Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Econ section POV

The economics section reads like neo-con propaganda. With one exception it only features studies and theories that support a nativist point-of-view. No studies and theories describing the positive effects of undocumented immigrants are present. Not even a study on how they form the back-bone of many industries such as agriculture and service in states such as California. This article and especially the economics section are as unbalanced as can be. The complete absence of pro-immigration perspectives strikes me as rampant conservative-POV pushing alla talk radio-paranoia. This article gives the impression that most economists view illegal immigration as harmful when such is not the case. Quite, the contrary most economists including the US Chamber of Commerce advocate amnesty and increased immigration! I can see an article leaning towards one side when it is the prodominent theory in academia. The studies cited in this article, however, do not represent the predominant academic theories on the subject. Regards, Signature^brendel 03:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The obvious remedy would be for you to add contrary economic studies. Note, however, that the advocacy of the US Chamber of Commerce, or of any other group, does not by itself constitute serious economic research.Plazak 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in fact, the majority of the article appears so biased and poorly editor that it calls into question the objectivity of the editors in charge of this forum. Referencing the Center for Immigration Studies, which is a brainchild of John Stanton (a founder of multiple hate groups: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=72) is probably the most galling aspect.

If this does not change then a change in editors in charge will be needed.Studentteacher1

Move

This article should be moved to Unauthorized migration in the United States as such is the offical US Census Bureau terminology. Here is the vocabluary the US Census Bureau uses:

• unauthorized migrant
• undocumented migrant
• unauthorized migration

The US Census Bureau -the government agency with the highest authority on matters pertaining to "Demographics"- does not use the term "illegal." Regards, Signature^brendel 05:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an important aspect of the matter, and than ks for finding that info. However the Census Bureau is a part of the Treasury Department with no enforcement power, while the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is a part of the Homeland Security Department and is charged with enforcing immigration law. I checked their website, and had to search to find the topic. But here it says, "illegal immigration".[1] My point is that the usage of a single U.S. Federal agency shouldn't determine our usage here. Here, our main consideration should be what will help the users find the article, and accurately reflect or determine its content. The Census Bureau's usage, while strenuously neutral, doesn't necesarily reflect this article's content or focus. An attempt to set a project-wide usage guideline was recently abandoned, so we're on our own here. My belief is that the vast majority of users interested in the topic would expect to find an article at "Illegal immigration..." rather that "Unauthorized migration..." I'm sure that Google would confirm the poplularity of that usage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I just copied and pasted the summary from the main article for consistency sake. Can change it back if you people disagree but while you're at it fix the reference. The first 2 paragraphs were pure propaganda, lets make an attempt to keep this somewhat based off research submitted by politically motivated groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwishbonetoy (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sanctuary cities

This article probably should have a section on how laws in most large US cities encourage illegal immigration and in particular encourage illegal immigrants to live in said cities. In many cases, such as LA, police are not allowed to report illegal aliens to authorities, even if they commit serious crimes. Some cities are even constructed based on their sanctuary laws - Take Cicero, IL for example, which is basically a haven for illegal immigrants in the Chicagoland region. Peoplesunionpro 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be worth including a neutral treatment of how laws are enforced locally, and a description of the sanctuary movement. However I think those are two separate issue and best treated separately. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Attitudes of US Citizens

I added a SEE ALSO link to the page to help illustrate some historical views of immigration

67.10.70.139 00:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus reached on terms?

Has a consensus been reached on the use of the term "illegal alien" vs "illegal immigrant"? Last time I edited here the debate was still ongoing. I had to leave editing Wikipedia to take a short break to recover from burn-out, which occurred primarialy because of this article and a certain troll who lived beneath the space between illegal & immigration. But I'm back now and ready to help you all make this an encyclopedic article worthy of a spot on Wikipedia. Right now it is still bad, but it has improved a great deal from the time I left. I'm impressed with all the hard work that has been done. --Chicaneo 16:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny that the toxic word in illegal alien is "alien" while the technically incorrect word is illegal. Every tourist is an "alien" meaning not a citizen. Being an alien is not an illegal act and has never been one. Humans can commit illegal acts whether they are citizens or not. That does not make them illegal people. If convicted, the person would be a citizen convict or an alien convict. LaidOff 21:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont think the word alien is wrong at all. If some one refered an illeagl immigrant as an illegal alien you would know what it was. Also saying that humans cannot commit illegal acts is wrong. If you come to this country illegaly then they have commited a crime.<posted by user 13rbunker> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13rbunker (talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a consensus, but one editor tried to assert that "illegal alien" is more correct because the ICE bureau uses that. However the Census bureau uses another terms, and the general public tends towards "illegal immigrant". There are certain circumstances, such as when discussing paperwork requirements, when "undocumented" is most correct. We don't necessarily have to use the same term throughout the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

At one point Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration) provided guidelines regarding use of terms, but that page has been abandoned and kept for historical reasons only. So I guess what I'm hearing is that the editors are not taking a position where one term is used over the other, but we are to take it on a section by section basis, depending on the content and references? In other words, we're flexible. Is that correct? --Chicaneo 00:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the failure of the naming convention, and the editing practices in this and other articles, proves that there is no general consensus. I have occasionally spotted editors, including unregistered users, methodically going through articles and changing from one term to another. I object to such actions because they are done without discusion, agreement, or even care to check if it's the appropriate usage. When they do so they are not reflecting any general consensus. That means we must be flexible, and use whatever term is most applicable and neutral in each context. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you may be interested in the similar debate that we are facing on the United States talk page, the argument is identical to this one, but much more heated. We would appreciate any input that you could offer. Flag-Waving American Patriot 20:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My rule for terminology has been to use whatever term the source uses--thus when the article cites Pew Hispanic Center material about "undocumented migrants," I go with that. When the cited material is a Washington Post article about "illegal immigrants," I reproduce the terminology accordingly. Given the very high degree of synonymy among these terms, isn't this a reasonable approach? Cyrusc 02:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. And it's something I can live with. --Chicaneo 07:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that principle as well. Population studies often use carefully defined terms, and we should try to maintain their precise meanings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, personally I think both illegal alien and illegal immagrant is harsh, had any of you been called that? I'm not trying to attack anyone who thought they were fine terms it's just they aren't pleasant. I'm called that just because of my ethnicity and skin color even though I've always been a U.S. citizen. Weeell there is no such thing as race actually; not one person in this world is purly summthing, race is just defined for skin color, language, and culture. Everyone is an immagrant - the term illegal is something tht humans made. It's not a law in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.182.209 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You are not alone in this view. From the section on terminology:

• At the 1994 Unity convention, the four minority journalism groups – the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists , the Asian American Journalists Association and the Native American Journalists Association – issued a joint statement on the term illegal aliens: "Except in direct quotations, do not use the phrase illegal alien or the word alien, in copy or in headlines, to refer to citizens of a foreign country who have come to the U.S. with no documents to show that they are legally entitled to visit, work or live here. Such terms are considered pejorative not only by those to whom they are applied but by many people of the same ethnic and national backgrounds who are in the U.S. legally." Press releases from these minority journalism groups in 2006 reaffirmed this position and recommended using "undocumented immigrant" and avoid the term "illegal" as a label.

--Ramsey2006 (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Environmental section

I'm a little concerned about the NPOV status of the section on the Environmental consequences of illegal immigration. The issue receives extensive coverage, even though the relevant information--the waste supposedly generated by Mexico/US border crossing, abandoned automobiles, etc--is hardly notable compared to, say, the environmental implications of the average consumption of U.S. citizens. How do we justify the quantity and prominence of this coverage given the comparative insignificance of illegal immigrants from an ecological point of view?Benzocane 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Can you fix it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree and feel the section should be deleted. This section is smuggling in anti-immigrant sentiment under the rubric of environmental concern. Illegal immigrants contribute far less to ecological degradation than the average U.S. citizen.Varlet8 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section. It seems that any "environmental" subsection is misplaced here, given that the environmental impact is so minimal relative to thousands of entries in the encyclopedia that omit such sections. Of course I'm open to replacing some of the text if a claim for its notability is offered. Until then, it's in the archive. Thanks for your thoughts. Benzocane 00:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism section

Another section I find problematic--and I should be clear I'm reviewing these sections in part because of the concensus that the article has too many sections (and is tagged accordingly)--is the terrorism section. The section amounts to saying that the Sept. 11th attacks were NOT an illegal immigration issue, as visas were issued to the attackers. Am I reading this correctly? If the section exists only to point out its own irrelevance to the entry, shouldn't it be cut? Please let me know if I'm reading this incorrectly. Benzocane 01:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha, we're both trying to deal with all these sections! I agree with your criticism of the terrorism section--the fact that immigration law could have denied some participants access is, if anything, more relevant to an article about those participants or their crimes. This article needs to stay focused on illegal immigration to the U.S.--it's too long as it is, and can't afford to spend whole sections speculating about terrorists. It's like writing about Al Capone in an article about taxation. You should delete it, is my opinion. Cyrusc 01:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good analogy. I'll remove this section. This article is too important (and too long!) to tolerate any superfluous or nebulous sections.Benzocane 02:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree on removing the section on terrorism as a consequence of illegal immigration. it's at best a weak Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Terjen 04:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. --Chicaneo 04:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The use by actual or would-be terrorists of visa overstays is a very common argument used by both sides of the illegal immigration debate. Amnesty supporters maintain that with so many honest immigrants here illegally, it is impossible to find the few would-be terrorists among them. Although the 9-11 terrorists were given visas, as I recall some of them were overstays, making them illegal immigrants. Again, a number of the accused Fort Dix terrorists were in the country illegally. This is exactly the sort of issue for which people depend on Wikipedia as an up-to-date information resource. Because of its prominence in the public debate on the issue, the terrorism section should remain in Wikipedia, perhaps spun off as its own article.Plazak 13:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The consensus is clearly that this information should be on those pages relating to the attacks. The article has been tagged as having too many sections. Information that basically concludes that the attackers were, or would have been, granted legal visas, is not notable relative to the other issues the article must cover. Benzocane 17:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Too many sections

I am doing my best to condense the many redundancies and overlaps in this article and help move it toward FA status--how much condensing is necessary before we can remove the too-many tag? Cyrusc 02:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Community health

This section seems to be too detailed for the article. It also makes what look like original-research-type arguments and speculations about disease rates and birthplaces. How to cut it down to size? Cyrusc 02:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I edited Dr. Cosman's quote. Her article does not 'concur' with the statement by congressman Gallegly that was placed directly above it. Her article does not state unsubstantiated anecdotes, but rather focuses on substantive data and analysis. In fact, the three powerful quotes coming from congressman Gallegly need to be checked, just because he is a U.S. Rep, doesn't mean we should accept his word as fact. Friendofanons 21:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I also edited the quotes from Gallegly to make it clear they are just that, quotes from one congressman. This section would benefit if we cut the one-liners and add more summaries of un-biased reports. Friendofanons 21:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Gallegley isn't an expert. Politicians are certainly qualified to speak on political issues, but not necessarily on public health. "Dr." Cosman is such a dubious figure that I don't think we should quote here at all. If we do we need to explain her lack of credentials. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy and viewpoints regarding current immigration issues

This section also seems way overdone--Wikipedia's job is not to list pages of polling results, is it? All right if I condense and reorganize the section? Cyrusc 02:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. --Chicaneo 09:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Defining the issue section is a mishmash of out-of-context opinions on economic and foreign policy aspects of the debate. Economic arguments should be put in the section on economics. If globalization is pertinent to the issue, then it requires more than just this sound bite.Plazak 14:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The section clearly outlines a basic issue in the debate, namely, whether the root source of problems with illegal immigration is a)immigrants' disregard for the law or b)international standard-of-living disparities plus U.S. domestic and international policies that overvalue cheap labor. Cyrusc 16:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Plazak. Cyrusc's edits seem unusually clear, well organized, and well researched. "Illegal immigration" covers a complex of issues and this is the most lucid synoptic treatment to date. I also have to question Plazak's addition of "Mexican nativism" which has no source. If a source is not provided for this addition, it should be removed. Even with a source, I think it's a misuse of the term "nativism," but there's no use pursuing that conversation until substantiation is provided. Benzocane 17:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you could have just followed the links to the relevent wiki articles. However, references are now provided, and from the very organization discussed. Whatever you want to call it, nativism or ethnic prejudice or fringe views, there are two fringes on this issue, and they ought to both be noted, or neiher noted.Plazak 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This article focuses way too much on the current wave of immigration from South of the border. To quote the article: “Every wave of immigration into the United States has faced fear and hostility, especially during times of economic hardship, political turmoil, or war.” When I first read this article almost a year ago it was one written out of fear and hostility and it promoted fear, hostility and hate. Today it is better, but still needs a lot of work. The current wave of immigration needs to be placed in proper historical perspective. I am in favor of doing whatever it takes to get that done. The article must not play to fear and hostilities. If it does, then it is not encyclopedic, it is propaganda. I support Cyrusc’s efforts to condense and reorganize the section regarding the current issues. It is my hope that all information in the article regarding the current issue could be placed there. Regarding the nativism section - I say let’s keep the content. It provides examples of the social phenomena of fear, hate and hostility that occur when the status quo becomes uncomfortable during an immigration wave. I also think the nativism section needs to be merged with the the section that discusses the Minuteman Project since this project is another example of fear etc. Regarding reconquista, and Nation of Aztlán: I am familiar with the concept of reconquista but I have not met a single Hispanic American or non-American who espouses this view. (OK, I admit I've met one. But she is a real weirdo radical. When she talks everybody listens, but their eyes get real big and they make odd faces at each other. Nobody says anything to her becuase she's a really hostile loudmouth *itch and a such an unpredictable person that no one wants to confront her in public, which is where she makes these outlandish statements. But other than her, I've never met anyone else who speaks of reconquista or concepts remotely resembling reconquista.) I also belong to several Hispanic civil rights groups and I am active at local, state and national levels. Reconquista or any concept that resembles reconquista, has never been discussed in any meeting I have attended. But Nation of Aztlan is out of California and I hear that there are a lot of fruits and nuts in California so that may explain things. ;-) From following the links, Nation of Aztlan sounds a fringe group and this needs to be stated in the article. This group should definitely be placed in the same section with it’s antithesis, the Minuteman Project. --Chicaneo 05:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote demography section

The first sentence was fine - - moved reference [1] to the end of this sentence but also merged 1st part of main article Illegal immigrant population of the United States with this sentence.

The second sentence correctly reflects the content of the Christian Science Monitor article, however the CSM got it wrong. The reason is that no US government agency counts the unauthorized/illegal population. The U.S. Census Bureau measures foreign born residents, and the Dept of Homeland Security and other governmental agencies measure legal residents. Agencies such as The Dept of Homeland Security, the Pew Hispanic Center and others then use these two data sets to make an estimate about the illegal immigrant population. This methodology is called the residual method and it is explained (rather badly) in the Illegal immigrant population of the United States article. I deleted the second sentence because it was inaccurate.

The third sentence was also inaccurate. The Pew Hispanic center did not base its analysis on the March 2005 CPS of the US Census Bureau, it used a “methodology” which utilized this data. Again, that methodology is the residual method and so this sentence was corrected.

The fourth sentence was fine but it was merged with the 3rd sentence to make the paragraph flow more smoothly. --Chicaneo 09:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted "nativism" section

The premise of the nativism section is set out in the first sentence: “Some supporters of illegal immigration also invoke nativist arguments.” All subsequent sentences should support that premise.

The first part of the second sentence states “The California-based Nation of Aztlán, which advocates the return of much of the southwest United States to Mexico“ is referenced to an editorial/opinion which does even mention Nation of Aztlan or the return of much of the southwest US to Mexico. The reference inserted is an anti-Semitic essay blasting Jews. Did the editor who inserted this sentence and its reference even read the editorial? I have deleted the first part of the second sentence.

