Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

RFC: what does US Code say

US Code states as follows, "(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts 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." Does the section, "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." apply only to (3) above or does it apply to (1) and (2) as well?-02:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Applies to all - The law means IF (1 OR 2 OR 3) THEN foo (AND IF SUBSEQUENT THEN bar). Only the criterion in 1 or 2 or 3 needs to be met for the law to be in force. Also, after watching for a few days I believe that there is some severe sockpuppetry going on here. I strongly suggest a checkuser on the obvious single purpose accounts. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - the penalty pretty obviously applies to all three of the subparagraphs. Is there still any dispute about that point here or should the RFC be closed? It looks like the editor who was arguing otherwise hasn't been around in a couple of weeks. PubliusFL (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Closure

I'm closing this RFC as complete. It was initiated largely due to the activities of a fairly sophisticated puppetmaster, who has now been banned. As such, I don't see any real controversy here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Valid Content Discriminately Deleted Without Opportunity for Discussion Time

An Anonymous IP address editor deleted or substantially changed content I had added without providing his/her views in this Discussion forum first and allowing for an opportunity for discussion time first. I wish to remind the editor this is the Wiki protocol in placed for cases where disputes, disagreements, objections, and the like exist. I have restored the initial contenct I had added, and trust that this sort of vandalism will not occur again. If there are objections to the content, let it be known here.UHaveMetURMatch (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The only one who removed content was yourself. I simply moved content to better locations and added content to what was already there (added content which -you- removed without discussion).-198.97.67.56 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, all I am asking is that you extend the same courtesy I am extending to you and discuss before making the moves that you consider "to a better location." (Clearly if I placed them in a certain location was out of considering such location the "better location" to start with, no?) You could, for example, mention that you are of the opinion that such and such would probably be best if located elsewhere. I trust you can do that much, no?UHaveMetURMatch (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not own this article and cannot make such demands of other editors, however, discussion is strongly preferred to edit warring. Furthermore, your actions fit sockpuppetry to a T. I would strongly suggest backing down a little and simply let the process run its course. If you are innocent, then there will be no action and you can even point to it as vindication of your innocence. If you are guilty...well... — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we've got 2 subject-changing edit warriors vs. 1 Discussion-seeker. Anyone else cares to join in?UHaveMetURMatch (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor Ambiguity

Several people have questioned whether there is abusive sockpuppetry going on in this article. I want to point out that UHaveMetURMatch just wrote, "I have restored the initial contenct I had added", but, in looking through the article's history page, you can easily see that he reverted back to work written by HereICome2 and that he made no changes to any material that was written by UHaveMetURMatch. In other words, the work he refers to having been done by himself under the user name UHaveMetURMatch was actually done under the user name HereICome2. This is sockpuppetry. The fact that these two user names have supported each other in editorial disputes and, therefore, made it look like there were more users in consensus makes it abusive sockpuppetry - a banning offense.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

O yeah, great! first complaining that the info was not about Illegal Immigration, then that it needed citations, then indiscriminate deletion, now sockpuppetry, so what will the next accusion be? that editors here are extraterrestrials? Please get real! UHaveMetURMatch (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Belief that sockpuppetry is active is not hostile in and of itself, nor is reporting it. Please cease such hostile posts and read WP:SOCK, WP:AGF, & WP:OWN. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

replied to above.UHaveMetURMatch (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You really should read and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. YOu must be able to source what you add. You do not own content and if you can't handle other editors editing your work, you shouldn't be submitting it. Belief that sockpuppetry is active is not hostile behaviour (and there are now at least three different editors who believe there is strong evidence of sock puppetry going on). Wikipedia is not for everyone and if you find it an insurmountable burden for you to abide by Wikipedia policies, then don't edit here. Finally, again, you were the one who did indiscriminate deletion of sourced material, I just moved it to more appropriate locations.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Look see here if there is more conservitives than libreals in the world or whatever than there will be more writings siding with conservitives. So to obtain nutrality you have to define it first pending on views of groups of people. I think this article was as neutral as one person can wright

RfC

Note that there has been -one- vote on the RfC and, as currently standing, the majority of votes in the RfC are to revert the content to the other version which will be done one week from now. People can still vote, though.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC) mind your manners negativity doesnt get in my energy orb

