Talk:Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Notes

Hi Escutiajose1982, I'm concerned that this feels more like a subsection than an article on its own. I think that this would actually be better as a subsection in the main article, Driver's licenses in the United States. This also needs a little tweaking for grammar here and there. Would you be willing to move this into the main article on driver's licenses in the US? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This part seems conflicting.

These driver’s licenses are REAL ID Act compliant.[8][14] This means holders of these driver’s licenses cannot board an airplane, for example, or enter federal facilities

Being Real ID compliant would seem to allow them to board an airplane, or at least not prevent them from doing such things. A sentence explaining this connection would provided required clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.117.18 (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Like two be Interested Frugova14 (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Title needs to be updated to reflect current language usage - undocumented immigrants - rather than the outdated phrase "illegal immigrants" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennesy (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"Illegal" versus "undocumented"

Re: the recent move war, it seems like the original version of the article on 7 February 2018 used "undocumented immigrants". Someone moved it on 7 June 2018 to use the "illegal immigrant" label without explanation. It has gone back and forth ever since, where the only explicit arguments I see being used here are:

• pro-"undocumented": respecting self-designation, following guidelines by media outlets like AP
• pro-"illegal": some of this population actually have documents that are just expired

I would like to know if there has been any effort to standardize the terminology across Wikipedia articles. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject United States can help? Duck type goose (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The person that moved the article did not gain consensus on the talk page. The terminology question does not appear to have been settled (I'm still trying to do so), and no consensus appears to have been reached to use the terminology per AP, NYT, etc. I do agree that the term "illegal immigrant" can be dehumanizing, but like it or not, people who are residing unlawfully in the US broke the law, regardless of how they attained that status. The term "undocumented" appears to be pushed by immigration advocacy groups, and is probably a more appropriate term for children brought to the US unlawfully by their parents (see Undocumented youth in the United States). If someone wished to move this article, they should open a move request here, but I will point out that a similar request failed by a large margin in September 2015. This, however, would probably have more support. Bneu2013 (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The illegality of someone residing in the U.S. is a matter of law, not public opinion. As such someone uncharged by the court is properly identified as undocumented (i.e., they are not carrying their birth certificate on them, or other form of proof they are a U.S. citizen or approved visitor). Such a person is not "illegal" until a U.S. Court finds them guilty of breaking our residency laws. Technically anyone, including "white" residents of the U.S., who do not have the new Federally Compliant "Real ID" could be charged with being undocumented until they show their birth certificate to their accuser. And yet, how many whites carry their birth certificate to work with them every day? The fact that latinos are subjected to the test more than whites is equivalent to "Stop and Frisk" in African American communities, in that it provides an additional hardship to that community just because of one's color. This hardship is perpetuated by using the term "illegal" for folks that are innocent until proven guilty under U.S. law. Arguably, propagation of this idea that people are not innocent until proven guilty is a domestic threat to the Constitution of the U.S. So change the title. xbladerunner (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

support - just found this article and I think it breaks Wikipedia neutrality too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B128:DB5F:1130:5CD8:21EA:E0FA (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Robbing a bank is legal right up until the moment a judge issues a guilty verdict? I question your interpretation of the terminology. Largoplazo (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Support. NYT published (soft paywall) an essay on using these terms in journalism. A paper (hard paywall) from Cambridge Press concludes this argument might not matter as much as it seems: "Our results suggest that efforts to focus on the terms used to describe immigrants have limited effect, and that efforts to frame policy offer greater promise in swaying public opinion on immigration." Crimson117 (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Against - I was just about to make the same point Largoplazo makes. By this logic, robbing a bank is not a crime unless and until you're caught by the police, arrested, and found guilty. Just because you haven't been caught doesn't mean you haven't committed a crime. SimpsonDG (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The presumed innocence of individuals moving freely in the United States is written into the Constitution: (a) Articles 8 (1) and 8 (2) (right to a fair trial). JakeEs (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That means, very specifically, for purposes of imposing penalties: conviction first, then sentence. As opposed to, say, lynching. If someone does something illegal, it was illegal from the moment it was done. It doesn't magically become illegal retroactively when the person is convicted, and it was still illegal even if the prosecution didn't meet the legal threshold for a conviction. Largoplazo (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"Illegal" is a political label. Immigration is a civil matter, not a criminal one. Entering the United States without documentation is a civil violation, not a criminal one. "Undocumented" is a proper and focused description of immigration status. The argument that expired document holders are not "undocumented" does not hold water, to wit, a driver whose license is expired is technically without license -- in other words, unlicensed. It is true that, as a matter of civil law, the process to adjust status is different for immigrants with expired documents versus those who have never had documents, but the status of both from an enforcement perspective is basically the same. ICE will gladly man-handle either type of violator with equal vigor. Finally, as a matter of rhetoric, there is an undeniable aspersion, and a hint of aggression, contained in the act of labelling a fellow human as "illegal." Is this what Wikipedia is supposed to be about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:2400:8E:21FD:5756:E242:E52D (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Support per the reasons above. There are issues with the term "illegal" in that it's clearly offensive and arguably incorrect, whereas "undocumented" is less politically-charged, more accurate, and therefore a better fit to support Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. 69.176.153.8 (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Dhalh