The second part of the second sentence reads: “endorses illegal immigration as a means of reconquista, or taking back territory ceded to the United States after the Mexican-American War by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.” The reference provided for this part of the sentence is another anti-Semitic editorial masquerading as a news story. The “story” makes no mention of reconquista. Again I ask: did the editor who inserted this sentence and its reference even read the “story”? I have deleted the second part of the second sentence as well.

The third sentence reads: “The return of the southwest US to Mexico is also urged by Cuban president Fidel Castro.” The reference provided is to an undated, “news“ story coming from the same web site that the two previous anti-Semitic references came from. I have deleted this sentence for two reasons: (1) it is poorly sourced and (2) does it really make a difference what Fidel Castro thinks about our illegal immigration problem? If so, then we should have a properly sourced section which includes comments of other world leaders as well.

The fourth sentence reads “University of New Mexico professor Charles Truxillo has predicted that the Southwest United States will will join northern Mexico to form the "Republica del Norte".” The reference cited was to a 2000 Associated Press news article reprinted on the same anti-Semitic web site as the previous three references. I do not dispute the validity of this news article. However, the article does not mention anything about illegal immigration and provides plenty of quotes from others who disagree with Prof. Truxillo’s prediction. Because this sentence has no connection to the subject of this article, I am deleting the fourth sentence. Again I ask: Did the editor who inserted this sentence even read the reference?

With the second, third and fourth sentences deleted that leaves only the first sentence: “Some supporters of illegal immigration also invoke nativist arguments.” I am moving this sentence to the “Public reaction to current immigration issues” and tagging it with a “fact” tag. The bot will come in and date it tonight and if this sentence is not properly sourced in a reasonable amount of time I will remove it as well.

Finally, because the “Nativism” section has been blanked with these edits, I have deleted the “Nativism” section. --Chicaneo 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical context of illegal immigration debate and nativism

The history of immigration and the reaction to it are important aspect of the illegal immgration debate. I will be re-adding the historical context section to the article to cover this. Publicus 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the historical context section also links to various other periods in US history when the "illegal immigration" debate was of particular importance, such as the Irish immigration in late 1800s, the Chinese immigration (and the assorted policies to limit it), etc. Not having the historical context of an issue really weakens the overall article. Publicus 14:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If everything that was important to the illegal immigration issue were added to this article, the article would be 10,000 times longer than it currently is. What we need to do is ask whether material more properly belongs in an article related to this one. Nativism isn't about IIUS. Nativism is about anti-immigration. Anti-immigration is a different subject from enforcement/failure to enforce immigration laws. Feel free to link to the article on nativism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.57 (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

However, illegal immigration to the U.S. can be understood much more clearly within the context of past immigration policies. For instance, in addition to the historical cases I've listed in section there also needs to be some mention/wiki link of Reagan's amnesty in 1980 of illegal immigrants. Especially since amnesty is one of the current issues of discussion. How can an article on illegal immigration to the U.S. not mention, even in the brief historical context section, the past history of immigration to the U.S? Since it seems to be a controversial issue, I'd withhold adding it to the article for a little while and expand the section on my own page. However, unless there is some clear and compelling reason why the history of an issue shouldn't be covered I see no reason why it shouldn't be placed in this article.Publicus 18:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing nativism? To make your point about nativism, you've switched to talking about amnesty for illegal immigrants. That's not nativism, it's a different topic. You ask, "How can an article on illegal immigration to the U.S. not mention, even in the brief historical context section, the past history of immigration to the U.S?" Simple, this article is not about immigration. However, this article can, and probably should, discuss the past history of -illegal- immigration (that is, the history of violating immigration laws and what happened as a consequence - such as Reagan's amnesty).-198.97.67.56 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nativism and illegal immigration are closely linked. Step 1: Nativist movement argues that immigrants are taking over the country; Step 2: Laws get passed lowering the quota for a particular immigrant; Step 3: Bingo, thousands of illegal immigrants are created when the real demand for immigrants is higher than the legal quota.Publicus 18:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's original research on your part, therefore, it is not permissable in the article. I could just as easily point out that many people who oppose illegal immigration do not oppose legal immigration from the same country of origin.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, it can all be found in the "historical context" section--well, it could be found there, except it keeps gets getting deleted, so no it's not original research its called history.Publicus 18:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I just reread the content you keep readding. There is no source listed there which states or paraphrases, "Nativism and illegal immigration are closely linked. Step 1: Nativist movement argues that immigrants are taking over the country; Step 2: Laws get passed lowering the quota for a particular immigrant; Step 3: Bingo, thousands of illegal immigrants are created when the real demand for immigrants is higher than the legal quota" -198.97.67.56 (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Another important article that should be linked to this article is Operation Wetback, which can only be covered in a historical context section. Publicus 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of a brief reference to Operation Wetback is something I'd support in this article (brief because there is, after all, an entire article on that subject). Again, though, Operation Wetback is about the history of illegal immigration in this country. Nativism is not.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Content recently deleted by Brimba

Brimba recently deleted content about the chest x-ray requirement for legal immigrants. Although Brimba is correct that this discussion primarily concerns legal, not illegal, immigrants, it is nevertheless quite relevant to this page because it corrects a long-standing statement in this article claiming that all legal immigrants are required to undergo a chest x-ray. This statement is simply not true and therefore must be challenged. The article compares the health risks associated with legal versus illegal immigration based, in part, on an incorrect assumption about legal immigrants that must therefore be challenged. Please do not delete this content again without an appropriate discussion on this talk page. Thank you.--Dash77 03:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Wikipedia has a policy called “No original research” WP:OR. The statement you pointed out clearly violates this policy, and therefore has to be removed from Wikipedia.

WP:OR states in part: Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it.

Please feel free to remove it, I am certainly not fighting to keep it in, nor is anyone else that I am aware of. When you say it fails WP:OR, I trust you. Brimba 03:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the original quote, whose content I objected to, to be reworded to better reflect the accurate situation. I removed the quotes, as it is no longer a direct quote, but left the reference in and left in one of my own references that backs up my perspective. I then deleted the more extended discussion of legal immigrants.--Dash77 23:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that works well. Brimba 05:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent deletion of Medical Journal entry

The recent deletion of a Medical Journal entry with 'dubious source' is dubious itself. The souce is the "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10 Number 1 Spring 2005" and seems the type of source Wikipedia seeks. [observations removed] --Northmeister 14:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks. Regarding Cosman, she is a partisan source with no credentials."Lou Dobbs, Part 2: The Unbelievable" The JAPS is not a real peer-reviewed journal, as the name would led one to believe. Please read this article "Strange Bedfellows" and "The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: Medical "science" as dubious as it gets" for more information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove comments that are not personal attacks but observations. Considering your history of personal attacks against myself - you should listen to your own advice and quit! Further, who says that this Journal is not peer reviewed? What is the nature of the organization that criticizes them? Provide direct quotes below please and references? --Northmeister 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC) PS. Weblogs and anti-Lou Dobbs op-eds don't cut it as establishing credibility for YOUR CLAIMS! Come now sources that are actually credible? --Northmeister 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the sources already provided? Do you believe that Cosman is a physician who is expert in public health issues? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Our own article on the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is also informative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As an editor who doesn't work on immigration articles, but has contributed to the JPandS article, here are my 2 cents (in response to a note at Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons): JPandS is not a particularly credible source of medical information. It is best viewed as a political organ produced by a political group (AAPS). Peer-reviewed is a bit of red herring - the journal is not indexed by MEDLINE or PubMed, which is a major red flag in terms of its medical/scientific credibility. Specific sources discussing AAPS or JPandS include:

• The New York Times described AAPS as a "ultra-right-wing... political-economic rather than medical group" and noted its ties to the John Birch Society in 1966.
• The World Health Organization has criticized their anti-vaccination articles for being poorly grounded in science 9[2])
• Quackwatch lists JPandS as a "non-recommended periodical"
• Brian Deer, an investigative journalist for the Times who's done quite a bit of work on the vaccine/autism issue, describes AAPS as the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]", "barely credible as an independent forum", etc.

Basically, the Journal is useful as an indication of a particular brand of right-wing political thought, but carries no weight in the scientific or medical communities that I'm aware of. Again, my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell, from a cursory view - I saw no problem with this journal or edit. Having explored the matter myself further - I am in agreement and the matter is resolve in my opinion as not appropriate for reliable sourcing. Thanks. --Northmeister 00:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's gracious of you to admit the error and to remove the disputed material. Thanks, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal vs. Personnel

Seen many instances of confusion between "personal" and "personnel," primarily on pages discussing imigration issues.

Racial tension

We have a whole section that doesn't mention illegal aliens, "Racial tension". I deleted it for lack of relevance, but another editor just restored it with the edit summary:

• Hispanic gang members targeting African Americans are often illegal immigrants [3]

Can we get some sources to establish that? If we re-write the section to focus on illegal immigrants then it'll be relevant to this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There wer multple references to Hispanics in general, which I agree is unrelated to the topic of illegal immigration except to people who cannot tell the difference between immigration status and ethnicity/race. I also deleted some inappropriate and inflammatory generalizations about racial tensions. We will have to see if there are nativists continually trying to shape this site because then they will have to be reported. Studentteacher1 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you, some things you're saying are a little strong (especially the last two sentences). The goal here is to bring a NON POINT OF VIEW to any controversial articles on both sides. I'm sorry but the last two sentences will likely open the Pandora's box, which we don't need. Remember, there's a such thing as free speech without name calling. --Moreau36 15:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Econ refers to legal immigrants

Is it an error that there are references to the contribution of "legal immigrants" in the economic impact section? It seems it should say "illegal immigrants."

I still prefer the term undocumented immigrants, rather than illegal. Runaway slaves were illegal, but that's wasn't a fair thing to call them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robpinion (talk • contribs) 19:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Deborah Schurman-Kauflin report

Is she a credible source? Is there anything peer-reviewed that backs up her result? I think we should remove her results. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste from Overpopulation

Please do not reinsert the material that was copied and pasted from the Overpopulation article. It is in the wrong article. There is no reason for material to be duplicated in multiple wikipedia articles. This article is specifically dealing with undocumented immigration to the USA. People can easily read the Overpopulation article to read that material. --Ramsey2006 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Causes"

The so called 'causes' are not actually causes at all. The cause of illegal immigration is someone breaking the law. This should be renamed as havens or perpetuation of illegal immigration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.4.81 (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Birthright citizenship

I am suggesting that the legal term "jus sanguinis" rather than its translation be used here, or perhaps introducing the term in the subtitle and then its first mention be something like this:" jus sanguinis, or the right of birth, citizenship...." any comments and discussion would be welcomed before I precede with an edit.Die4Dixie 05:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose the change. This is the english wikipedia, and subtitles are probably more understandable to the reader if they are in english, rather than a foreign language. Using a foreign language in subtitles is likely to lead to confusion on the part of both readers and editors. But if a foreign language subtitle is really felt to be necessary, I would prefer "jus soli" to "jus sanguinis". --Ramsey2006 09:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

These are both legal terms that are accepted as legal claims to citizenship. They both explain different ways of arriving at citizenship. jus sanguinis(right of blood) includes those people born over seas to say, a diplomat, and make the claim though the right of blood( even a native born citizen can make this claim to citizenship too) . Jus solis , on the other hand is by right of soil, that is, having been born with in the jurisdiction of the united states. You do raise a good point, and I think that a discussion of these to claims to birthright citizenship, called by their proper names would be appropriate here. We have a wikipedia in Simple English for those who might have a problem with using the proper terms for claims to citizenship in the US. As legal terms, they are firmly in the English lexicon.What do you think?Die4Dixie 10:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is already a link to the wikipedia article Birthright citizenship in the United States of America at the top of the section in question. That article discussed both Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, in addition to linking to the wikipedia articles for each. Also, there is a redirect from Birthright citizenship to the jus soli article. I'm not sure that anything else is really necessary here. --Ramsey2006 14:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

On careful rereading of the entire article, I agree with your position. Jus sanguinis is not important here, and has no bearing on discussion of illegal immigration. Clearly an exclusively jus soli issue. I think the links are sufficient, and I appreciated you exploring the issue with me. Thank you.Die4Dixie 16:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

alternate view?

from wikipedia's page on the "mexica movement"

"People of European descent, the movement holds, are "illegal aliens" who have been trespassing on indigenous lands for over 500 years."

and it has a citation on that page. it's an interesting perspective, perhaps it should be referenced on this page?

160.39.129.60 09:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it's an opinion. Most immigrants to this country (legal or otherwise) are of European descent. I may have Indian ancestry, but I'm not going to deny that I'm White. This is about illegal immigration, not racism. Besides, we're all mixed Iamanadam 19:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No-match letters fobidden by judges?

The article currently says: "On September 1, a federal judge halted this practice of alerting employers of card mismatches". I don't have the time to look for accurate data but it seems that on August 31, U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney ordered a temporary stop and that Judge Charles Breyer took another decision in October. The article contained "reference nedded", I added "Disputed". AFAIK the case is AFL-CIO et al. v. Chertoff et al. (N.D. Cal. Case No. 07-CV-4472 CRB). Apokrif 20:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Tags

I have added a globalise and an NPOV tag after reading the article. The problem is that it only presents one point of view, the American point of view whereas there are clearly at least 2 points of view that need mentioning, ie the point of view of Americans and the point of view of the illegal immigrants and the countries they come from (eg the Mexican and Central American governments) and this is an issue that urgently needs addressing. Again we need a global perspective on this issue that affects America but is by no means exclusively about America. Eg we can discuss the effects on the US economy but we also need to discuss the economic effects on other countries such as Mexico and Central America, which have benefited hugely. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Trade Liberalization as a cause of illegal immigration

Despite only half of illegal immigrants in the US coming from Mexico, this section focuses almost exclusively in the Mexican case, and it does so with a partial, incorrect point of view. Trade liberalization in Mexico began in the late 1980s, but poverty was triggered in the late 1970s and early 1980s due to socialized economic policies of previous non-democratic governments. It was these policies, and not trade liberalization, that caused the poverty that, supposedly, causes people to migrate illegally into the United States. In fact, none of this is true. Standards of living in Mexico have been steadily rising since NAFTA, and the unemployment rate has been decreasing. In fact, 2007, the year that the US had the most illegal immigrants, was also the year with the lowest unemployment rate in Mexico. The link between trade liberalization and illegal immigration is speculative at best.

However, there is a very clear link between the failure of the Mexican agricultural sector and illegal immigration. The author of this section tries, with speculative sources, to link trade liberalization with such a failure, but in fact proper research will reveal that the failure of the Mexican agricultural sector is due to more than 50 years of socialism in Mexican farms, and a strong pro-PRI group called the National Farmer Comission (CNC, spanish acronym). To this date, the CNC and the PRI oppose an agricultural reform that will liberalize and modernize the Mexican agricultural sector.

192.160.35.160 (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, additionally, this article says nothing about the demand for immigrant workers as a cause for illegall immigration. For example, Google, Microsoft, and other companies have lobbied for an increase in visas for skilled labor immigrants because of their inability to fill vacancies with existing skilled labor. If the American economy is to grow, while at the same time, the unemployment rate is as low as it can be, there will be no solution except to "import" labor. If it cannot be done legally, because Congress refuses to raise visa quotas, then it is logical that a black market will emerge. It happens every time any government tries to control any aspect of the economy (ask China, or Russia, or any socialist country). The current section on Illegal employers focuses only on lack of "enforcement", but does not menction the feasability of such enforcement (i.e., the budgetary implications), nor does it menctions the causes that employers have to hire illegal immigrants. Do they hire them because it is cheaper? If so, where is the source? Or do they hire them because the internal job market is full, as economists suggest?

192.160.35.160 (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

saved sources for economic section

these sources were mistakenly used as references for statements they don't make. Those statements were removed, but the sources may remain useful. I'm putting them here for safekeeping. -75.179.153.110 (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Corruption

Moving here until a consensus is reached concerning the sources:

Several news agencies have reported known cases of the U.S. Border Patrol supporting trespassing of U.S. borders.. Agents have also been discovered to be illegal aliens themselves conspiring to smuggle illegal aliens.