Request for archival

This article's discussion page is getting quite lengthy and, with the identification and resolution of the sockpuppets, it feels like a chapter has been closed here. Now would be a good time to archive the discussion page. Can someone do that please?-198.97.67.57 (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good call, it was getting to that time

I've re-added the material above because it includes a live RfC, and I wasn't sure whether it's really resolved. Cool Hand Luke 02:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Per this checkuser, a large number of sockpuppet accounts used to influence discussion on this page have been indefinitely blocked. Please disregard any !votes or discussion from the puppets. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Central America causes

Many of the same issues that apply to Mexico also apply to the countries of Central America.[101][102][103] Central Americans with identity can remove freely throughout the region[citation needed] and, in contrast to South America, there is road access between Central America and the US, so many Central Americans travel illegally through Mexico to cross the border into the US. Most of these countries are significantly poorer than Mexico, with low wages, resulting in many people from this region crossing to the US, including an estimated 45,000 minors.[104]

This doesn't make sense 1.) It states, "Many of the same issues that apply to Mexico also apply to the countries of Central America". This statement is in the "Causes" section which implies that illegal immigrants from Central America have many of the same causes as those from Mexico. But none of the sources offered say that. 2.) I *think* what is being pointed out here is that the Panama canal seperates South America from Central America. But its really unclear wording and if that is what's being said, it's wrong. Half of Panama (still Central America) is on the far side of the Panama canal. The Panama canal does not seperate Central from South America. The more accurate statement would be something like "the Panama canal makes migration to the U.S. for illegal immigration more difficult for those who have to cross it" and that statement would need a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.56 (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Although it can be worded more clearly, with more focus, it does make sense. The essential points seem to be: Legal movement among Central American countries is easy. Illegal emigration from all Central American countries toward the U.S. shares the same motivation (poverty)(although a small amount of illegal immigration today can still be credited to political and ethnic discrimination, oppression, and even genocide). Illegal immigration overland from South America towards the U.S. is much more difficult; not because of the Panama Canal but because of the Darién Gap, a gap in the Pan American Highway between the Colombian border and the Panama Canal (50 miles or so of roadless rain forest stretching from the Pacific Coast to the Caribbean. Very difficult and dangerous to cross over, without an aircraft). I will perhaps take a stab at what I think is a decent rewrite a little later: I'll also look over the sources. Kenwg (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Schrdit's edits 3/16

• Data in the Present Day Countries of Origin table was removed for reasons that is not at all clear. Its been restored.
• The Portland Chronicle is reporting data from the Urban Institute. The originating source has been restored. Further, "The Portland Chronicle reports that between 65,000 and 75,000 undocumented Canadians are believed to live in the United States. They make up around 0.6% (or 6/1000) of the total illegal population" is under the causes section but isn't about causes. So, its been replaced with,"" and put back into the right section of the article.
• "A report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform notes that in 2004 "the total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states nearly $12 billion annually." is redundant (the same data from the same source is in the table), so it's been removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.153.110 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about those 2, I was reverting some vandalism, those 2 changes also looked suspicious so I put them back the way they were a few days ago. Thanks for catching those. As per the present day countries of origin chart I figured the consolidation was warranted but I can see how could just be a matter of personal preference. Thanks again. - Schrandit (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States

This section has been moved to the Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States page where it more rightly belongs. That being the case, it probably makes sense to reduce the section in this article to a stub - given that this article is overly long now. Doing so, however, is a pretty extensive change and there are a number of editors who are working on this article, so I want to get feedback before I do it.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues on 18 April

• splitting between 'impact on wealth' and 'impact on poverty' is arbitrary and confusing
• Peter Elstrom is not an expert and, so, not a reliable source
• "Thus the wealthy do benefit from illegal immigrants. " is original research
• The Hayes quote has been readded as it adds a lot of information which was lost-66.194.62.5 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits by TheresaOlsen have been well spaced, uniformly unproductive and almost exclusively to this page. I suspect a sleeper. - Schrandit (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

will someone please put the approximate number of illegal immigrants entering the US each year in the top paragraph, or somewhere easier to find? Donkeykongjoe (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

POV

Would it be fair to take the POV tag off at this point? - Schrandit (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Emigration section

