAME. None of the other mealy-mouthed alternatives even come close. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Unauthorized isn't mealymouthed, just incomplete. I'd be happy with wording that included unauthorized if it also included overstating when entry had been legal. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  'irregular migration' is what's used in academic literature and covers everything that isn't by 'illegal' and 'unauthorized' like overstaying and entering without authorization to seek asylum —blindlynx 22:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  As others have noted, it also covers 100 border crossing this week and 1000 last week. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't follow —blindlynx 12:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support Irregular migration per blindlynx et al. This seems to be the better-accepted term in academic literature, more accurate in identifying relevant subjects, and less politically charged. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a very clear case of WP:COMMONNAME. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Others have pointed out that "irregular migration" is much more commonly used than "irregular immigration". Ngrams data shows that to be the case: If current trends hold, "irregular migration" may overtake the current title "illegal immigration" in maybe 5-10 years time. At that point, we can revisit a move to "irregular migration". Still, it's unlikely that the proposed title "unauthorized immigration" would gain any traction. feminist🩸 (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  As stated elsewhere, according to Google scholar searches 'irregular migration' overtook 'illegal immigration' in 2024 in academic literature —blindlynx 00:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  That may be the case, but the test for WP:COMMONNAME depends on usage in "independent, reliable, English-language sources" - which is not confined to academic literature. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  While I have no doubt that 'irregular migration' has become the common name in reliable sources over the last few years (especially if we adhere to WP:BESTSOURCE), as Herostratus points out the issue is that 'illegal immigration' is overwhelmingly used by unreliable but still notable sources such as tabloids—blindlynx 01:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose There was a briefly successful attempt in 2011 to perform precisely this same move - the article was actually called "Irregular Migration" for about a month. This did not last, because the community determined "Illegal Immigration" was the WP:COMMONNAME and reversed the move. Now, fifteen years later, although "irregular migration" is growing in some scholarship circles, it is still not even the most used term even in the academic literature - see e.g. this NGRAM. The WP:COMMONNAME in English-speaking global news sources is also clearly "illegal immigration". Rolluik's analysis of other language wikis shows it is still the WP:COMMONNAME in most other languages as well. On the whole, this proposal is too soon; we must allow this term to run through its euphemistic lifecycle organically. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 04:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Just because the community made a mistake and restored the less complete, more politicized, name to the article once does not burden us to never correct that mistake. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  The other thing is that according to google scholar 'irregular' migration' has been more common in 'illegal immigration' academic literature since 2024 (ngram data ends in 2022)—blindlynx 15:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  The above archive link is incorrect due to a capitalization error. The correct link is Talk:Illegal immigration/Archive 2 § Move page. The quoted article title from 2011 is also incorrectly capitalized and incorrectly spelled. It was "Irregular immigration", not "Irregular Migration". Also, that was not a formal RM discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, WP:COMMONNAME per Ngrams above. DankJae 21:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)