Not only have charges been filed, in some cases, the Border Patrol agents have pleaded guilty (such as the case of Pablo Sergio Berry) or been found guilty in a court of law (such as the case of Oscar Antonio Ortiz who was found to have smuggled more than 100 aliens across the border, Michael Anthony Gilliland and Richard Elizalda.

A source by source breakdown:

1&2) What we say: Several news agencies have reported known cases of the U.S. Border Patrol supporting trespassing of U.S. borders.

What the sources say: Both sources refer to three incidents in which boarder patrol agents failed to disclose that their live-in girlfriends were here illegally. One, Pablo Sergio Berry, had lived with the same woman from 2001 until his arrest, but joined the BP in 2002, after they where already together.

To quote: “According to the six-count indictment, Berry made false statements on an employment questionnaire in 2002, intentionally omitting information about Vasquez-Banda. Berry later told a background investigator in a letter that Vasquez-Banda was a U.S. citizen when he knew that she was an illegal entrant, according to the indictment.”

In the third case, it as unclear at the time the article was written whether the BP agent even knew his girlfriend was here illegally.

None of the three cases support the statement: “Several news agencies have reported known cases of the U.S. Border Patrol supporting trespassing of U.S. borders.”

3) What we say: Agents have also been discovered to be illegal aliens themselves conspiring to smuggle illegal aliens.

What the source says: A single case in which one of the two co-conspirators was an illegal. Hardly an agency wide problem.

4) What we say: Not only have charges been filed, in some cases, the Border Patrol agents have pleaded guilty (such as the case of Pablo Sergio Berry[63])

What the source says: Same Berry as above; harboring an illegal girlfriend, but no claims of official corruption.

5) What we say: …found guilty in a court of law (such as the case of Oscar Antonio Ortiz who was found to have smuggled more than 100 aliens across the border…

What the source says: dead link, although it should be easy to support the statement, but still it’s a single individual out of thousands of officers.

6) What we say: That Michael Anthony Gilliland was involved in corruption.

What the source says: It agrees, no problem there.

7) What we say: Richard Elizalda was involved in corruption.

What the source says: It agrees, no problem there.

At the very least, a full rewrite is in order, along with more sources to show that it’s a widespread problem and not simply a few isolated cases (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Brimba (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How about the following as a rewrite

Incidences of corruption in the U.S. Border Patrol include:

• Pablo Sergio Barry, an agent charged with one count of harboring an illegal alien, three counts of false statements, and two counts of making a false document. He pled guilty.
• Christopher E. Bernis, an agent indicted on a charge of harboring an illegal immigrant for nine months while employed as a U.S. Border Patrol agent
• Jose De Jesus Ruiz, an agent whose girlfriend was an illegal immigrant, he was put on administrative leave pending an investigation
• Oscar Antonio Ortiz, an illegal immigrant who used a fake birth certificate to get into the Border Patrol admitted to smuggling more than 100 illegal immigrants into the U.S., some of them in his government truck, and was helping to smuggle illegal immigrants and charged with conspiring with another Border patrol agent to smuggle immigrants
• An unidentified patrol agent who was recorded on a wire tap stating that he helped to smuggle 30 to 50 immigrants at a time
• Michael Anthony Gilliland, an agent for 16 years, who pled guilty to guiding hundreds of illegal immigrants through his checkpoint booth in exchange for cash payment
• Richard Elizalda, a veteran border inspector, who admitted to one count of accepting bribes as a public official and two counts of bringing illegal alines into the ountry for financial gain

Just a small note, Ruiz is the agent whose girlfriend is mentioned, not Barry. -11:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)~

What is the definition of “corruption” that we are using? That on some level almost all workplace crime is corruption is true; but to evaluate all such crimes to the level of “official corruption” is not. To state that lying on an employment application is official corruption is not accurate, nor having a girlfriend who was/is an illegal immigrant.

That leaves three instances of actual official corruption, involving 4 agents. So we are citing three cases over the last 3 years, which involve 4 out of 10,000+ agents. That’s not in compliance with WP:NPOV.

Brimba (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate to ask a stupid question, but I don't understand what the term "official corruption" means.

Brimba, can you give us a definition with a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.90.2 (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually wrote up a response to Brimba's message, but I'd like to hold off until Brimba answers that question, because it occured to me that I may not be so clear on what Brimba's objection is exactly. Brimba, "What is 'official corruption'?" (with a source) While the disputed content doesn't use that term, if I have a better idea of what your objection is (and a sourced definition would help immensely, I think) I'll be better able to work towards a mutually acceptable edit.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Psychohistorian, tell you what, I could play the game again, but not in the mood at the moment, so do what you want and I will see you later. BTW, I thought you had graduated? Was thinking you might be languishing over on the sand pile by now. Cheers, Brimba (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page is a place to work on building a consensus for the article, not a place to filibuster content you don't like. Moving content to the discussion page for consensus is a productive act only if you actually participate in building a consensus. Putting content in the discussion page for consensus without commenting on it (and, thereby, just waiting for it to wither) is disingenuous.-75.179.153.110 01:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Saving sources on crime just in case there's something salvageable in them

• The Immigrant Gang Plague by Heather Mac Donald, City Journal Summer 2004
• Hispanic prisoners in the United States
• Prison Racism
• Race and the Criminal Justice System
• Illegal Immigration an Issue in Newark Murders -- 08/13/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.56 (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source which may prove useful for the economics section

ILLEGAL ALIENS Extent of Welfare Benefits Received on Behalf of US Children -198.97.67.59 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Also Statement by Thomas Gustafson, Ph.D. Deputy Director, Center for Medicare Management Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Hospitals and Immigration before The Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of Representatives -198.97.67.57 (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Dramchar's recent edits

First, please don't edit war. To help prevent an edit war, I'd like to discuss these recent edits before I do anything with regards to them. Here are my problems with them. [4] [5]

The connection between this material and illegal immigration is unclear. Dramchar appears to be working under the assumption that "brown" and "illegal immigrant" are synonymous. Such an assumption is original research at the very least as the material cited doesn't say that.

[6] [7]

This discusses both illegal and legal immigration together without differentiating. Therefore, it belongs in the Immigration to the United States article, not this one. A link can be added from this article to that one.

[8]

cited reference doesn't mention Tony Waters. Connection between this material and illegal immigration is unclear - again, are "Hispanic" and "Illegal immigrant" being assumed to be synonymous?

If I don't see an effort to discuss these edits in the discussion page sometime in the next week or so, I'll proceed with reverting them. Also, technically, Dramchar violated the [WP:3RR] with his recent edits. I'm assuming he's not aware of the 3RR policy, so I'm just pointing it out to him. A word to the wise is sufficient.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=177758499&oldid=177757458

This listed source doesn't appear to exist

I removed the joke paragraph about New Orleans... wondering why it was there so long

Someone had posted a joke paragraph in the article. I check the history, and I'm wondering why no one noticed it sooner, there other edits since then.

The city of New Orleans has had its share of healthcare concerns regarding illegal immigrants, but the tide seems to be turning, pun intended. On Monday, December 17th, 2007, 26% of immigrants working in New Orleans did not have access to proper healthcare. Due to a field study and hours of brainstorming, that percentage fell precipitously, decreasing to 22% on Tuesday, December 18th and down to 17% on December 19th. On December 20th, the breakthrough that everyone had been waiting for came. Two scholars published a brochure outlining the problems associated with immigrant healthcare and proposed measures to alleviate the problem. They used pie charts. The brochure had even greater success than anyone could have imagined, as the percentage of immigrants without access to healthcare dropped ten points in the two hours following the brochure being published, all the way down to 7%, and that percentage continues to fall as more and more people read the brochure. As of December 21st at 2:11 pm local time, there are just 20 immigrants without access to healthcare in the entire city of New Orleans. The two scholars who published the brochure are excited but not surprised. Said one of them, "we knew this would happen," while his partner just added, "I'm just upset there are still 20 immigrants without healthcare" and added that they might have to resort to further measures. Said the scholar, "one idea we've been tossing around is to simply have immigrants marry people whose employer provides healthcare for the spouses of employees." Whether they will resort to such an idea is unknowable. What is known is that these scholars deserve your praise and admiration. New Orleans thanks these good men.

That's what it read. Please remember wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia not a joke site. Dream Focus (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It was removed earlier. I didn't realize that it had been reinserted. This is the second time to my knowledge that it has been put back in.-24.210.221.7 (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Dangers Section

It seems very informal. It looks like an essay, not an encyclopedic entry. I will not make this edit, because I can't think of a way to phrase it. Starting from "These dangers include..." should at least be looked at. --UnoriginalMind (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The central focus there seems to be Coyotes. Just rewrite the section explaining what Coyotes are and how they assist in IIUS.-24.210.218.136 (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire section looks like some kind of editorial. "Loan sharks, that's who," struck me as a particularly unusual statement. The tone of the section seems highly opinionated, even pitying, and the language seems to plead with the reader to feel for the immigrants. A massive change to a more encyclopedic entry is very necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.67.236 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How's this?

The unfenced rural mountainous and desert border between Arizona and Mexico has become a major entrance area for illegal immigration to the United States, due in part to the increased difficulty of crossing illegally into California. Dangers of illegally crossing the southern border into the US include: exposure to the elements, traffic accidents, and inhumane treatment at the hands of corrupt human traffickers.[7] “Exposure to the elements” encompasses hypothermia, dehydration, heat strokes, drowning, and suffocation. Also, illegal immigrants and coyotes may die or be injured when they attempt to avoid law enforcement. Martines[8] provides an example of what can happen when illegal aliens attempt to resist arrest.

Often, the people that choose to sneak across the border employ expert criminal assistance - smugglers who promise a safe passage into the United States. These smugglers are called "coyotes" and are paid thousands of dollars per person they assist in crossing the border.[10] Oftentimes, the money used to pay for this assistance is loaned - sometimes from loan-sharks who charge as much as 300 percent interest on short term loans.[10]

The tightening of border enforcement has disrupted the "traditional" circular movement of many migrant workers from Mexico by increasing the costs and risks of crossing the border, thereby reducing their rate of return migration to Mexico. The difficulty and expense of the journey has prompted many migrant workers to stay in the United States longer or indefinitely.[11]

Origins of Illegal Immingrants

The original citizenship of the illegal immigrants should be noted. To assume that all illegal immigrants come from Mexico is both ludicrous and intolerably prejudiced. While the majority of illegal immigrants do come from Mexico, there are also Cubans, from Central and South American countries, even Asians and Eastern Europeans who come, not through the US-Mexico border, but by other means (nightly boat rides from Cuba, for example). This article is heavily slanted towards illegal immigrants of Mexican descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.11.159 (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked it up and found a figure that 56% of the illegal immigrants are from Mexico. This preponderance is sufficient to justify making a special section on Mexican issues, but you are of course right that sections on other nations would be welcome additions. Wnt (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference. Most illegal Asian and Easter Europeans immigrants at least have to meet some health and economic requirements to gain a visa. Most of the American media coverage is on Mexican illegal immigrants, (it's obvious when people wave the flag of Mexico during the marches). also as the majority, they boldly demand amnesty for illegally immigrating and US citizenship rights. I don't see Eastern Europeans and Asians boldly demand rights. Holannakata (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this really need a source?

"Every person who illegally immigrates to the US from Mexico to escape the way Mexico treats its poor is one more Mexican citizen no longer residing in Mexico pressuring the Mexican government to improve the way it treats its poor." Seems rather like saying that the sky is blue. Does such a statement really need a source? -66.194.62.5 (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's making a POV claim. If it's an important point then someone will have said so in a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if it's included it should be attributed to someone. But I would think this info belongs in an article about immigration to the United States, rather than on illegal immigration per se, because it would be the case for any immigrant. delldot talk 20:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted this text:

• Every person illegally immigrating to the US from Mexico due to poverty is one more person the Mexican government may be receiving money from to sustain the very system which drove the person to illegally immigrate to the U.S. in the first place.[ref]http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20030924-2051-us-mexico.html[/ref]

There is nothing in the source that says anything about this topic. The sentence makes assumptions about the reason everyone emigrates as well as about the effects of those emigrations and of remittances. If a notable commentator has made that assertion then we can quote him or her. But we cna't make those leaps assumptions on our own. Please don't restore it without finding a source that supports each of the assertions in the sentence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article states, "The 20 million Mexicans in the United States generate a gross product that is slightly higher than the $600 billion generated by Mexicans in Mexico," I used it as a source for the claim that these remittances "sustain the very system which drove the person to illegally immigrate to the U.S. in the first place." Will Beback stated, "There is nothing in the source that says anything about this topic." As far as I can figure out, he is saying that a gross product slightly higher than that generated by Mexicans in Mexico" does not sustain the current system in Mexico. That makes no sense. I assume he has a better explanation and isn't just trying to play games with Wikipedia. I expect that better explanation to be forthcoming, else I'll have no recourse but to restore the disputed content.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As for playing games, how about getting a username so you have a consistent identity? Regarding the text, we don't know if the money being sent is supporting or destabilizing the goverment of Mexico or its policies regarding poverty. If you find a source for it then we can add that. In the meantime, the source you provided is great for the amount of remittances, for the success of the Matricular Consular, etc. But it says nothing about "sustaining the very system which drove the person to illegally immigrate to the U.S. in the first place." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I added Citation deeded to: “This document is accepted at financial institutions in many states and, in conjunction with an IRS Taxpayer Identification Number, allows illegal immigrants to open checking and saving accounts”.

I by no means made an exhaustive search but was unable to verify this. I am questioning whether or not an illegal alien needs a tax number to open an account. Activist groups claim no but I am unable to find a government or third party source to back this up.Azwatchdog (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Op-Ed?

An Op-Ed is

• a page opposite the editorial page, where opinions by guest writers are presented
• the opinions/editorias section of a newspaper
• a statement or article by a news organization, newspaper, or magazine that expresses the opinion of the editorial, editorial board, or publisher

The CIS website is not a news organization, newspaper, or magazine. The article is not opposite the editorial page. Therefore, the source does not meet the definition of an op-ed.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is an opinion piece by a non-notable individual published on the website of an advocacy organization. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think that a man who is described as

He has written 20 books and monographs on international affairs, made 125 research trips to Latin America, and lectures regularly at the U.S. Department of State..He is a senior associate at the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington, D.C. and an associate scholar of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia. Grayson is the Class of 1938 Professor of Government.

is "non-notable". -75.179.153.110 (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If he's notable then write an article about him. As a practical matter, people are notable because they are noted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it may come as a surprise to someone who is so obsessed with Wikipedia that they monitor over 9000 articles simultaneously, but having an article on Wikipedia is not the measure of notability. The guy is noted by organizations like the College of William and Mary, the Center for Strategic & International Studies, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Department of State, etc. - in other words, people and organizations that actually matter.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited the External Links Section and Included Additional Research

I included interesting local research in regards to public opinion to Illegal Immigration into the United States conducted in the Inland Empire area of Southern California. I figured it was an interesting read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psypho (talk • contribs) 02:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this was a college paper. The grasp of the language is somewhere around the 5th or 6th grade level. But for the sake of the argument, let's say it is. I don't think freshman college papers belong as references in this article.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't some sample research, even if from a student, still be considered research? Besides, this a cross sample of Americans that have answered a certain set of questions in regards to Immigration. I still say it's worth looking into. Here's the address if no one else understands what I'm talking about: http://www. associatedcontent.com/article/582975/illegal_immigration_and_how_americans.html

Psypho (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with blind reverts

Blind reverts are unproductive and hostile. In the future, please strive to work with the community by identifying specific reasons why you feel a revert is warranted. Trying to draw other editors into pissing contests isn't productive (a "pissing contest" is "an argument where each participant is merely attempting to out-do the other one, not for the sake of the truth coming out, but simply to win"). Remember, these articles are a group effort and the goal should be to write the best encyclopedia article we can - "pissing contests' are not good for community building. Blind reverts are counter-productive and a recent example demonstrates that (see [[9]]) Here, a blind revert led

• to the reinsertion of vandalism (such as the example of "nationTree BAssals"),
• to the reinsertion of bad grammer (such as "Crossing the United States border, whether by land, air, or sea, without US Government authorization or failing to honor the terms of authorized forms of entry, such as tourist visas, represent the most of the common means of violation. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act illegal entry into the US constitutes a misdemeanor for first-time offenders, ")
• to the reinsertion of redundant material in an article that is in need of being reduced in size (such as in the above example, see "whether by land, air, or sea,")

These are just -some- of the problems that have been brought back into the article as a result of the blind revert. Blindly reverting to versions which contains problems like this is a step back. Please use the discussion page to identify -specific- problems with new edits. By doing so, the community can address your concerns intelligently -75.179.153.110 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm gooing to revert your edit again. Please discuss your proposed changes here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember, don't blind revert. Its counter-productive. Instead, mention specific issues with new content. Work -with- the community and remember Wikipedia rules and guidelines (like Wikipedia:Be bold - which indicates that problem fixes don't need to go through a vetting process before done.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your major, undiscussed changes andrestored the specific issues that you raised above. You haven't given any justification for your changes, and it is the onus of the person making the changes to explain them. I will revert again. Please make your edits in smaller pieces and please give explanations for them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that these articles are not your personal property. Wikipedia operates according to a set of documented guidelines/policies which you can find by clicking on the hyperlink to the left of the screen marked "Help". It would be productive for you to take the time to familiarize yourself with these guidelines/policies. You may be suprised at some of them. For example, contrary to your statement, "it is the onus of the person making the changes to explain them", what the guidelines/policies actually state is, "If you see something that can be improved, do not hesitate to do it yourself." Also, "Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution." This is important. You are making reverts without even attempting to identify the specific issues you have with the edits that were made. This is failure to pursue discussion in good faith. As I've said, you should mention specific problems you see in the edit I made so that the community can discuss them and resolve them intelligently. Blind reverts do not lead to the identification and resolution of such problems. Blind reverts are inherently confrontational and "Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute." Again, Will, it will be more productive if you identify specific problems with the edit rather than do a blind revert.