I think its erroneous and much of it constitutes Original Research. Any reason it should stay? - Schrandit (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Much has been inserted such as a quote attributed to an author when that author didn't write the quote, and then the quote was readded in square brackets without a source - which makes it OR. The section implies that emigration is not factored in in any study of how many illegal aliens are living in the country, but offers no source to back that implication up - it points to the Pew study, but the Pew study use of the 750,000 figure makes note that these are illegal aliens coming into the country (which is accurate). There's a ton of other problems as well. The section suffers from POV and OR. On the other hand, there are some good quotes in there, if you take the time to piece through it. One problem, however, is given how many bad references are given in that same section, it makes me hesitant to believe that the sources which aren't avaialable on the web (where they are readily verifiable) are stating what this section actually claims they are. So, in summary, there's good stuff here if you can piece through all the crap, but because there's so much crap, I wouldn't trust any of it unless it could be independently verifiied.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving that section here so that it can be worked on. Its not ready to be put in the article (there are multiple issues). I want to avoid an edit war in the article itself. This lets us work on that section collectively to get it ready to go into the article.

[blockquote]

Emigration

Emigration is defined as the act of "leaving one country or region to settle in another." . A knowledge of emigration in the context of illegal immigration is important because emigrants are the source of all immigrants to the US - whether legal or illegal.

Information on emigration is important for several other reasons:

• In terms of simple numbers emigration is part of the equation that yields net immigration.

"Net immigration is what implants lastings effects on the US economy and population." On their work about Undocumented Immigration to the United States, Massey and others found that "a high proportion of illegal Mexican immigrants return to their original villages after one or more prolonged periods of working in the United States."

• Emigration alters the characteristics of immigrant cohorts.

In a study including both legal and illegal immigrants, Jasso and Rozenweig found that "between 35 and 45 percent of immigrants emigrate - either return to their own country or move to a third country." However, this significant percentage of immigrants continued to be counted as residing in the United States. In 1996, for instance, the number of illegal immigrants entering the US was 750,000 , but the net illegal immigrants was estimated at 275,000. However, 750,000 is the number reported officially. In addition, the authors note that "many of those apprehended are arrested more than once, and INS data thus involve double- and triple-counting of people. And, just as important, many persons who enter as illegal immigrants subsequently return to their home countries[, but the figures do not get adjusted downward]." Also, "The United States does not record and link departures of individual immigrants with original arriving data."

• Emigration information and illegal immigration information both share the undesirable trait of both being estimates.

Some warn that "Demographic information on emigration is scarce and elusive...data on emigration are weak." Others admit that "information on illegal immigration is scanty." This is important whether considering illegal immigration estimates or emigrant estimates: "One specific use of emigration estimates is by the Social Security Administration, which must make assumptions about the proportion of immigrants who may depart from the US. How many will not need retirement benefits?, etc." Many illegal immigrants, likewise, pay into a Social Security system that they will never reap benefits of because many of them emigrate back to their sending countries. " Current immigrants are more likely than native-born to be paying into the Social Security system and less likely to be receiving benefits." [/blockquote]

Okay, a first run through the outstanding issues

• "A knowledge of emigration in the context of illegal immigration is important because emigrants are the source of all immigrants to the US - whether legal or illegal. " This is original research.
• "Net immigration is what implants lastings effects on the US economy and population."" Given other misattributions in this section, this needs to be independently verified.
• "On their work about Undocumented Immigration to the United States, Massey and others found that "a high proportion of illegal Mexican immigrants return to their original villages after one or more prolonged periods of working in the United States." We already have a verifiable source which states the opposite - leaving me to believe that this is out of date. But, if not out of date, it should be combined with that contradicting statement so as to have both sides of the same thing together.
• "However, 750,000 is the number reported officially."

Why is this repeated? The article just finished saying that 750,000 is the number of illegal aliens entering the country according to Pew.

• "[, but the figures do not get adjusted downward]" This is original research.
• "In addition, the authors note that "many of those apprehended are arrested more than once, and INS data thus involve double- and triple-counting of people. And, just as important, many persons who enter as illegal immigrants subsequently return to their home countries"" I'm not at all clear on what point is being made here. Its under the subsection "Emigration alters the characteristics of immigrant cohorts", but doesn't seem to have anything to do with that.
• "Emigration information and illegal immigration information both share the undesirable trait of both being estimates" Yes, the numbers of illegal aliens who illegally immigrate are estimates. Why is this under the emigration section?
• The social security stuff as regards illegal immigrants should be under the economics section. Why is it here instead?-75.179.153.110 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Percent Change from 2000-2005

The numbers next to the tables showing countries of origin - What do those numbers mean? Where are the coming from? Why are they different in the 2 sections?

