I’ll be out of the office and off the grid for a few days, but before I go, a couple of thoughts:
1. The debate over the term “illegal immigrant†was reignited this week with the decision by The Associated Press to ban the term from its influential stylebook. The New York Times is also considering revisions to its use of this term.  Unlike The A.P., The Times will probably continue using the term, but may allow alternatives, giving writers and editors more options.
Meanwhile, Damien Cave, The Times’s Mexico City bureau chief, wrote a front-page article this week that handled the matter deftly. In his story on Wednesday about immigration to the United States from Mexico’s central plains, Mr. Cave used the terms “illegal immigration†and “illegal crossings,†but never referred to the immigrants with any adjective at all - not illegal, not undocumented, not unauthorized. He merely described their actions.
It is an emotionally charged and divisive subject. Most of my correspondence from readers is strongly in favor of The Times’s retaining the phrase “illegal immigrant.â€
2. In my Sunday column in the print edition, I’ll answer, or try to answer, three questions from readers:
*How do you read the digital edition of The Times to get the complete experience of reading the paper in print
*Whose opinion, exactly, is represented in Times editorials, and why are they now carrying a digital byline
*Under what circumstances will The Times remove an online comment or article from its Web site