In other words, editors should work -with- the community. They should remember that these articles are not their personal property. They should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Having said that, for the time being, as an act of good faith, I will not remove the errors/problems you reinserted into the article. I'm hoping that you demonstrate the willingness to participate in the community by identifying the specific problems you have with the edit, so that these problems can be resolved in a productive and intelligent manner. I am also hoping that you will realize that blind edits are counter-productive and that you will cease making blind edits on Wikipedia.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't explained your edits. Please do. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to explain every change I made in that edit because there'd be somewhere over 40 bullet points. It would be time consuming. It is also quite pointless to make such an extensive list when, assuming you have an objection, that objection isn't about all 40 or more points, but is about something specific. The most productive course of action at this point is for you to identify what your specific objections are rather than waste valuable time going over changes you have no problem with. Unless you don't have a specific objection and are just trying to drag me into a pissing contest.

As far as I can see, there are three possibilities here 1.) You have a specific objection or a set of specific objections, but instead of stating them, you've chosen to engage in blind reverts - a mode of problem resolution which is inherently confrontational 2.) You are blind reverting content you do not have specific objections to - which is playing games with Wikipedia 3.) You do not have specific objections, but are refusing to assume good faith on my part Again, work -with- the community, not against it.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC).-75.179.153.110 (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss your edits then don't be surprised if they are reverted. What was your objection to the previous article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly invited you to mention any specific issues you have with my edits. I believe that demonstrates my willingness to discuss my edits. However, you have repeatedly avoided stating any such specific objections. That reveals that you don't want to discuss any specific objections you might have (we can only speculate as to why). I am not, however, willing to scroll the discussion page with over 40 bullet points like

• to the reinsertion of vandalism (such as the example of "nationTree BAssals"),
• to the reinsertion of bad grammer (such as "Crossing the United States border, whether by land, air, or sea, without US Government authorization or failing to honor the terms of authorized forms of entry, such as tourist visas, represent the most of the common means of violation. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act illegal entry into the US constitutes a misdemeanor for first-time offenders, ")
• to the reinsertion of redundant material in an article that is in need of being reduced in size (such as in the above example, see "whether by land, air, or sea,")

as there's nothing productive in doing so.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't restored the vandalism you refer to. If discussing changes to the article is too time consuming then collaborative projects may not be the best venue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't mentioned any specific objections you have either. Your objection is that I made too many changes too quickly. Essentially, your complaint is identical to "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" which is an example of ownership of the article (see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles Again, remember, Wikipedia articles are not your personal property. As for Grayson's notability, that's already been established.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message IP editor .I have asked for an expert.Cited data was removed hence reverted it.But asked for an expert now.I do understand that George Grayson is a professor of government at the College of William & Mary and adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.But not sure whether his opinion cames under WP:Undue .Anyway no point reverting back and forth asked for an expert.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[QUOTE]I have asked for an expert.[/QUOTE]

You keep saying that like it somehow absolves you of the responsibility to state specific concerns which led you to a revert. It doesn't.

[QUOTE]Cited data was removed hence reverted it.[/QUOTE]

As I said, To my knowledge, I did not delete any cited data unless that citation was redundant. I have asked you to provide specific examples of cited data being removed which raised your concern. You make the claim that I removed cited data, but you refuse to substantiate that claim. Again, my intent was not to remove any relevant, non-redundant references and it is quite fair to expect you to substantiate any accusations you've made.

[QUOTE]But asked for an expert now.[/QUOTE]

No matter how many times you repeat that statement, it'll never absolve you of the responsibility to explain your revert.

[QUOTE]I do understand that George Grayson is a professor of government at the College of William & Mary and adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.But not sure whether his opinion cames under WP:Undue .[/QUOTE]

You are being extremely unclear here. What specifically about Grayson and undue weight are you unsure about? By what objective standard are you basing your claim that Grayson is non-notable?

[QUOTE]Anyway no point reverting back and forth asked for an expert.[/QUOTE]

Nope, still not any closer to absolving you of your responsibility to explain your revert.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

IP editor.Your edit[10]Your edit removed more information than you inserted further it removed more recent citations 2007 and 2006 were removed and older ones broughtin a few of them are here[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] just to name a few you did inspite of another editor's request hence reverted it and asked for an expert for it changed the page in a major way and it was unexplained in the 1st place.Anyway Thank you for your message.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been out for awhile due to bronchitis, but I'm easing my way back into Wikipedia. I'm hurt to find that Pharaoh is deceitful enough to make bold faced lies about my work and, by extension, me in order to cover up work he still can't justify. I'd let it alone except that I don't take kindly to such crooked distortions of the truth. Fortunately, Wikipedia has a record of all edits. So, I we only have to look at the edits to see the truth.

I was accused of removing the following citations.[18][19][20][21]

The record shows that these references were word-for-word copies between the two versions (his revert and my edit)

I was accused of removing cited data in [22], but the record shows that he was the one who removed cited data when he did a revert of this source.

I was accused of removing cited data when I removed [23]. I did, in fact, remove this, because it isn't about illegal immigrants and, so, is not relevant - a fact he would have known if he'd asked before doing his revert.

I was accused of removing cited data when I edited the source for [24]. However, a review of this source shows that it does not state what had earlier been claimed for it, but rather the Supreme Court found (and I quote) "Thus, an indictment alleging attempted re-entry under §1326(a) need not specifically allege a particular overt act or any other “component par[t]” of the offense. See Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 117. It was enough for the indictment to point to the relevant criminal statute and allege that respondent “in-tentionally attempted to enter the United States . . . at or near SanLouis . . . Arizona” “[o]n or about June 1, 2003.”"

Pharaoh, in the future, don't be so foolish as to attempt to rewrite history when there's a record which states what that history was. In particular, don't do so in a depraved effort to defame someone who does not take kindly to such low acts.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This first paragraph and misdemeanors

Immigration violations are not criminal proceedings rather civil proceedings. Is is not a misdemeanor to be in this country illegally. I think the person is confusing maybe illegal entry but not the actual act of being here illegal such as visa over stayers. Besides it has no citation to probe it. http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/30676-crime-and-immigration-lesson-1-being-illegal-is-not-a-crime

Sheriff Joe Arpaio doesn't seem to have a problem getting felony convictions. Of course he isn't applying the Federal law but a new Arizona state law. Arizona also have laws on higher education for illegal aliens, no bail for serious offenders and mandatory legal work status checks for employment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StFN7uiVFFI (Azwatchdog (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

I can't believe I have to write this, but you shouldn't get your legal guidance from blogs.

The US legal code is available online and a source has been provided in the article showing that illegal immigration is, in fact, a crime and immigration proceedings are criminal proceedings. The instant an illegal immigrant does anything with the attempt to elude immigration authorities (which includes any identity theft/fraud or getting a job without filling out the proper employment papers or getting hospital care under a false identity or anything of the sort) that illegal immigrant is committing a crime as per Title 8 and Title 18. Whenever such an illegal immigrant does properly identify themselves, US immigration officials should begin extradition proceedings. Once an illegal immigrant is extradited, if he or she illegally immigrates again, he or she is guilty of a felony.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Laws making illegal immigration illegal?

I can't find any federal laws saying that not following procedure is a crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

removed this section, this is about legal immigration and has no place in the illegal immigration aritcle

Immigration with and without quotas The immigration quota system was first expanded with the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 which was used to reduce the influx of East and Southern European immigrants who were coming to the country in large numbers from the turn of the century. This immigration was further reduced by the Immigration Act of 1924 which was structured to maintain the cultural and ethnic traditions of the United States.

The Franklin D. Roosevelt administration had nearly shut down immigration during the decade of the Great Depression of 1929. In 1929 there were 279,678 immigrants recorded and in 1933 there were only 23,068. By 1939 recorded immigrants had crept back up to 82,998 but then the emergence of World War II drove it back down to 23,725 in 1943 increasing slowly to 38,119 by 1945. After 1946 about 600,000 of Europe's Displaced Person (DP's) refugees were admitted under special laws outside the country quotas, and in the 1960s and 1970s large numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees were admitted under special laws outside all quotas.

Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 which essentially removed all nation-specific quotas, while retaining an overall quota, and included immigrants from Mexico and the Western Hemisphere for the first time with their own quotas. It also put a large part of immigration, so-called family reunification, outside the quota system. This dramatically changed the number, type and composition of the new arrivals from mostly European, to predominantly poor Latino and Asian. It also dramatically increased the number of illegal aliens as many poorer people now had family or friends in the U.S. that attracted them there. In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was passed, creating amnesty for about 3,000,000 illegal aliens already in the United States. Critics believe IRCA just intensified the illegal immigration flow as those granted amnesty illegally brought more of their friends and family into the U.S.

Without quotas on large segments of the immigration flow, legal immigration to the U.S. surged and soon became largely family based "Chain immigration" where families brought in a chain of off quota new immigrant family members. The number of legal immigrants rose from about 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s. In 2006 legal immigrants to the United States now number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuster (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not keep it as background information? - Schrandit (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is more appropriate for the Immigration to the United States article. Since this article is quite long already, extraneous or tangentially-related info should be removed where possible. Will Beback NS (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

whole article

This whole article is terrible. It is unreadable, biased, and not very helpful. The worst major wikipeida article I have ever seen. I will try my best but this needs more than one person to get it up to par. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuster (talk • contribs) 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is much too long and goes off on too many tangents.Why is there a large section devoted to the Mexico. Wouldn't links alone to the main articles be enough? I'm new to this article so I won't delete such a major portion myself but If I don't get any objections within a day or so it's gone.

Another area to cut, the birthright citizenship should be much shorter and link back to the main article. Again if no one objects, I;m going to delete everything and leave a very short summarizing paragraph and a link to the main article. Nuster (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and got rid of the massive mess that was the economic section and replaced it with the intro summarizing paragraph from the main article on the subject. Call me crazy but the section should not be longer than the main article. Looks like it won't let me and tried to say I was vandalizing it. I don't have the patience for this. Someone else do it. Nuster (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a section on legal immigration? "Immigration with and without quotas" needs to be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuster (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add the Point of View check tag to the top of this article. This article is simply too cluttered to be verifiably accurate. Additionally, a great deal of what the page says is not neutral; for instance, the "Racial tension" section. Overall, the lack of sources makes this article unreliable. FreddyWare (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Crime section Source Validity

I removed the following A confidential report by the California Department of Justice indicated that in 1995 60% of the 20,000 members of the 18th Street Gang in Los Angeles was composed of illegal immigrants. Also, about 60 percent of the membership of the Columbia Lil' Cycos gang was illegal, according to a 2002 statement by former U.S. attorney Luis Li.

A confidential report by the California Department of Justice indicated that in 1995 60% of the 20,000 members of the 18th Street Gang in Los Angeles was composed of illegal immigrants. someone put this in again with no souce. Find a source and then it goes back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuster (talk • contribs) 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If the report is confidential how did they get their hands on it. If someone can get their hands on the report online or via public records and scan them, then this can go back in. Otherwise, it is not a valid source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuster (talk • contribs) 15:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also this has no source "A top al Qaeda lieutenant has met with leaders of a violent Salvadoran criminal gang with roots in Mexico and the United States — including a stronghold in the Washington area — in an effort by the terrorist network to seek help infiltrating the U.S.-Mexico border, law enforcement authorities said." Nuster (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mexican Corruption, etc

Removed section on Corruption as a cause of illegal immigration; references need to show that other authorities have stated Mexicans migrate because of their gov't being corrupt. No such references are given. Will also remove section on Poor Fiscal Management for the same reason. While no one will argue that the U.S. does a better job at managing the economy than Mexico does, references don't support the claim Mexicans leave enter the U.S. illegally *because* of this. Statements made are pov. The section that Mexican government is working to make it easier to immigrate to U.S. illegally is also being removed: All of the references provided state this is a humanitarian effort to curb rising deaths in the desert; references also state humanitarian organization on the US side agree. It isn't enough to cite reliable sources, sources must state the argument been made rather than the Wiki editor using this as a forum to making the the argument himself (politicizing). The sections being removed might be appropriate for a college term paper, but thay have no encyclopedic value. They push the editor's POV.

Will also try to improve the article with citation that support poverty as reason of illegal immigration. CallmeDrNo (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The section on corruption should stay - everyone agrees that poverty is the driving force behind illegal immigration from Mexico and the section helps to explain why there is such poverty in Mexico. Its POV to say the Mexican government is providing help to illegal immigrants purely for humanitarian purposes, even if that is their motivation they are still aiding illegal immigrants in breaking US law and surely that merits mention. Illegal Immigration is complex, if it is to be understood we must be allowed to explore the things directly related to it. - Schrandit (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. No the numerous references given do not show that any verifiable authority sustains that Mexican govt corruption is a cause of illegal immigration. Information in an encyclopedia should be merely *factual* and also include expert views, etc, but such views must address the subject at hand and do so "right on", not in a round-and-about way, as the several previous references (now removed by DrNO) were attempting to do. The same holds for the Poor fiscal management and the claim that the Mexican govt is encouraging illegal immigration to U.S.

And, The paragraph that "it may be worthwhile to focus on causes specific to illegal immigration from Mexico" because 56% of it is from Mexico, I also consider it a lobsided pov argument, misses the point that this is a global encyclopedia, and I have removed it. To exacerbate the matter, locating this sort of this-country-only info at the top (intro) of the Causes section is an article on *global* immigration to US is misleading to the reader as illegal immigration also occurs from other countries. Now, if someone wants to create an article just on Illegal immigration from the Mexico to the U.S., then maybe that's what's needed. Robruiz (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But those sources all say corruption leads to poverty and every sources says poverty is the leading cause of illegal immigration from Mexico. This is an article in a "global encyclopedia" that is dealing with a national problem, would it not make sense to have some facts that apply to the national level? I don't understand how the statement of a fact (the estimate that 56% of illegal immigrant come from Mexico) could lead anyone to believe that all any more than 56% illegal immigrants come from Mexico. If you want to create and article on illegal immigration to the United States from Mexico thats awesome - in the mean time the facts pertaining to it still belong in this article. - Schrandit (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

>>>Schrandit, I believe your claim is not substantiated by the facts: None of those sources in the Corruption section say corruption leads to poverty. In fact, None of the 8 sources even mentioned the word "poverty" except in 2 unrelated instances:

(1)Business Anti-Corruption Portal: Mexico Country Profile article: “According to an 2007 OECD economic survey, broad financial reforms are needed in order to overcome Mexico's still widespread poverty and to bridge the gap in living standards between Mexico and wealthier countries.”