The "raw number" is the number of illegal aliens in the country from that country. They are different in the two tables because the tables are 1.) for different years and 2.) from different sources.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, that part made sense - but what does the Percent Change column refer to? - Schrandit (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Read it as "The number of illegal aliens from Mexico was 40 percent higher in 2005 than it was in 2000".-66.194.62.5 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

defintion illegal immigration

The definition for illegal immigration to the United States is different then the definition for illegal immigration. Why?

from this entry. Illegal immigration to the United States refers to the act of foreign nationals voluntarily resettling in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration and nationality law.

from the illegal immigration entry. Illegal immigration refers to immigration across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country.

A suggestion is to make the phrase Illegal immigration from Illegal immigration to the United States jump to the general illegal immigration entry.

Wmb1957 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I see only one difference for this U.S. definition, the inclusion of "voluntarily". I am not sure if the difference is intentional, but in some limited cases the United States grants visas to persons seeking political asylum or victims of human trafficking, even if their entry into the United States involved a violation of immigration law. In that sense one could say they did not come here voluntarily, and so the situation, though illegal in some sense, is not a matter of immigration. On the other hand undocumented foreign children who came to the United States with their parents probably didn't come voluntarily, yet they are said to be illegal immigrants. Are you aware of any other issues or differences? Wikidemo (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy ruling

At last, this is the landmark and historical ruling in USA - The USA Supreme Court on June 16, 2008, per ponented Justice Kennedy ruled (5-4) "that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States." The lawsuit is about 2 seemingly contradictory provisions of immigration law. One prevents deportation by voluntary departure from the country. The other sectition allows immigrants who are here illegally but whose circumstances changed to build their case to immigration officials, and must remain in the US. In the case, Samson Dada, a Nigerian citizen, overstayed beyond the expiration of his tourist visa in 1998. Immigration authorities ordered him to leave the country as he agreed to leave voluntarily, to allow his legal re-entry than if he had been deported.supremecourtus.gov, Dada vs. Mukasey, No 06-1181, June 16, 2008ap.google.com, Top court eases rules for foreigners to try to stay in US--Florentino floro (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Civil vs. Criminal

I'm not a lawyer but I know there is a difference, I thought we settled this at one point or another. Is illegal immigration a Civil offense, a Criminal offense or both?

"Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil proceedings." Source: Congressional Research Service report for the United States Congress: Immigration Enforcement Within the United States. Library of Congress, 2006. Terjen (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If editors would read the law instead of removing references to it in this article, they'd find that illegally immigrating to the US is a civil -and- criminal offense and that being present in the US illegally is a separate civil offense. References to the legal code were this is spelled out explicitly were added to this article to support these statements, though Terjen and a new editor keep deleting those references.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted multiple identical references all placed in the same single sentence and pointing to the same section of the US code. I left a single instance of the reference at the end of the sentence, which is sufficient. Please stop reinserting the redundant references. Terjen (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiple identical references are, unfortunately, necessary because some editors remove content claiming it is unsourced when the content is in a nearby reference. Regretfully, the only way to avoid this kind of sloppy editing, that I have found, is to make it explicit where every piece of content is sourced. Fortunately, multiple identical references supporting different pieces of content, even when that content is clustered in the same section of the article, isn't against Wikipedia policy. Therefore, because it aids comprehension and is not against policy, I will continue to use multiple identical references, for I can see no reason not to.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You should also alias identical references to avoid redundant items cluttering the references section. Terjen (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Terjen, read the sentences immediately following the one you quote, in the very document you cite: For instance, a lawfully admitted nonimmigrant alien may become deportable if his visitor’s visa expires or if his student status changes. Criminal violations of the INA, on the other hand, include felonies and misdemeanors and are prosecuted in federal district courts. These types of violations include the bringing in and harboring of certain undocumented aliens (INA §274), the illegal entry of aliens (INA §275), and the reentry of aliens previously excluded or deported (INA §276). So as 75.179 explains, being illegally present in the US is a civil matter (the document you cite gives overstaying a visitor's visa as an example), but illegally entering the US is a criminal matter (in the document you cite, "the illegal entry of aliens"). PubliusFL (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Our long standing consensus definition of "Illegal immigration to the United States": the act of foreign nationals voluntarily residing in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration and nationality law. Consider this in light of the statement from the Congressional Research Service report: "Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil proceedings."[1] As illegal immigration is the act of residing illegally in the US, and being illegally present in the US is a civil violation, it follows that illegal immigration is a civil violation. Illegally entering the US is not part of the definition and is thus a sidetrack. Terjen (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's the definition used in the article, the definition used in the article is underinclusive. Clearly, tons of news articles and other sources refer to people as "illegal immigrants" when they have just illegally entered or are in the process of illegally entering the U.S. Nobody waits to see whether they have actually had a chance to set up residence in the U.S. before calling them illegal immigrants. PubliusFL (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed the definition used in the article in the first sentence per [10:43, 9 July 2008] and for a long time before. Terjen (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two seperate issues here, one of which isn't in dispute.

