Fact check: How does the US government define an undocumented immigrant versus an illegal alien?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the US government does not appear to have explicit, standardized definitions that clearly distinguish between "undocumented immigrant" and "illegal alien." The sources reveal this is primarily a matter of terminology preference and political framing rather than official governmental distinction.

The Associated Press Stylebook has moved away from using "illegal immigrant" and instead recommends describing actions as illegal rather than people, suggesting phrases like "living in or immigrating to a country illegally" ^[1]. This editorial decision reflects broader concerns about the precision and humanity of language used in immigration discussions.

From a legal perspective, the government does use the term "alien" to mean "any person not a citizen or national of the United States" ^[2], and refers to individuals with "no legal basis to remain in the country" when discussing removal proceedings ^[3]. However, these sources do not establish formal definitions that differentiate between the contested terms in question.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal significant missing context about the political and social implications of these terms. The debate extends far beyond governmental definitions into questions of dehumanization and accuracy in language ^[4].

Proponents of "illegal immigrant" argue the term is "precise and concise," while opponents contend it is "misleading, inaccurate, and dehumanizing" ^[4]. This suggests that different political constituencies, advocacy groups, and media organizations benefit from promoting their preferred terminology.

News organizations like the Associated Press benefit from adopting more neutral language to maintain credibility and avoid alienating audiences, while immigration advocacy groups likely benefit from promoting "undocumented" terminology to humanize their clients and constituents ^{[4] [1]}.

The question also lacks context about how these terms are used in actual legal proceedings, government documents, and official communications - areas that the provided analyses do not adequately address.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself contains a potentially misleading premise by assuming the US government makes a formal distinction between "undocumented immigrant" and "illegal alien." The analyses suggest this assumption may be incorrect, as no explicit governmental definitions distinguishing these terms were found ^{[4] [5]}.

The framing of the question as seeking "government definitions" may inadvertently legitimize the idea that there should be official distinctions between these politically charged terms, when the reality appears to be that this is primarily a debate about language choice and political framing rather than legal categorization.

Additionally, the question does not acknowledge that this terminology debate involves significant concerns about human dignity and accuracy ^[4], which suggests the questioner may not be fully aware of the sensitive nature of this linguistic distinction in immigration discourse.