(2)National Center for Economic Analysis’s Economic Freedom and Economic Growth in Mexico article: “Also, Latin expert Alvaro Vargas Llosa, director of the Center on Global Prosperity at the Independent Institute, claims that because peasants had no property rights over the land, local political-party bosses and crime cartels were able to wrest control of the land away from communities and dictate its uses, ensuring a life of poverty for most farmers.”

In my opinion, the paragrapgh on corruption constitutes "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position." Namely,

"Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."

I find the paragrapgh is in violation of WP:SYN and WP:NOR. I propose that the Corruption section be eliminated from the article.

Robruiz (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel the argument that Mexicans break international law because they are poor -> they are poor because their economy blows -> their economy blows because its corrupt is a defendable enough argument, if you feel strongly enough that it isn’t bring it for moderation. - Schrandit (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You have introduced a new term 'international law'. I am by no means an expert in IL, but to best of my knowledge IL was developed to protect civilians rather than to coreect civilian behavior and/or punish those civilians that did not comply. You may want to check your sources if IL is a doable goal. It is probably best to stay within the realm of immigration and nationality law. In any event, it is my opinion that that line of logic constiutes WP:OR and thus not defendable at all.

Robruiz (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And I feel it falls well within wikipedia guidelines. If you really feel that strongly about it bring it for moderation and we'll see. - Schrandit (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

>>>I am not sure what you are suggesting be brought up for moderation. The claim that corruption leads to illegal immigration is already in this discussion area. And poverty is not presented as a (the!) major reason for illegal immigration, instead article wanders into the area of 'inequality of wealth'... This point of view does a disservice to readers (and factualiy, for that matter).

It is widely known that people migrate, legally and illegally, because of poverty. Poverty is what needs to be presented. None of the sources presented say that corruption leads to illegal immigration; therefore this is POV. None of the sources presented say that Inequality of Wealth leads to illegal immigration. Therefore this also is POV. If someone in authority believed either of these, wouldn't you agree at least 1 single source would say that? Again, I am not sure what you are suggesting be brought up for moderation, since the claim that corruption leads to illegal immigration is already in this discussion area.

Robruiz (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Section: Causes: Poor Fiscal Mgmt, Mexican Gov. corruption, Encouraged by Mexican Authorities

The 3 sections above are under dispute as the citations provided do not support the claims made. (See also discussion item titled "Mexican Corruption, etc.")

Virtually everyone knows that people - poor and the not so poor - migrate (even within the USA) in search of better jobs, so the section on Poverty reasonably belongs in the list of causes.

But to claim that some Mexicans immigrate illegally to the USA because they are fleeing corruption in the Mexican gov't above anything related to their economic condition is not widely known, requires citations to the effect (not a case-building, but citations), and is not supported by any of the citations given. "CallmeDrNo" rightfully removed that section with explanation, but it was re-insetred again by Schrandit, without convincing reason (See Discussion "Mexican Corruption, etc.").

The 2nd claim that Mexicans immigrate illegally to the US because they do not have good medical care and education in Mexico might *conceivably* be the case. However, again, none of the citations indicate that. The editor, instead started attempting to build a case to prove that is the case. Such "proof writing" do not belong in an encyclopedia where hard-working editors are attempting to put together a good article without personal bias, individual pov's, or prefered political perspective, but with factual information.

On the Claim that the Mexican Gov't is openly encouranging its citizens to cross the border illegally by passing out maps with locations for water, medical help, etc on the desert, well, that does not even merit mentioning, let alone defending. The citations themselves indicate that this is being done for humanitarian reasons, and organizations in the US side provide the water and medical help, etc. Again, the claim is not supported by the citations.

All three claims are misleading, taken out of context, or otherwise twisted with some actual facts that only serve to mask factual information. None of those claims belong in the article until verifiable supporting citation from authoritative and reliable sources can be identified.

The insisting editor (Schranit) explains (see "Mexican Corruption, etc.") that "the section [should stay because] helps to explain why there is such poverty in Mexico". This misses the point that the article is not about poverty in Mexico. The insisting editor also adds that "those sources all say corruption leads to poverty". If this is the case (which I could not find) then please submit the statement in question as a quotation in addition to an exact article citation, with page number etc.

Finally the article virtually isolates Mexicans as the only significant sources of illegal immigration. I also noticed that the insisting editor removed information with completely legitimate, verifiable, and reliable citation about illegal immigration by Canadians. This makes for a biased pov and a less richful, less meaningful article.

While the dispute is resolved, the article now has templates to this effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robruiz (talk • contribs) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The article did not argue that Mexicans were fleeing their country because of corruption, rather that corruption contributed to Mexico's poverty. The section challenging the inclusion of the corruption section has been replied to and that reply has not been rebutted.

This is an encyclopedia - it is a repository of fact. It is a fact that the Mexican government has issued their citizens with maps in order to help them subvert American law - I challenge you here and now to tell me why that fact does not belong in an encyclopedia.

These claims are not misleading and based on solid references, readers should no be deprived of them because you have chosen to take them out of context.

Prove a link between government corruption and a diminished economic development you say? Political corruption#Economic effects There ya go!

Thanks for the link. It serves to further challenge the claim that there is a direct link between Mexican gov't corruption and illegal immigration. Nowhere does it say that corruption leads to illegal immigration. No credible source seems to have done - and published - research on that. I suspect what is happening is you are "reading between the lines." At best the link seems to imply that Mexican gov't corruption leads to pooerer Mexican citizens, and that poorer Mexican citizens leads to greater immigration, and that greater immigration leads to greater illegal immigration, and that greater illegal immigration leads to greater illegal immigration to the US. If this is your perspective, you might have a point in the connection you are trying to make between corruption and poverty, but I cannot support it as Wiki policies don't permit original research. So I cannot support that the Mexican corruption section be kept - not in its current form. I suggest you considered a "watered down" version of it, possibly as part of the wealth/poverty section.

Robruiz (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove information with completely legitimate, verifiable, and reliable citation about illegal immigration by Canadians. I removed a section that was patently false. See History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States if you don't believe me.

Also, one historically resolves a dispute on a talk page before deleting whole sections one finds unfounded - Schrandit (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your statement that "It is a fact that the Mexican government has issued their citizens with maps in order to help them subvert American law" is INCORRECT. No offense, but any reasonable person will see that the fact is that 'it has been reported that the Mexican gov't has issued the maps'. It is NOT a fact, that it was done to help Mexican subvert American law. The latter is YOUR claim, and an individual editor's "claims", that is, statements that are not verifiable are not considered encyclopedic content and per Wikipedia's policies are subject to removal. The same holds true of your other claims. They are not verifiable. The sections do not belong there if their contecnt cannot be verified.

Robruiz (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that

• this article is about illegal immigration to the United States,
• that this section is about what pushes people to illegally immigrate
• that it is widely believed that economic disparity is one of the major reasons people illegally cross the southern border
• that this section is explaining some of the reasons for that disparity

The causes for the push for illegal immigration are an important part of this article.-66.194.62.5 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are,,,,, so what's your point?

Robruiz (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[quote]But to claim that some Mexicans immigrate illegally to the USA because they are fleeing corruption in the Mexican gov't above anything related to their economic condition is not widely known, requires citations to the effect (not a case-building, but citations), and is not supported by any of the citations given. "CallmeDrNo" rightfully removed that section with explanation, but it was re-insetred again by Schrandit, without convincing reason (See Discussion "Mexican Corruption, etc.").[/quote]

I don't believe the article states thta some Mexicans immigrate illegally to the USA because they are fleeing corruption in the Mexican gov't above anything related to their economic condition. I believe the article is saying that corruption in the Mexican gov't hurts economic development which has, in turn, led to illegal immigration. However, I think its possible to reach a compromise here. How would -you- change the section so as to make it clear that it is saying "corruption in the Mexican gov't hurts economic development which has, in turn, led to illegal immigration"?

[quote] The 2nd claim that Mexicans immigrate illegally to the US because they do not have good medical care and education in Mexico might *conceivably* be the case. However, again, none of the citations indicate that. The editor, instead started attempting to build a case to prove that is the case. Such "proof writing" do not belong in an encyclopedia where hard-working editors are attempting to put together a good article without personal bias, individual pov's, or prefered political perspective, but with factual information.[/quote]

I see nothing in the article stating that Mexicans immigrate illegally to the US because they do not have good medical care and education in Mexico. What I believe the article is saying is that failure of the Mexican government to invest in its national infrastructure hurt economic development, which has, in turn, created a push for illegal immigration. Again, I believe a compromise is possible. How would -you- edit the section to make its point more clear (ie. that "failure of the Mexican government to invest in its national infrastructure hurt economic development, which has, in turn, created a push for illegal immigration")?

[quote]On the Claim that the Mexican Gov't is openly encouranging its citizens to cross the border illegally by passing out maps with locations for water, medical help, etc on the desert, well, that does not even merit mentioning, let alone defending. The citations themselves indicate that this is being done for humanitarian reasons, and organizations in the US side provide the water and medical help, etc. Again, the claim is not supported by the citations.[/quote]

We have citations which state very clearly that the Mexican Gov't -is- working to make illegal immigration to the US easier. The article does not claim that "the Mexican Gov't is openly encouranging its citizens to cross the border illegally". The article makes no claims as to -Why- the Mexican Gov't is doing it. I consider this a good thing as a claim either way would be POV. So by making no claim, the article avoids that POV mess.-66.194.62.5 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have such citations that "state very clearly that the Mexican Gov't -is- working to make illegal immigration to the US easier", then I would like to see them. If you cannot produce them, then what we need to say here is that "Mexico says the maps will be aimed at cutting the death toll among migrants, and the US says maps would not improve safety for those trying to cross the border." Those are facts of the news story. Nowhere in citation does it says the Mexican gov't is working to make illegal immigration to the US easier. Creating maps and working to make illegal immigration easier are two different things. But if you can find an Authority that has said Mexican Gov't is working to make illegal immigration easier, then we can put that in. Say you you find the Int'l Court of Justice ruled that way, or the UN via a Resolution, or even a credible US newspaper to say 'Mexican Gov't is working to make illegal immigration to the US easier' then I will agree to word it that way in the article. But becuase so far we have not seen a single source supporting that claim, I oppose such wording in the article.

Robruiz (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Providing someone with a map to help them illegally cross an international border in no uncertain terms aids in the breaking of international law. - Schrandit (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The matter you responded to was addressing the claim that "We have citations which state very clearly that the Mexican Gov't -is- working to make illegal immigration to the US easier." That is the matter in discussion. Your statement above that "Providing someone with a map to help them illegally cross an international border in no uncertain terms aids in the breaking of international law." is not currently under scrutiny as it is not found in the article. If you wish to comment on the claim that "the Mexican Gov't -is- working to make illegal immigration to the US easier", please do so.

Robruiz (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Between the maps, the instructions on evasion and the comic book there is an insurmountable amount of verifiable evidence which points to the direct involvement of Mexican authorities in aiding illegal immigration to the United States.

I agree with you that there is an insurmountable amount of evidence that points to the direct involvement of Mexican authorities in the matter of illegal immigration. There is also an insurmountable amount of evidence that points to the direct involvement of the United States authorities in the matter of illegal immigration. This is what is expected of modern-day, civilized, democratically-elected, and (under Int'l law) responsible goverments.

The problem is in pushing the envelope and categorizing such involvement from Mexican gov't as "AIDING" illegal immigration. Such labeling has to be left to the sources, the authorities, and the experts in the field. If they said that, then WE TOO, can write that. Our job as editors is simply to write - in a neutral fashion - what has been reported elsewhere. Labelling the actions of the Mexican gov't as "aiding' falls under WK:NOR and is not permitted in Wikipedia.

Robruiz (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Added Removed Section

The section on illegal immigration from Canada was removed without engaging in a Discussion dialogue and I have reenter it. If anyone has a different perspective on illegal immigration by Canadians, he/she is welcome to express viewes here, but simply filling in a few words in the summary line to justify the unilateral removal of the whole section without engaging in a dialogue is not considerate of the effort put into adding the section to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CallmeDrNo (talk • contribs) 02:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The section was removed due to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The problem, as identified earlier, is that this is describing a single person out of the tens of millions of illegal immigrants. At best, given the sources available, its representative of 00.0000001% of illegal immigrants. I'm sure you'll agree that 00.0000001% is an extremely tiny minority. The following is the relevant quote from [WP:NPOV#Undue weight]

Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute..Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

Now, note that I said above "given the sources available". If you can provide reliable sources which show that this is actually representative of a significant percentage of illegal immigrants, then I'll agree that it should belong.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to the Canada section but I agree the case of the single Canadian who lives here illegally is insignificant. The section should probably also mention Canadians account for around half of a percent of the total illegal population as is opposed to Mexico's lion's share. - Schrandit (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