1.) Is the act of illegally immigrating a civil or criminal offense? 2.) Is being illegally present in the country a civil or criminal offense? Let me attempt to clarify the different issues by using a metaphor - if I find you breaking into a bank after hours a criminal or civil offense? On the other hand, if I find you in a bank after hours is it a criminal or civil offense? Typically, the act of illegally immigrating to the US is how one achieves the status of being illegally present in the US, but not always. This is why there are two seperate sections handling the two seperate issues in the same body of law. The law is very explicit. According to US Code Title 8 Section 1325 subsection a, the act of illegally immigrating can be charged as both a civil and criminal offense (Title 18 is criminal offense). According to US Code Title 8 Section 1229 subsection d, being illegally present in the US can be charged as a civil offense. What makes this dispute confusing is two things 1.) Terjen and (the Patriot Watchman/Architect Spirit) have used Title 8 Section 1325a as a source for their claim that the act of illegally immigrating is only a civil offense. However, that subsection explicitly identifies Title 18 (which is criminal offense). He's claiming that the source says something which is the opposite of what it actually says. 2.) Terjen and (the Patriot Watchman/Architect Spirit) have provided sources which point out that being illegally present in the US can be charged as a civil offense, but this is not under dispute. What is under dispute is whether the act of illegally immigrating is a civil or criminal offense. These two editors insinuate that since being illegally present in the US can be charged as a civil offense, that the act of illegally immigrating is a civil offense. They provide no source to support this insinuation and, further, this insinuation contradicts the fact that the two issues are treated seperately in the same body of law.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You got the terms mixed up. illegally immigrating is not the same as entering the country in violation of the law. Per our definition, a foreign national illegally immigrate by voluntarily residing in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration and nationality law.Terjen (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You are making two critical errors here. One, the statement you are calling "our long standing definition" isn't a definition at all - the statement says "refers to", not "is defined as". It is a supporting statement, not a main point. Second, the statement has no source, so, to use it as the criteria on which other statements which are sourced should be judged to stay or not is backwards writing.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The quoted definition of our key term is from the first sentence in our article. It makes no sense to already later in the same opening paragraph assume "illegal immigration" to suddenly mean something else, as when claiming that "lllegal immigration to the United States is a criminal ... offense". Besides, this claim is not even found in the cited source but is based on an apparent layman interpretation of the law as applied to a (mis)understanding of the term. Terjen (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

To find what the article is about, read it. The article itself addresses both civil (visa overstays) and criminal (illegal border crossings) aspects of the issue. Only if the article were purged of all references to illegal border crossings could it be fairly said to address only matters of civil law. Plazak (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. When you get a temporary visa, you are ordered to report to a designated place at a designated time when your visa expires. A person who fails to so report "eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers" and is, therefore, guilty of a criminal act. In other words, only if the article were purged of all references to the act of illegally immigrating could it be fairly said to address only matters of civil law.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"I don't think that's true. When you get a temporary visa, you are ordered to report to a designated place at a designated time when your visa expires." -by Plazak, this is not true. Where did you get this from. it's laughable. They only inspect you when you're entering the country not leaving. Hence why the section is called "ENTRY without inspection".

