drop the I word

Every now and then you run across progressive literature that illuminates the liberal thought process in a way that makes clear its lack of logic or accuracy. The web site ColorLines is place for such literature.
The authors at this site are attempting to rally support in a petition type call to sign on to a letter addressed to the Charlotte Observer. The intent being to modify the manner in which the publication refers to a beleaguered group. The body of the letter goes as follows....

I am writing to ask that the Charlotte Observer reporters and editors stop describing people as “illegal immigrants,” “illegal aliens,” and any other form of “illegal.” The i-word is dehumanizing, racially charged and masquerades as legal terminology, which it is not. There are terms like “unauthorized,” “undocumented,” and other precise, rational descriptions that can be used. The i-word denies people due process and is incompatible with ethical, professional journalistic standards.
The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) recently passed a resolution to discontinue use of the term “illegal alien.” They also suggested continued discussion to re-evaluate the use of “illegal immigrant,” which SPJ’s diversity committee advised against using because it is unconstitutional language and is offensive and dehumanizing to the people it describes. The Miami Herald, The San Antonio Express News and the New Haven Register have already changed their guidelines and we urge you to do so too.
The i-word inflames anti-immigrant rhetoric, which morphs into anti-Latino sentiment. Charlotte has the largest Latino community of the state’s ten largest cities, comprising 13.1% of the population, and North Carolina now ranks 11th in the nation in Latino residents. By dropping the i-word, the Observer can stop fueling hate and prejudice toward members of its own community.
The Charlotte Observer must not take part in misleading and inaccurate political rhetoric and the dehumanization of immigrants. Charlotte Observer, drop the i-word today.

There is a place where comments may be added in an attempt to personalize the message.   Around the greater web site I do see that it is not a fanatically obtuse set of articles.  The information is a viewpoint biased to the needs and beliefs of a group living within our borders. I might add ILLEGALLY to that last sentence, but living never the less.
In the letter to the editor there is described a liberal belief expressed by an organized group of journalists that are in the public representation supposed to be unbiased.  That is clearly not true, is it?  The journalists have already changed the description of a group of people that are described, labelled, by the actions completed.  Illegal is a description of behavior or choice, not the way a person is born. What is it in a journalist's psyche that compels him to obscure the description of what is real and accurate?
Listen up...
I am sorry that you take offense at being described by the actions you have made.
I am sorry that conditions in Mexico make the risk of illegal entrance and potential deportation an acceptable choice.
These are the ILLEGAL choices you have made, and a label earned by action.
Living in southern Cobb County there is a high number of ILLEGAL residents.  Taxes are paid by lawful residents to support services given to all of need. Overpopulation makes the services more difficult to attain, drives down property values and is a general pain the neck. 
Illegal is not a dehumanizing description, it is an adjective describing the person by actions he has completed.

More