VEry frequently people use an encyclopedia as a starting point for actual further research and this sort of fact can be beneficial to get the whole picture on illegal immigration. I believe the section on illegal Canadian immigration to the U.S. should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.20.71.17 (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Canadian contribution to illegal immigration to the United States problem should not be ignored. The article in the reference is very thorough, with hard facts about a frontier state, its Senate vote, changes to their DOT licensing procedure and requirements, and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement figures. It is common in journalism to use single individual's case to illustrate a point and then get the "hard" facts out. At least 1/3 of the article is dedicated to general illegal immigration issues. The section about illegal Canadian immigration to US should be kept. Robruiz (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why was this section removed without enough particpation from the community? The undocumented Canalien, I mean, anonymous user, that removed the section only allowed 1 day of discussion time - most of it sleep time - before jumping back in to remove the section. Was this some desesperate POV move? The section should be incorporated into the article. It points to a lot more Canadians than I ever thought that are also breaking our laws. There are enough illegal Canadians cases there to keep Immigration authorities busy for probably a year! Illegal immigration is *illegal* period. Make EVERYONE stand in line and follow our laws if they want to come here so we can secure our borders. I say keep the illegal immigration section from Canadian citizens to the USA in the article. BornintheUSA! BornintheUSA (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you all need to take the time to read and familiarize yourselves with edits before responding to them. "The Canadian contribution to illegal immigration to the United States problem should not be ignored" and "It points to a lot more Canadians than I ever thought that are also breaking our laws.", The Canadian contribution to illegal immigration is -not- being ignored. The number of Canadians entering the country is reported in the origins section. "The article in the reference is very thorough" The article has been moved, not removed. It is under the origins section. "It is common in journalism to use single individual's case to illustrate a point and then get the "hard" facts out" Wikipedia is not journalism. "I say keep the illegal immigration section from Canadian citizens to the USA in the article." I have no problem with a section about Canadian illegal immigrants to the USA. What was removed was a section which explained the motives for *one* illegal immigrant out of 12,000,000 for breaking immigration law. The material was undue weight. However, if you provide reliable sources which detail why a statistically significant number of Canadian illegal immigrants break immigration law, I will support that sources inclusion in the article.-198.97.67.56 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the point. I believe the contributor was refering to the news article by the Portland Oregon Chronicle journalist Beth Slovic Bslovic in that newspaper when he/she wrote about the practice being common in journalism. The Chronicle article addition - and Canadian illegal immigration section in the Wikipedia article - provides a fuller view of reasons why people immigrate illegally to the USA. I too think it is appropriate to keep illegal Canada immigration section in the article. 199.20.71.17 (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a Canada section, but the "Thrill element"? We have evidence of one person who may have been lying and word of what? a few dozen more? I don't thinks its on par with the 8 million Mexicans who crossed illegally. - Schrandit (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The dispute isn't about whether there should be a Canada section. Everyone involved in this discussion agrees that a Canada section would be fine. The debate is over what should be in the Canada section. Some editors want material about 00.000015% of the Canadian illegal immigrants (1 person out of 65,000) in the article. The rest of us are saying that it is undue weight and that what should go in that section is material about a statistically significant percentage of Canadian illegal immigrants.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, all that needs to be put there is that Canadians have been known to do it if for no other reason that to enjoy circumventing US law. The section is about Causes (reasons) people have to leave their countries and migrate to the US illegally, so statistcis, numbers, quantities, amounts, etc, should not be the major focus of the entry under Canada, but the *reason why* it is done. I agree that Canadians who come illegally to the US don't do it because of hunger, poverty, war, or wealth disparity, but the thrill part does fit right in. The problem we have is that nowhere do have some source saying that more than 1 person does it for that reason. Well, so what? In my opinion for every 1 person caught doing something illegally for X reason, there are 100's that are never caught that also do it for the same reason X. So I would support that the article include circumventing US law as reason why some Canadians are believed to immigrate to the US.Marlayn (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As an immigration judge I see a disproportionate number of Canadian deportation cases being contested than Mexican cases, costing the American taxpayer more per illegal immigrant than Mexicans, i.e., Mexicans generally "face the music" when they get caught and are being deported. 70.17.40.174 (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As an astronaut in orbit over the USA, I see a disproportionate number of people swimming from Iceland into the US. Okay, while that's meant to be funny, it may come across as a bit too snarky. The point I'm making is that an anonymous person making some claim to authority on Wikipedia carries about as much weight as GW Bush's views on whether we are in a recession - none at all. If you -are- an expert, then you'll have -no- trouble getting reliable sources.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we would all agree that if the Portland Chronicle bet their business on 1 illegal Canadian being significant the newspaper would be out of business by now. Therefore that was not the point of the article. End of that story. The point of the article was to report that a significant (read: 65,000) number of illegal immigrants are Canadian citizens - and that's enough illegal immigrants to fill a MOST American cities! Point is, there are reasons for illegal immigration other than poverty. Why (for what reason?) are Canadians coming illegally to the US? In the case of this Canalien, as the newspaper calls him, it seems to be some sort or a thrill - lack of work in Canada is not mentioned in the article as his reason. Is this thrill representative of some/most other illegal Canadians? Maybe yes, maybe not; we don't know. But if the one Canalien the article featured did it for thrill of breaking the US law, then the newspaper probably knows something about illegal Canadian immigrants that we don't know. In other words, 100% of the Canaliens the paper snatched for their article "happened" to do it for the thrill of it! That's a pretty high percentage if you ask me. Look at this guy, he is laughing right at the face of American law enforcement, right on our faces. Are we going to say OK to this? Are we not going to make at least a side note of this valid, verifiable, documented reason??? Anyone who sanctions that 65,000 is OK, would also have to approve of all the 65,000 Mexicans that entered the US illegally in years past. And you know what happened??? Hey, it's no longer just 65,000 illegal Mexicans; it's now Millionsss. Point is, breaking the law has no nationality and no number: they are all guilty! I say keep the Canalien section there and keep the Chinese section there, and add India, Bangladesh, and the others, and their causes/reasons so the article so cannot be called lopsided. Now more than ever, BornintheUSA (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Table vs. Text stream

I'd like to point out that two separate editors had difficulty finding the stats for Canada when the data was in a text stream. When the Canadian statistics were moved to the origin section, BornintheUSA stated that the removal of the statistics was problematic because those statistics, "points to a lot more Canadians than I ever thought that are also breaking our laws" and Robruiz protested moving those statistics saying, "The Canadian contribution to illegal immigration to the United States problem should not be ignored." The statements of both editors indicate difficulty reading the statistics as a text stream. That is, putting the stats in a text stream is a problem. So, I put those stats in table format. As for whether the table format I put them in is the best possible format for the stats, I can't say. I'm certainly willing to see other formats offered by other editors. However, I think its clear that the table format makes the stats more visible and more comprehensible than the text stream does.-75.179.157.247 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Robruiz

Your statement above that I, "BornintheUSA stated that the removal of the statistics was problematic because those statistics, points to a lot more Canadians than I ever thought that are also breaking our laws", is incorrect. Your statement is false; nowhere do I say that. My comments were making reference to your obliteration of the Canadian illegal aliens section without allowing reasonbale time for the rest of the community to participate.

My contribution above says, "Why was this section removed? ... Was this [removal of the illegal Canadian aliens section] some desesperate POV move? The [illegal Canadian aliens] section should be incorporated into the article [because] it points to a lot more Canadians than I ever thought that are also breaking our laws".

Nowhere did I mention the word statistics, nowhere did I mention the removal of statistics (I talked about the removal of the illegal Canadian aliens section), or that the removal of statistics was problematic (I said that the removal of the illegal Canadian aliens section should not have taken place without participation from the community). And certainly, nowhere did I say that I had difficulty finding the stats for Canada when the data was in a text stream, as your discussion claims. Nowhere did I mention the phrase 'text string'. Regrettably, this is your own extrapolated interpretation of my contribution.

Again, I was supporting that the illegal Canadian aliens *section* be kept in the article, and to clarify, it should be kept in all of its original content. I also support that, for the listing of number of illegal immigrants and country of origin, the original percentage format within the body of the text be kept; and that the suggested table format not be included this time.

BornintheUSA (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[QUOTE]Your statement above that I, "BornintheUSA stated that the removal of the statistics was problematic because those statistics, points to a lot more Canadians than I ever thought that are also breaking our laws", is incorrect. Your statement is false; nowhere do I say that.[/QUOTE]

The good thing about Wikipedia is that it contains a history of what editors write. Review your statement dated 15:44 29 February 2008. You wrote, and I quote in its entirety [QUOTE]Why was this section removed without enough particpation from the community? The undocumented Canalien, I mean, anonymous user, that removed the section only allowed 1 day of discussion time - most of it sleep time - before jumping back in to remove the section. Was this some desesperate POV move? The section should be incorporated into the article. It points to a lot more Canadians than I ever thought that are also breaking our laws. There are enough illegal Canadians cases there to keep Immigration authorities busy for probably a year! Illegal immigration is *illegal* period. Make EVERYONE stand in line and follow our laws if they want to come here so we can secure our borders. I say keep the illegal immigration section from Canadian citizens to the USA in the article. BornintheUSA! BornintheUSA (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[/QUOTE],

It isn't rocket science to see that, ignoring all the personal attacks and insinuations, your actual constructive argument is "The section should be incorporated into the article [because] It points to a lot more Canadians than I ever thought that are also breaking our laws." Now, clearly, anecdotes about an individual Canadian illegal immigrant in the US don't "[point] to a lot more Canadians than [you] ever thought that are breaking our laws." The argument you are making here is that that section should stay in order to retain the data about the size of the Canadian illegal immigrant population (btw, "size of population" values are a statistic). However, the version you were complaining about already had those statistics whose removal you were complaining about. You would have known that the statistics remained if you had been able to find them and, so, raising the issue you did indicated that you were not able to find them in the text stream form they were in.

btw, dial down the hostility (such as accusing me of being "The undocumented Canalien"[sic]). If you can't participate civilly as a community member in Wikipedia, it isn't the venue for you.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

>>>XCUUUUUSE me... the statement I was making was that the illegal Canadian section should stay in the article. Your words are, "The argument you are making here is that that section should stay in order to retain the data about the size of the Canadian illegal immigrant population (btw, "size of population" values are a statistic)." [Note my italics which is the logic **you** are adding in and then attributing to me.] And no, it does not require a very intelligent person, rocket scientist or not, to read my simple ending statement: "I say keep the illegal immigration section from Canadian citizens to the USA in the article." Hopefully you will not require any further repeats of this simple statement. BornintheUSA!

08:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you not put words in my mouth. I never talked about statistics in my response that you cite above. I never even used the word 'statistics'. I did not make, or even remotely implied, the statement you are attibuting to me namely, that I 'had difficulty finding the stats for Canada when the data was in a text stream'. I do not support the table format for that purpose you are proposing - that's all. Anything else, such as calling my statement a protest, and claiming that I had difficulty reading the statistics as a data stream, are your own fabrication, and can only be intended to advance your own personal point of view. You clearly missed the point I made that "The section about illegal Canadian immigration to US should be kept" in the article.

And yes, The good thing about Wikipedia is that it contains a history of what editors write, such as keeping a record of your actions. For example, what is "Robruiz" doing at the end of YOUR editing above? I don't need any lenghty explanations, I'd appreciate if you'll just take it out. Hopefully you will recognize that as my Wiki username, and not belonging in your edit.

Robruiz (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal rulings

As per FindLaw, the rulings on Plyer v Doe and US v Kim Wong Arc are incorrectly described in this article. An editor is trying to edit war over it and refusing to engage in discussion. I recommend that anyone who believes the current description of either ruling is correct as per FindLaw provide a defense for it here.-75.179.157.247 (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to User:Psychohistorian

Per U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

“The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,-both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 18b; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent, Comm. 39, 42.”

Per PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id., at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

Hope that helps. Brimba (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Per U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

The section you quoted argues that the two classes of cases - children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state - are exluded. It does not say that those are the only classes excluded.

The finding of the case is as follows, "The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative." Take note of the part where the court said "the single question" for it is this single question which was answered by the court and, so, as it is the single question they answered, in their position as judges, it is the only thing upon which precedent can be set regarding this case.

Note the qualifiers the judge gave for his answer

• a child born in the United States
• with parents who are subjects of a foreign government
• whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
• whose parents are in the US carrying on business
• whose parents are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity by that foreign power

Per PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

Justice Gray's statement was a footnote, not a legally binding statement. What the court found (you know, the legally binding part?) was, and I quote, "If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in each of these cases is Affirmed"

Its in black and white, so I have faith this discussion will be resolved quickly assuming all parties are acting in good faith.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am more then happy to resolve this through other channels within WP as we will obviously not agree so this talk page is not likely to resolve anything. Your interpretation is just that, your interpretation, and a violation of WP:SYN and WP:NOR in general -that’s my opinion. You are more then welcome to hold your opinion, but WP is not the place to publish it.

“It does not say that those are the only classes excluded.” Umm, that’s exactly what it says. Your interpretation of what “For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.” is unique. Also the statement concerning “Plyler v. Doe” is correct. That’s my take. I guess we can start digging through the books and source everything and then take it outside of this talk page. Brimba (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Your interpretation of what 'For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.' is unique"

Unless demonstrated otherwise through available case law, I believe the safest place to start in our discussion is that both of our positions is unique. "I guess we can start digging through the books and source everything and then take it outside of this talk page" Constructive resolution of the issue is, indeed, what I'm looking for. We should stick to reliable sources, not activist groups. But before we do that, I think its a good idea to decide 1.) where we should take the discussion - an RfC? 2.) what -exactly- we are disagreeing about. I identify the following points of disagreement, do you agree with them? points of disagreement

• whether a footnote written by one judge is a legally binding statement and counts as the same as a ruling of a court in which other judges disagreed
• "The Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, in precedent set by United States v. Wong Kim Ark" "Precedent set by.." implies that the interpretation came -after- the court case. So, who did the interpretation? There's no source.
• whether "appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words" means "-only- these groups of people" or means "these groups of people".
• whether statements made by judges preceeding their actual ruling in a court case are equivalent in legal authority to the actual ruling they make-75.179.153.110 (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My reply to User:Psychohistorian

I am not sure that an RFC would be very beneficial as they seem to draw few replies. Most likely the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or the Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard would be the place to start once we have clarified our positions and sources. There is a lot of material to dig through, but we should have our positions sourced and hammered out by the end of this coming week. When I get home tonight I will sort though what my disagreements are. “We should stick to reliable sources, not activist groups.” Yes, by all means lets stay away from activist groups, both on the left and right. The most important policy points are likely to be WP:SOURCES and WP:PSTS. Brimba (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My main problems with your version are three-fold. First, that this is pretty much settled case law, or in other words, that the current version correctly reflects the established mainstream view. Second, that your research, good or bad, amounts to original research, and thus violates WP:NOR. Third, that the citizenship test you describe is not part of the 14th amendment. These are the points where I disagree with you. Brimba (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In my recollection from my political science class the original interpretation is right: it forced the states to provide education to illegal children. I suggest the original version stay in the article. RosieT96 (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

>>>After reading thru all of this I propose the original version be kept. Namely,

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal immigrants. It established that regardless of legal status, illegal immigrants are still “persons” and thus protected as such under some provisions the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution, notably the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments…The Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation. That objective is fundamentally at odds with the power the State asserts …to classify persons subject to its laws as nonetheless excepted from its protection."[152]

BornintheUSA (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[quote]In my recollection from my political science class the original interpretation is right: it forced the states to provide education to illegal children. I suggest the original version stay in the article. [/quote] We all agree that Plyer v Doe forced the state to provide education to illegal children. That's not what the content dispute is about.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC) [quote] After reading thru all of this I propose the original version be kept.[/quote] I'm sure you do, but this is an issue about factuality and what the sources actually say. When an editor votes to include statements which aren't backed up by the sources given, that vote shouldn't count for much. As for whether the sources actually state what is claimed of them, we intend to hash that out as thoroughly as we can. Wikipedia is an open community, you can participate in that if you want. Right now, I'm waiting for Brimba's statement he said he'd be giving.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I THink BornintheUSA, like the rest of us, is entitled to reading thru a discussing and voting, as you call it, for or against, without including any additional statements in favour or against of the arguments presented, that is, voting based solely on the contents of the discussion that has been presented. So far I have not found anything in Wiki's policies that prohibit this practice. If you can, please share it with the community. That said, I too would like to cast my vote that text on Equal Protection Under US Law remain in its original format as follows,

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal immigrants. It established that regardless of legal status, illegal immigrants are still “persons” and thus protected as such under some provisions the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution, notably the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments…The Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation. That objective is fundamentally at odds with the power the State asserts …to classify persons subject to its laws as nonetheless excepted from its protection."[152]

Robruiz (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are we talking about the 5th amendment here? - Schrandit (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this Article about the United States or is it about MEXICO?

Is this a lynching ground for Mexico? Is this article about Mexico or is it about United States? And why is the whole article about CURRENT illegal immigration to the United States only? Should an encyclopedia not contain Historical background as well? Where is information about illegal immigration just after the Country was born, during the Western expansion and during the Gold Rush, during WWI and WWII, during the era of Slavery, etc? And where (besides that tiny 6-sentence section) does the article dig into visa overstays; these represent almost half of all illegal immigrants - it would only be reasonable that a comparable amount of space be dedicated to this problem.

This is the worst Wikepedia article I have seen. Entries such as, Fewer factories meant fewer factory jobs." ARE YOU SURE?? Or, "Mexico has more billionaires than Switzerland including Carlos Slim, whom many sources say is the world's richest man and who owns 8% of the country's GDP." SO WHAT???? Or, "The Mexican government has worked to make illegal immigration to the U.S. easier." HELLOOOO, How much would you pay for Encyclopaedia Britannica if it contained that sort of statement? HELLOOOOO.

There are more references to Mexico (102) in this article than there are references to the subject of the article itself - the United States (only 79). EXCUUUSE ME, if the article is titled Illegal Immigration to the UNITED STATES, should it not be addressing more of the United States and less of Mexico? Should it not give a more generic, comprehensive, global, and balanced picture of this AMERICAN issue? IFFFF this article was about Terrorism in the United States I can only image it would have more references to bin Laden and Al-Qaeda than to the United States. Yet the article about Terrorism in the United States makes only 3 citations to Al-Qaeda. HELLOOOO.

The article is also way too long, it needs to be trimmed. It also shoots in too many directions with detailed information about areas that are of secondary or tertiary relation to the subject at hand; it needs to concentrate uniformly on the issues of primary relation to the topic.