This article is being used as a tool for people to express their own views. There is a difference between criminal and civil laws. One can land you in jail, the other can't. Everyone drives 5 miles over the limit, are we are criminals -No, that is why there is a distinction made in the law between civil and criminal courts. Stop deleting my valid contributions because you can't read technocal articles distributed by the USCIS Oroso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant23 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, this article is being used as a tool for people to express their own views. Case in point, under Title 8, illegal immigration is a crime. Title 8 does not say that visa overstays aren't a crime. However, you keep editing the article to say that visa overstays aren't a crime and you aren't adding a source to back it up. Please stick to Wikipedia policy - one of which is verifiability. If you are certain that visa overstays are not a crime, then provide one reliable source (a legal expert whether judge or lawyer) who agrees with you.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Section says Entering illegally is a crime and that staying here is a civil offense. Read it again, it's technical writing and I think you're having problems grasping some of the terminology. If I can get an immigration lawyer to back me up, will you allow this change? Right now I'm thinking you won't allow anything that doesn't agree with your point of view. BTW, who the hell cares if visa overstays are a civil or criminal matter, it's a technical term and really has no political context. I just came across this article and noticed this inaccuracy and found the source it linked to had the correct info. Tried to correct it and now am being attacked. Get a life and stop obsessing about issues and focus on getting things accurate instead of feeding your point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant23 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The section says, and I quote, "Any alien who .. eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers..shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both,". An alien who remains in the US after his visa expires can only do so by eluding examination or inspection by immigration officers. Getting an immigration officer to back you up solves nothing. What you need to do is get an immigration officer to point you to a source which meets Wikipedia's requirements for neutrality, verifiability, and reliability which agrees with you. -198.97.67.58 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC) -" An alien who remains in the US after his visa expires can only do so by eluding examination or inspection by immigration officers" This is not true. The ONLY time an immigrant is inspected in when entering the country. Not when leaving it. Hence why this section is called ENTRY without inspection.

No, it is, if you are issued a temporary visa you are expected to leave when it expires, if you don't do that INS will be looking for you. Hence, an alien who remains in the US after his vise expires will only be able to do so be eluding immigration officers. - Schrandit (talk)

I came across something that seems odd to me. It's been said that the long standing consensus definition of "Illegal immigration to the United States" is the act of foreign nationals voluntarily residing in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration and nationality law. When PubliusFL said "If that's the definition used in the article, the definition used in the article is underinclusive." there was never an explanation other than that's the way it's been so that's what it's going to be as far as I can tell. Merriam-Webster defines immigrate as "to enter and usually become established; especially : to come into a country of which one is not a native for permanent residence". I don't see how anyone could say that the term illegal immigration only refers to residing here and not entering. In my opinion the first sentence should be "Illegal immigration to the United States refers to the act of foreign nationals voluntarily entering or residing in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration and nationality law." with the word "voluntarily" being optional. Oroso (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oroso, read the section below marked "Intro". I created an unoffical poll which addresses the very problem you are discussing here. Please respond to it.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I really should have seen that. Oroso (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Man that was long - so - Civil or Criminal? Is there consensus - Schrandit (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The notion that illegal immigration is a crime was based on an apparent layman editor's interpretation of the law, which clearly is original research and thus against wikipedia policy. The cited section 1325 of the US code doesn't state that illegal immigration is a crime, you have to do a creative interpretation to come to that conclusion, including making up an innovative definition of the term. In contrast, we have reliable and NPOV sources stating that illegal immigration is not a crime, but a civil infraction. Terjen (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The statement that illegal immigration is a crime comes directly from the US Code. It is not disputed that Title 8 section 1325 states, "fined under title 18.

It is not disputed that Title 18 is "CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE" . Illegal immigration is fined as a crime. Futher, news editors and reporters are -not- reliable sources on issues of law. Provide a lawyer or judge for that.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The irony in your argument is that Wikipedia editors are definitely -not- reliable sources on issues of law. You are making your own layman interpretation of the law when claiming that the statement that illegal immigration is a crime comes directly from the US Code. Furthermore, newspapers such as the Seattle Times are reliable sources for wikipedia also on legal issues. Besides, the Associated Press reference provided cites a prominent former U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York going on the record stating that Illegal immigration is not a crime. Terjen (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets get a Request for Comment and until a decision is made there keep the page as it was before this dispute began. - Schrandit (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. You've got my support to make it happen.