The term "undocumented" means someone who entered the USA without permission (such as crossing the border undetected). The term "out of status" means someone who entered legally on a limited-time visa (such as student or tourist) and never left when it expired. Both are incorrectly labelled "illegal" by the media and some politicians. Contrary to what was written above, the carrying of papers or birth certs is irrelevant; the meaning of 'documented' is whether or not the US government documented you when you crossed into the USA. Even if you lose that little green slip of paper you got on the airplane mid-air, which was stamped at the arriving US airport, you are still considered 'documented'. And the stamp in your non-USA passport proves it, too. When distinguishing the difference between "undocumented" and "out of status", note that the undocumented immigrant rarely has any recourse to stay in the country (if detected by officials), and is usually ejected with a ban on re-entry (even legal entry) for years. However, "out of status" people may obtain a path to citizenship, such as through marrying a US citizen (if it's a real marriage, of course). So, to lump both categories of people together under "illegal" is incorrect and misleading.

The term "illegal" or "illegal immigrant" are not terms used by USCIS and are not part of the immigration code/laws. It's a loaded term, used by people who are angry or upset about immigration, immigrants, and related topics. Joe Average doesn't know that the term "illegal immigrant" isn't part of our immigration code because the term is used so frequently and ubiquitously on the news that he thinks it is the correct terminology. It isn't. Meanwhile the xenophobes are happy enough to push the term "illegal immigrant" as an acceptable way to express their vitriole. The image we get when we hear the term 'illegal immigrant' is of someone who crossed the border from Mexico in the dead of night, and not the tourist who falls in love with a US citizen and doesn't want to get back on a plane and go home. But the category of people we are referring to in an article such as this Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in the United States is of everyone who is out of status or undocumented or any other "no status" person in the USA and not yet expelled. The term "illegal immigrant" is wishy-washy at best. There is much written on the internet about immigration, however the laws are so complex and the waters very muddied from poor attempts at summarizing the code for readers. Here's one of the better attempts, but even still is lacking in sufficient detail and precision [1].

Also, as the IP editor above wrote (2 January 2021), immigration status is a civil issue, not a criminal one, and the term "illegal" is so loaded as to be hostile. We may say that someone is "illegally parked", but we don't call them an "illegal driver" or "illegal parker". The difference is in the labelling of the action or the person as illegal. Unfortunately, there is no one good catch-all term to use for the title of an article of this concept.

• Driver's licenses for undocumented aliens in the United States misses those who are out of status.
• Driver's licenses for aliens in the United States incorrectly lumps in those who are still aliens but documented and with valid visa status.
• Driver's licenses for people in the United States with no legal immigration status is probably the most precise phraseology, but a mouthful.
• Driver's licenses for people with no legal immigration status might be an option to opening up the article to cover it worldwide. I'm sure the USA isn't the only country with this issue. Looks like UK had/has a similar issue to the USA. (UK 2017)

Platonk (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

We aren't confined to terms used in the US Code. We go by WP:COMMONNAME. The concept of a person entering a country in a manner contrary to the laws of that country is general to the entire world. There's no reason why the commonly used term would happen to be a term used in the immigration laws of one arbitrary country (even if that country is the one that's the focus the particular article), and there's no reason why a term used on Wikipedia should be required to be found in that code. Largoplazo (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)