Those editors that are obsessed with lynching Mexico, those who want to vent their personal opinions against Mexico (and readers can sense this bias from the wording used and the manner in which the article is written), I suggest they do some soul-searching and reconsider if editing this article is in their calling.

But I am not here just to complain. For now, I inform the community I intend to help improve the article, and anyone who cannot tolerate objectivity, anyone who wants to publish original research, and anyone seeking to advance their own position, would be better off excusing him/herself out and making room for those who can be objective, etc. I will start with the citations about, unless someone can make a convincing case that they belong in this encyclopedia article. I will be making improvements to this article, and EXCUUUSE ME if anyone's non-neutral, personal, lopsided, biased, point of view gets offended: encyclopedias are written for their readers, not for their editors. HereICome2 (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

IIUS results from forces which are fundamentally international. Wikipedia strives to have an international perspective on articles. So, it is important that IIUS -not- focus exclusively on the USA. Such a view would be inherently biased.

It is an inescapable consequence of Wikipedia that sections whose factuality is contested end up with more sources than sections whose factuality is not so heavily contested. That's what has happened here. Counting the number of sources in the article and where they are is not how undue weight is determined. What counting sources does is tell you which sections have been most heavily reviewed for accuracy. Several editors have heavily contested facts regarding Mexico and this has required more sources be provided for that section.

If you can participate in the Wikipedia community, then, by all means, join in the effort to improve this article. Some sections do need more material (more material, not less - that is, bulk up the areas other than causes in Mexico in order to balance it out and if we need to split off a section as other areas are expanded, that's fine. Wikipedia is not paper.) If you are willing to do the work on that, welcome.

However, if you want to help in writing the article, the absolute worse place to start doing that from is by not assuming good faith. Statements like "lynching Mexico", "vent their personal opinions against Mexico", "suggest they do some soul-searching", "make room for those who can be objective", etc. are indicative of someone viewing themselves as riding in on a white horse to save the day against the infidels. That's not Wikipedia's approach to writing articles. I suggest you view the following pages before you start working here if you want to help in writing the article WP:Civility, WP:Assume Good Faith, and WP:No personal attacks.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you are already personalizing an attack against me, let me just respond and say that you are entitled to your own opinion. It is your right to be wrong. However, the show must go on and you can either spend your time arguing here, or addressing the issues I presented and help fix the article. HereICome2 (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I see various good points in HereICome2 statements that no one had made before. I don't see any lack of civility, personal attacks, or bad faith at all, but a good disposition. Marlayn (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I came here to start a school project and then ended up in Discussion and boy!!!! I agree its a mess and it is easy to see why, as some people attempt to deflect other's good intentions with baseless statements and accussations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EarthlyPrincess (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason the article doesn’t address illegal immigration before 1921 it because before 1921 said immigration was not illegal. - Schrandit (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we point this out in the body of the article? I can't find it anywhere and think it's important as a frame of reference. Maybe it could be followed by a chronological listing in bullet form of major immigration events since '21 till today. Robruiz (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't think we do, I'll add it in next chance I get, unless you beat me to it. - Schrandit (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

=UHaveMetURMatch's edits

This editor has removed the statement, "about 60 percent of the membership of the Columbia Lil' Cycos gang was illegal, according to a 2002 statement by former U.S. attorney Luis Li." stating "true of both legal and illegal immigrants, therefore belongs in the "Immigration to the United States" article, not here". Its demonstrably false that its "true of both legal and illegal immigrants" as that would be 120% in total (60% illegal, 60% legal) - this is beside the fact that there's no source to support this editor's claim. This editor also removed the statement, "there is a significant positive correlation between illegal immigration and violent crime." claiming that "None of that is an impact of *ILLEGAL* immigration; if someone wants to discuss, pls bring up in Discussion area". Its certainly not intuitively obvious how this editor reached his/her conclusion. I think an explanation is necessary at the very least. This editor also removed the statement, "Almost half of Arizona's Latino voters - 47 percent - cast their ballots for Arizona's Proposition 200 (an anti-illegal immigration initiative) which received a landslide victory." asking what the point was because about half of them voted or it as well. The Latino community is split on the issue of illegal immigration. *That's* the point. Many pro-illegal immigration advocates cry 'racism' on the issue, but the Latino community, itself, is split.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement that 60% of the gang was composed of illegal immigrants is correct, but that meant that the other 40% were leagl residents, so how does that impact the section which was reporting on the effect of illegal immigrantion? A 60-40 ratio is not impactful (as, say, a 90-10 would be). Also, please bear in mind that the article is extremely long as it was. As editors it is our responsibility not only to add but also to maintain focus: by elimininating the less significant AND adding the more significant. There is room for discussion here by all means.

On the "positive correlation" part, I see various problems here. First, most readers would doubt the authority of a Fed Res. Bank in matters of criminal activity. That is, if there was a correlation between illegal immigation and crime wouldn't the, say, FBI be saying so, instead of the Federal Reserve Bank? Second issue I see, is that a correlation and a cause are not the same thing, thus we should not elevate a claim of correlation to that of a cause; it can be misleading to readers. On the Arizona vote part of your comment, thanks for explaining your perspective; it was not described that way in the artcile. But now that I understand your viewpoint, why should it be included anyway? I don't see any accusations in the article that there is a Latino-based racism in the illegal immigration problem. Point here is, why should we address a claim that the artcile is not making? (Sort of like trying to fix something that's not broken.) Specifically, I do not see anywhere in the article where pro-illegal immigration advocates are crying 'racism' on the issue. Please explain. If that is there and your cited source is reliable I would support inclusion so long as we both feel there is "space" in the article. UHaveMetURMatch (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

By "impact", you seem to be referencing the concept of statistical independence. That is, is the probability that a person is a member of the Lil Cycos -and- an illegal immigrant, given that he is in the community, equal to the probability that he is an illegal immigrant given that he is in the community (mathematically speaking does P(a|b,h) = P(a,h) where a = "is illegal immigrant", h = "is in the community" and b = "is member of the Lil Cycos"). I want to emphasize that "impact" of a statistic is -not- determined by looking exclusively at how a pie chart lays out. To put it another way, the only way the statistic would not be significant is if the community, itself, had an identical ratio of illegal and legal residents (identical to the ratio in the gang).

"a correlation and a cause are not the same thing" is true. Actually, again, your grasp of statistics needs some work. It is true that a correlation does not indicate a causation, but it most certainly indicates a possible causation.

"if there was a correlation between illegal immigation and crime wouldn't the, say, FBI be saying so, instead of the Federal Reserve Bank?" The level of violent crime in an area certainly affects its financial prospects. I'm not sure that's the point, though. The only way your point makes since is if what you are actually trying to argue is that the Bank is not a reliable source. Is that the point you are trying to make?

"I don't see any accusations in the article that there is a Latino-based racism in the illegal immigration problem." This is a valid point. There should be a section in the article going into accusations of racism. I encourage you to do a Google search on the terms racism "illegal immigration". There should also be sources like the above which indicate otherwise.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

By impact I seem to be referencing the concept of what the average reader seeking information in an encyclopedia can reasonably be expected to consider impact. I do not believe the average person will be looking for whether or not P is or is not a direct, indirect or semi-direct function of a, b, or c.

Yes, the level of crime affects financial prospects, and that includes my financial prospects as well. But if someone is not an authority in criminal matters - as most people will content a bank is not an authority on criminal matters - then that someone should let the experts do the talking. Wouldn't you agree? (The Bank could do the reporting of the experts' findings, though.)

A section of racism? Maybe. So long as it has a direct bearing on the subject of illegal immigration. I am of the opinion that Dangers of illegal immigration to the US, does need its own section; this seems to have been overlooked. If you wish to start it, fine, otherwise I may work on it when my time permits. What is you take on this?

UHaveMetURMatch (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

US Code is mis quoted

In the beginning paragraphs of this article Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. code is referenced and used as backing to say that illegal immigration is a federal crime. This is entirely not true. Reference: http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+4900+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%288%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281325%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 and you can see that illegal immigration is a civil issue. This means that illegal immigrants are not criminals as the article currently states. Unless a violation of para c or d occurs no imprisonment would ever occur to a captured illegal immigrant unless there were other crimes involved.

The law certainly mentions civil penalties to illegal immigration, as you point out, but I think you missed this section, "Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed" which is stating that, the fact that there are civil penalties does not preclude criminal penalties. More to the point, the same reference you bring up states, "the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." Note that it makes specific reference to title 18 of the US Code. Title 18 of the US Code is "CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE" In other words, the first commission of any such offense, will be fined as a crime or imprisonment not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, will be fined as a crime or

imprisonment not more than 2 years, or both. This is in addition to the civil penalties.-66.194.62.5 (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I am sorry I believe you are mistaken. Each sub paragraph under the main paragraph is different. If the person accused violates only sub paragraph 1 or 2 of paragraph a then they are breaking civil law. If they violate sub paragraph 3 of a then their would be criminal action. The reference you made to civil penalties being added on to existing criminal penalties is beyond the point. Obviously if the accused breaks a criminal law then they are criminals, but that does not mean that illegally entering the unites states is a crime unless in reference to sub paragraph 3 of paragraph a.Pparcell (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Countries of Origin removed, why?

Why has the countries of origin section been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.153.110 (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The section was not removed, it was renamed to Present Day Immigration, which is what it addresses. I suggest you read the article before engaging is mass-removal of sections, which is what the logs show. If you disagree with something, it is considerate of the effort other editors to bring up your opinion/facts etc. in Discussion, instead of engaging in mass removal. For now the material indiscriminately removed is back in, and you can present your views here as per Wiki guidelines. HereICome2 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Methods of Entry statistics

The methods of entry statistics have been edited. We've been breaking down border crossing vs. visa overstays vs. fraudulent marriage. But now the introductory paragraph of this section has been edited so that instead of comparing border crossing to visa overstays, the article compares border crossing from Mexico to border crossing from Canada to visa overstays. Now its comparing apples and oranges. Why the new inconsistent, misleading structure?-75.179.153.110 (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The modes of entry section could definitely do with some more sourcing too. Those figures look fishy. - Schrandit (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

History section

Why does this page need a history section on legal immigration? doesn't that belong in the history section on the page for legal immigration? Unless someone can provide me with a compelling reason for keeping it I'm going to take it down - Schrandit (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article should be focused on its topic - illegal immigration.-66.194.62.5 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - because the info in the history section IS about Illegal Immigration. Also, Schrandit, You seem to forget you wanted to put it in yourself. See below:

Is this a lynching ground for Mexico? . . . And why is the whole article about CURRENT illegal immigration to the United States only? Should an encyclopedia not contain Historical background as well? Where is information about illegal immigration just after the Country was born, during the Western expansion and during the Gold Rush, during WWI and WWII, during the era of Slavery, etc? . . . I will be making improvements to this article, . . . encyclopedias are written for their readers, not for their editors. HereICome2 (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason the article doesn’t address illegal immigration before 1921 it because before 1921 said immigration was not illegal. - Schrandit (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we point this out in the body of the article? I can't find it anywhere and think it's important as a frame of reference. Maybe it could be followed by a chronological listing in bullet form of major immigration events since '21 till today. Robruiz (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't think we do, I'll add it in next chance I get, unless you beat me to it. - Schrandit (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps refresh your memory. Thanks.

Robruiz (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And I added the section about the 1921 law - why do we need a section saying virtually all immigration in the 1860s was from Germany and the British Isles (which is arguable anyway). Mind you, I really like brief section that sums up the major immigration laws but why the commentary on all immigration? It is long, I believe in its current state it is incorrect and more importantly the history of legal immigration to the United States belongs in (and can be found in) the page on he history of legal immigration to the United States. - Schrandit (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the 1860s bullet should stay. It provides a frame of reference for the beginning of illegal immigration the next decade. In oterh words, it shows how things were and how they changed. However, if enough people feel aginst it, it could be removed.

HereICome2 (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point about the 1860s bullet providing a frame of reference, but on the other hand it is common knowledge that 1860s immigration to the US was virtually all from British Isles and Germany. I think we can do without it.

Robruiz (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There should be no removals, but if there is support to remove to 1860s bullet, I'll go with the group.CallmeDrNo (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about what is agreed upon it is about what is factually correct - the United States was not virtually all from the British Isles and Germany- we had hordes of Dutch, French, Africans, Swedes and I don't think the Irish would take kindly to being grouped in the rest of the British. - Schrandit (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more, however, the following site http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5779&page=23 does say 1860s immigration was from Bristish Isles and Germany. CallmeDrNo (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

CallmeDrNo (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)If you can find a citation that says that "the United States was not virtually all from the British Isles and Germany" or that says that "we had hordes of Dutch, French, Africans, Swedes and I don't think the Irish would take kindly to being grouped in the rest of the British", then by all means go ahead and put it in...before I beat you to it.

In the meantime, claims such as "America faced a large wave of illegal immigration from Mexico in the early 1950s but it was dealt with by President Eisenhower" and "In the early 1950's an estimated 1,000,000 Mexicans illegally crossed the border and began to take up residence and work inside the Untied States" will get deleted as per wikipedia's policies.CallmeDrNo (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

done and done - Schrandit (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The following link http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5779&page=23 does say (paragraph starting with Table 2.1, then about 10 lines down) that virtually all 1860s immigration was from the Isles and Germany.CallmeDrNo (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The history section should stay. Everything in life has a history. Illegal immigration is no exception. There are many references (all of them) in the bullet section about Illegal Immigration. Or are you sayig that Illegal Immigration has no history? If someone doesn't like the points included in the History section and he/she thinks there are other more important points then he/she can add them in. But to vanish the section all together (bullets or table) would make the article incomplete.

Marlayn (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

All things do have history and thats great, I'm arguing that this page is not the place for this history. Most of the section in question concerns legal immigration to the US and I think that doesn't belong here. If people want to read about that they can and should find it on the page regarding legal immigration to the US. - Schrandit (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"take it down"??? Don’t be so aggressive, this article doesn’t belong to you.

Johanna63 (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reason? There are at least 13 of them there already. If you read the history section in the article you can see for yourself. Each of the 13 listed Acts of Congress are about >>>ILLEGAL<<< IMMIGRATION. Those Acts were not enacted because everything was nice and dandy with immigration, they ARE about illegal immigration. The history section should stay together with tables and bullets. CallmeDrNo (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Both the quick reference table and the bullet section describing in grater detail should stay. All 13 Acts are about illegal immigration. Plus the bullets expand on the reference table and tie everthing together .EarthlyPrincess (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

EarthlyPrincess, you're obviously very, very new to Wikipedia (based on your contribution history). Please remember that the bullets are already expanded by clicking on the hyperlinks.-75.179.157.247 (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What is this guy so mad about? I think everyone answering here is wasting their time. If you asked me, he sounds so mad chances are he already made up your mind that *no matter what anybody says* it will be his way or the highway. Does he think this article BELONGS to him. Cool it, it’s not like the end of civilization, it's not even like the editor removed stuff,; he/she simply added material. What would Wikipedia be without material.??? RosieT96 (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so mad brother? A History section should had been the first section written for this article. And, by the way, the bulleted section IS about ILLEGAL immigration. The word ILLEGAL immigration or illegal alien, etc is mentioned 15 times in the bullets. Why are you saying the section is on “legal immigration”? (And now more than ever before, I was BornintheUSA (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the bullit points regard legal immigration patterns or just repeat what the acts say. They're also terribly innacurate - virtually all immigrants to the US were not from Germany or the British Isles and who in holy hell wrote that enourmous numbers of Chinese immigrants came here to build roads in the midwest? - Schrandit (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5779&page=23 which does state 1860s immigration was from the Isles and Germany. A moot point since the section 1860s is no longer there, but fyi that whoever put that in was correct.CallmeDrNo (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Moot point or not we both like to argue. Your source presents a colossus of a generalization and I challenge it. I would point to the articles on Dutch Americans, French Americans, African Americans and Norwegian American. - Schrandit (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dutch, French, Africans, Swedes

THe only bullet point that doesn't seem to address illegal immigration squarely is the "1890s to 1920: bullet (the 1860s bullet was removed). It could be taken out but then there would be a hole in the sequence and the reader might wander why. Maybe information about illegal immigration during that time (1890s to 1920) could be entered instead. But yeah, loads of Chinese built the railroads in the midwest. Check it out here>>>Chinese Exclusion Act

BornintheUSA (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no they didn't. At no point did "loads of Chinese build the railroads in the midwest" - Schrandit (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The above link says,

"The Chinese came to America in large numbers during the 1849 California Gold Rush and in the 1860s when the Central Pacific Railroad recruited large labor gangs to build its portion of the Transcontinental Railroad. Large-scale immigration continued into the late 1800s, with 123,201 Chinese recorded as arriving between 1871 and 1880, and 61,711 arriving between 1881 and 1890."