I think, though, that writing the RfC should be a group effort.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else have any thoughts before I do this? - Schrandit (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's been established that there is a difference in criminal and civil law. We can't just read one portion of the law and ignore others, we have to look at the whole thing. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't exsist, sorry buddy but start lobbying congress because the law is what it is, right now entering leaglly and staying without permission is only a civil matter no matter what you want18:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.248.101 (talk) <----Me grant23 Grant23 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry forgot to login in

Intro

There is a dispute between which intro to use. One of the two intros says, "Illegal immigration to the United States refers to the act of becoming an illegal alien in the United States. Illegal aliens are foreign nationals voluntarily residing in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration and nationality law.". The other intro says, "Illegal immigration to the United States refers to the act of foreign nationals voluntarily residing in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration and nationality law." PubliusFL has said, concerning the latter, "If that's the definition used in the article, the definition used in the article is underinclusive. Clearly, tons of news articles and other sources refer to people as "illegal immigrants" when they have just illegally entered or are in the process of illegally entering the U.S." I, too, am against the latter. Illegal aliens have illegally immigrated, they aren't illegally immigrating. While there are two people expressing a dislike of the latter term, Terjen claims that the latter is the consensus version. Therefore, I'd like to take an unofficial poll of the editors working on this article to see which of the term versions is preferred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.153.110 (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Neither, but an edited version of the second: Illegal immigration to the United States refers to the act of foreign nationals entering or residing in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration and nationality law. Oroso (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But one does not typically say (in fact, I've never heard anyone say) that an illegal immigrant who has illegally resided in the US for years is still "illegally immigrating". What is typically said is that such a person has "illegally immigrated". The act of illegal immigration has already occured.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. Would it work if "residing in" was just replaced with "entering" or would that require an additional explanation of terms like illegal immigrant/alien? Oroso (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You asked if it would work if "residing in" was just replaced with "entering". Let me ask you what you object to in the statement, "Illegal immigration refers to the act of becoming an illegal alien." I mean, I find the word "entering" deceptive. Some people illegally immigrate long after they've entered the country (ie. visa overstayers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This should settle it. Section 1324d. Civil penalties for failure to depart

   (a) In general
     Any alien subject to a final order of removal who - 
       (1) willfully fails or refuses to - 
         (A) depart from the United States pursuant to the order,
         (B) make timely application in good faith for travel or other
       documents necessary for departure, or
         (C) present for removal at the time and place required by the
       Attorney General; or

       (2) conspires to or takes any action designed to prevent or
     hamper the alien's departure pursuant to the order,

   shall pay a civil penalty of not more than $500 to the Commissioner
   for each day the alien is in violation of this section.
   (b) Construction
     Nothing in this section shall be construed to diminish or qualify
   any penalties to which an alien may be subject for activities
   proscribed by section 1253(a) of this title or any other section of
   this chapter.

Section 1325. Improper entry by alien

   (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
     misrepresentation and concealment of facts
     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.
   (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
     Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
   enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
   designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
   penalty of - 
       (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
     attempted entry); or
       (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
     an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
     this subsection.

   Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
   in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
   imposed.
   (c) Marriage fraud
     Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the
   purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be
   imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than
   $250,000, or both.
   (d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
     Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise
   for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws
   shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance
   with title 18, or both.

This problem is people are only using section 1235 in regards to visa overstays when it deals with EWI (entry without inspection). So let's stop the biased editing and change it to accurately reflect the current law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant23 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are having such difficulty and if I did understand why, maybe I could help you with it. 1325 lists three seperate reasons a person could be found guilty of a criminal offense. These reasons are 1.)if that alien enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officials, 2.) if that alien eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or 3.) if that alien 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.

The *only* one of those three that deals with EWI vs. visa overstays is (1). The other two imply no such distinction-198.97.67.59 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Entry without inspection/examinaiton is an EWI. All people who enter on a visa are inspected and examined. The last part about miseleading represnetation is regarding claiming to be a U.S. citizen or using someone else's identity upon inspeaction (which is an illegal entry). None of this has to do with people who enter leaglly with inspection (examination). Hence why this whole 1325 section is titled "entry without inspection" Grant23 (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what your point is. Are you under the misunderstanding that 1325 states that it is concerned only with EWI? It says "avoidance of examination/inspection", not "entry without inspection".-75.179.153.110 (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Grant's comments on criminal vs. civil offense

Edits were reverted because no source, the same source was used. I just more clearly defined the differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant23 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Shrinking the article Section

One of the most interesting aspects of wikipedia are these sections. These are facts not covered by the article.