I doubt the railroads recruited them to clean bathrooms rather than building railroads as the article and its pictures say/show. Also, last time I checked "loads" was a reasonable substitute for the phrase "large numbers" or for "large...gangs". Or is the quarrel with something else yet? Otherwise I suggest posting your Discussion comments at the Chinese Exclusion Act (United States) Discussion page. BornintheUSA (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Chief, my problem wasn't over semantics it was over the fact that the California Gold Rush and the Central Pacific Railroad and no where near the Midwestern United States. There were no Chinese in the Midwest. Thus, it can be deduced that who ever wrote the history section had no idea what they were talking about and didn't bother to read the references they cited. - Schrandit (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, and in fact, for all I know you probably are, but why sacrifice the *whole* section becuase there is 1 error of where Chinese immigrants worked??? Seems to me, this is an awfully simple thing to fix. I think most of the other stuff there seems rather valid (I agree the 1860s stuff *had* to go). I'll look at it once again, and unless you or someone has fix that, I could do it. btw, no need for the chief part, BornintheUSA will do. Thanks. BornintheUSA (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It did not constitute the need, it merely represented another reason why the section should go. - Schrandit (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I did say several days ago I was going to add a history section to this ***ILLEGAL*** immigration page (see Discussion: Is this Article About the United States or is it about MEXICO?). So no one can say they weren’t given time to vent their issues. Everyone had plenty of time to answer then, why weren’t any replies received before (other than the funny guy on the white horse to save the day against the infidels - haha) is beyond me. The history section is useful, It should stay. And by the way, I intend to do good on the rest of my article-fixing promises. Anyone interested can join in and save the day against the infidels...But vanishing a whole legitimate section of an article is no way to help. HereICome2 (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't figure you were going to inclue erronious points and list everything twice - Schrandit (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Which of the included points are erroneous?HereICome2 (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The 1860s section for damn sure. There already exists the List of United States immigration legislation page and the History of Immigration to the United States pages - why do we need to relist them here?

You have a valid point at least on the List of United States immigration legislation part. But honestly I find the table format here is easier to read. Also, it is not injected with the asylum, refugee, and naturalization stuff found in the List of United States immigration legislation article. Those subjects are somewhat not directly related to illegal immigration subject. The History of Immigration to the United States might be a tougher sell as it starts talking about illegal immigration but not until the 1950s, whereas this article here has quoted references that illegal immigration existed as far as the 1870s. What's your take?HereICome2 (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I figure those pages are where that information belongs and that they need to be improved rather than building a better section here. I feel its counter productive, will be excesivly long and I feel trying to cover something so big in a small section will lead to generalisations and bias. - Schrandit (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think that >shorter< arcticles could lead to generalizations and bias - not longer ones. Can you explain why you feel that? I am all for putting in the Immigration to the US page everything except stuff that deals with illegal immigration - obviously that would need to go in the Illegal Immigration to the US page, no? Maybe it is time to split off the whole illegal immigration article into 2 or 3 additional articles...I agree there is a lot to illegal immigration.HereICome2 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Current Problems with this article

• The current version states, " If the accused violates sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph a then they could be fined and imprisoned for up to 6 months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison."

Now, I'm a bit sesquipedalian, but I don't know the meaning of the term "sub-paragraph". So, I looked in a couple of dictionaries. None of them had it. I don't think there is such a word. However, taking a guess at what the editor who wrote this meant to say, I've highlighted "sub-paragraph 3" in the actual law below. [quote]Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.[/quote] Clearly, the punishment is -not- limited to only those who violate "sub-paragraph" 3.

You have misunderstood what I said (my fault). Remove the dash from sub-paragraph and it is correct...sorry mis typed. I will update what I wrote, but the law is clear that only a violation of sub paragraph 3 of paragraph a would be punishable by jail time.Pparcell (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why is the Judicial history section at the end of the article while the other history sectons are at the begining? It seems to me that related parts should be together in the article.

• Why is section 8.1.3 Public Opinion not in section 10 Public Reaction?

• Why is section 13 Matricula Consular identification cards not in section 7.2 Demand/Pull Factors? The statement, "This document is accepted at financial institutions in many states and, in conjunction with an IRS Taxpayer Identification Number, allows illegal immigrants to open checking and saving accounts". Makes the connection obvious.

• Why is the statement "1860s

Until 1860 virtually all immigrants in the US were from the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Germany. But after 1860, during the period of the expanding West and in the decade of the Gold Rush, enormous numbers of Chinese immigrants came to the United States to build railroads in the Midwest and work the mines of western America." in a section headed "History of Illegal Immigration Legislation"? This statement isn't about illegal immigration.

• Why are the Chinese Exlusion Act, the Immigration Act of 1891, the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, the Immigration Act of 1924, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1976, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the Immigration Act of 1990, the Illegal Immigration Act of 1996, and the Real ID act of 2005 described in both the Legislative Summary Table and immediately after it? This kind of super redundancy in an article that is this long and when those various pieces of legislation have their own articles just doesn't make sense.

On your "violates sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph..." I skip that, I think you got some comments elsewhere.

On your "Why is the Judicial history section at the end of the article while the other history sectons are at the begining? It seems to me that related parts should be together in the article," This seems to be a matter of choice between history in individual sections and history of everything lumped together (then you could not keep out of the historical list important dates and events related to, say, the first Internet bogus marriage, when coyotes first came into the scene, when the Elvira Arellano event took place, date of the Golden Venture disaster, dates surrounding controversy of the Real ID Act, etc, etc) besides dates of the existing legislation and judicial findings. But this is a debate that could go on forever...

On your "Why is section 8.1.3 Public Opinion not in section 10 Public Reaction?" I think it is just waiting for someone - maybe you - to put them together.

On your "Why is section 13 Matricula Consular identification cards not in section 7.2 Demand/Pull Factors?" If illegal immigrants come to the US because the MC ID is something they want to have in Mexico, but they cannot get it there, then yes, MC ID should go in the Pull Factors section. However, I do not believe Mexicans come to the States because of the MC ID per se, they come here because there is work here and they can make a living. Work is something they want in Mexico but they cannot get. So availability of work is a pull factor and reason why they immigrate illegally, while MC ID is not.

On your question about the 1860s bullet, that was already removed.

On your comment that the various Acts are in the table and also in the bullets that follow, I just think of the table as a quick reference guide to Legislation, while I use the bullets to undertand how illegal immigrants were effected by the new laws, how many still moved in illegally, and how they accomplished that.

HereICome2 (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• "This seems to be a matter of choice between history in individual sections and history of everything lumped together."

You don't seem to have made an arguement for individual sections.

• "I think it is just waiting for someone - maybe you - to put them together." The last time I did that, -you- reverted it and got hostile in the talk pages.

"If illegal immigrants come to the US because the MC ID is something they want to have in Mexico, but they cannot get it there, then yes, MC ID should go in the Pull Factors section." The point is that the way the US handles the MC is an example of lax enforcement of US laws regarding immigration.

• "I just think of the table as a quick reference guide to Legislation" That's all this article should offer. There are entire articles dedicated to each of these topis. -75.179.153.110 (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I just added your MC statement to the article; I think this is what you wanted.

On the statement about the table, I am confused, are you saying this article on Illegal Immigration to the United States should only consist of the table on the legislative Acts and nothing else? If so, why are you of that opinion?HereICome2 (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Law interpretation request

I am responding to this request, in which an unknown editor has asked me for my opinion regarding Title 8, Section 1325 of the USC. I think there are some misconceptions evident in this article that need addressing.

• 1325(a) deals with criminal penalties.
• 1325(a) has three criteria for inclusion, numbered (1) (2) (3). The code specifies that only one criterion must be met for criminal penalties to apply.
• 1325(a) prescribes a court fine and/or imprisonment for being found guilty of 1325(a)(1) or (2) or (3).
• 1325(b) prescribes a civil penalty based upon previous civil penalties.
• 1325(c) deals with marriage fraud.
• 1325(d) deals with businesses designed to smuggle immigrants.

There is a distinct difference between criminal fines and civil penalties. This particular law deals with both; the article seems to make it sound like it only deals with civil penalties. I am not going to address the editor's assertion of sockpuppetry, however I'd recommend filing a WP:RFC if problems persist. Hope this helps, contact me with additional questions. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the law/history section

This section is of a very poor quality and all the information available in it is available with better documentation and moreextensive eplaination elsewhere. There already exists a List of United States immigration legislation page History of Immigration to the United States page - why don't we just link to those? On a related note, the Gentlemen's Agreement was in 1907, not 1924, under the 96 act what does "phone verification worker authentication by employers" mean? Were those meant to be 2 different points? There are many laws regarding immigration, why try to list and provide summaries of them all here? Would the logical thing to do be to link to them when relevant and provide access to the list where they can all be read? - Schrandit (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK then, I'll make the necessary changes - Schrandit (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Gentlemen's Agreement was also *not* US "legislation" and the Japanese Exclusion Act that the agreement paved the way for became part of the 1924 Act. As a result, a single, merged, table entry would be more descriptive of the legislation progres in the table, and I have done that. The 1996 Act highlight was missing a "for". The immigration laws summarized in the artcile seem to me to be a balance between the many existing laws and those that have a direct bearing on the ILLEGAL immigration issues of teh rest of the article. UHaveMetURMatch (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have objected to the removal (not a link) of the history section in this article. Hardly any discussion time was provided. The section is useful as the sections that they have been linked to deal essentially with immigration in general, not Illegal immigration which is the subject of this article. The user above Schrandit simply makes a value judgement that the section is written poorly, without pointing out what wiki policies it does not follow, or what is poor about it. I have reverted the change I petition for a response. BornintheUSA (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I figured 3 days would be enough time to discuss it. - Schrandit (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This makes no sense. What sensible argument is being made on behalf of the removal of the section on history? The section should stay. The link DOES NOT provide the information that the removed table and history provided. This is like linking Disney World to Mickey Mouse. The section was added and someone complained that it didn't deal with ILLEGAL immigration. When the Timeline section was added that showed it did deal with illegal immigration, then the same person started complaining that it did not have citations. When the citations where added, then started over tagging the section for citations of the-sky-is-blue type. Now in good faith ALL of those the-sky-is-blue type of citations were also provided and someone come in and surgerically REMOVES the whole section with a pointer to elsewhere where the information that was there IS NOT available. What is the rationale for this indiscriminate DELETION of this useful section? UHaveMetURMatch (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Schrandit, if your intention was to REMOVE the section altogether, it doesn't show good faith that you asked questions such as "On a related note, the Gentlemen's Agreement was in 1907, not 1924, under the 96 act what does "phone verification worker authentication by employers" mean? Were those meant to be 2 different points?...Schrandit (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)" Does that show good faith? As an editor answering another editor I worked on resolving the issues that you identified, but was staved in the back when you deleted the section altogether - including the revisions that addressed your issues. Thanks a lot pal! UHaveMetURMatch (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say the Law History section is poorly written? Are you refering to the bulky amount of info under the Findings column of Recount of Illegal Immigration Judicial Findings? If so, I agree that the Law section could look better. I am confused because you then jump to talking about "There already exists a List of United States immigration legislation page History of Immigration to the United States page - why don't we just link to those?" So are you talking about both the Legislative history and the Law sections or just the Law History table? I too had noticed the 1924 inconsitency, but it has been fixed. I am of the opinion that the legislative timeline and table are beneficial to get an overview of how things got to teh present day. I suggest they be kept. CallmeDrNo (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why this "Problems with Law/History Section" was started since there was already an ongoing lively discussion about the article's History section at this site, but I am of the opinion that if the History table is kept in the article, that the Refugee Act of 1980 be removed from it as I fail to see its relationship to the illegal immigration subject. I will remove the entry if no one objects.Robruiz (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fraudulent Claims For Source

"The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration" is available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5779#toc. I've discovered in going through it that several statements in this Wikipedia article that use it as a source are wrong - the referenced text says nothing like what is claimed for it. I don't have the time now, but I recommend that all statements in which it is used as a source be reviewed, that the editor who fraudulently entered it as a source be identified through this article's history, and that all other references that editor entered be examined for veracity.-16:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)~

I suspected as much. My University has a copy of that book and I was about to check it out after class today. I move that the cited section be tagged as "Citation Needed" and if one can't be found in, say, 3 days, that those section be removed. - Schrandit (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

UHaveMetURMatch is the editor who has added this fraudulent content. I don't know if he's the only editor doing so. Note, however, that I've not had the chance to review all references to this book, so I can't say if all references to this book are incorrect.

Note, also, that this is not the only source he's referenced fraudulently. The source for post-2000 material in the timeline also doesn't say what is claimed of it.-17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the book is online *does not* prove that the allegations are true or false - it simply proves that it will be easier to prove or disprove the claims made. In fact, I trust you had read this Discussion page more thoroughly before you entered the (*strong* I will add) accusation against the editor in question: 16 hours before you entered them, I had already stated (see above under "History section") that the book was available online...

It's important that we keep cool heads and try not to sensationalize this matter. Important that a fraudulent verdict not be passed before its due time. We certainly should not get all excited about it at this point: giving the editor sometime to respond is the right thing to do. I am of the opinion that the editor should be considered "innocent until proven guilty." Hopefully others can join me on that. BTW, the references were not marked citation needed, but some other template. I will remark them properly.CallmeDrNo (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What's all the hysteria all about? I have provided the citations indicated. I see however that the accussing editor that couldn't watch his mouth and jumped to accussing me of fraud didn't have the courage to sign his/her own username himslef: UHaveMetURMatch (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone actually cares about truth, I've quoted the contested content and provided a link to the source claimed to support it.

• "The Law passed then is considered 'the first general anti-immigration law'" This is not stated.
• "little was done to enforce it" This is not stated.
• "The first cases of illegal immigration into the United States consisted of Europeans". Again, not stated
• "This was the result of landmark 1921 legislation that put a 3% cap on immigration from European countries" Again, not stated
• "The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act again favored types of individuals wanted as immigrants over quantity of immigrants. " Again, not stated.
• "Together with its 1965 Amendments, it favored individuals with skills over non-skilled labor, such as non-skilled agricultural labor" Not stated
• "With the passage in 1976 of the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments the per-country limit of 20,000 was extended to Western Hemisphere countries" Not stated

And btw I have posted as an IP anon for years for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with you.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts;

1 - not a lawyer, but I think lifting the whole table and other whole sentences from Smith and Edmonston may consitute copywrite infringement. Again, not sure about that, just something we should make an effort to figure out.

2 - after reading the source it seems that the 1870's paragraph from the history section, the last sentence of the 1880's paragraph, the last sentence of the 1890's paragraph, the first sentence of the 1920's paragraph, the second and third sentences in the 1940's paragraph, and the second sentence in th 1970's paragraph (current citations 18, 21, 24, 25, 31, 32, 34) are unfounded. I'm not saying they're necessarily false, but from what I read the source does not support the information provided. I propose we mark those sections as citation needed, wait a few days to see if there is material to support them, then if not we should remove them. - Schrandit (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

1-Good point. I am not sure either, but tend to believe not, after all full references are always given. Either way, I don't know.Just a comment - Hope it helps! 2-The "few days" is reasonable enough. But I cannot follow your citation numbers (citations 18, 21, 24, 25, 31, 32, 34) as citation numbers change in the article as new material is added. UHaveMetURMatch (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)