This article is way too long, I say we summarize the terrorism part in the trivia section by highlighting the 9/11 terrorists and then link to the terrorism article. It's more concise and easier to read. If one wants to know more about it they can click on the link to the article on the subject and it won't clutter up this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant23 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Baically, no. - Schrandit (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism as trivia? Hmmm.  :) Well, people have attempted to connect border control issues, illegal immigration, and terrorism. I guess some international terrorists don't bother with the niceties of getting a proper visa and couldn't get one under their real name if they wanted. A porous border and poor visa control may admit terrorists, etc. The implication that illegal immigrants are more likely to conduct terrorism raises hackles so it's a political football. So there is some connection at least at the policy / political response level. Wikidemo (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Scharndit stop deleting things without providing a reason, it's called vandalism. Wikidemo, this article is too long for it to be useful. I think each subsection should be one or two paragraphs long at the most and should link to the larger article on the subject. I merely brought up the terrorism thing as an idea to discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant23 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism if they don't belong there to begin with.

Where else should we put this information then Scharndit? This article needs to be redone and until it's done. I think this section is helpful. The problem may lie in how one sided this article is. It just talks about policy and only certain sections provide info on illegal immigrants. Grant23 (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the article, although it's greatly improved over the past couple months. I think we ought to get rid of some material, summarize or reorganize others, and break it into 3 or 4 smaller articles. Specifically (and this is just my opinion):

• Legality - exact amount of penalties are irrelevant / small issue
• General profile of illegal immigrants - list format isn't conducive for encyclopedia. It's hard to be comprehensive, as opposed to an indiscriminate collection of tidbits. Should eliminate section and/or work into prose of different sections where it fits.

• Breakdown by state - too much detail, write succinctly in prose and put somewhere.
• Timeline - weird format doesn't fit with rest of article. But it's interesting and useful, so maybe this should be a new article on its own.
• Present day country of origin - strange format - should be consolidated and made into a simpler table, or deleted. Either way, a single sentence summary would be useful.
• Modes of entry - should be in prose.
• Dangers - useful info but it's a little isolated and doesn't flow with rest of article.
• Causes - this section needs work. It's a hodgepodge that only addresses a tiny portion of the issue but gives too much weight to describing problems with other countries.
• Demand / pull factors. That's a strange way to pose the issue. Of course people want to live in the US. It's got a draw!
• Impacts - way too long for this article but maybe fine as a standalone article (e.g. "Effects of illegal immigration into the United States"). This section is fraught with danger of being POV and opinion, although we've done a reasonable job staying neutral. It needs some weight adjustment to make sure we're hitting all the most important ones, and not giving too much attention to the smaller issues. As an example, there's a section for impact on black americans. What about white americans? Latinos? Native Americans? Asian Americans? On lawful permanent resident aliens, etc.?

-I couldn't agree more. If this section were about low income Americans, it should stay but it feeds into the notion that black Americans are poor and unskilled labor and it's offense to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant23 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Immigration enforcement - this could be its own article too, maybe it is already.
• Public reaction - largely redundant with impacts and with enforcement. Polling numbers are irrelevant. This section should be greatly reduced or deleted and any useful information moved elsewhere.
• Legal issues - a second legal section should be merged with the first, and perhaps made into its own article.

Hope that helps. BTW, the deletion you're referring to was an editor's objection to the new trivia section. A good faith edit, however much you object, is not vandalism. I think creating a trivia section is a step in the wrong direction. Wikidemo (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree and that is why I changed the title to "notable people". what do you think about shrinking most if not all of the sections to a reasonable size and linking to the larger articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant23 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with every thing you pointed out except the general profile of illegal immigrants. When I first came across the article, I found it somewhat useful/interesting. Grant23 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I will address the rest later, but for now, I believe that "Notable People" section is highly trivial and strongly advocate for its removal. - Schrandit (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Soccer mom 5 (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)I don't see how that section is irrelevant. It's just like any other reference links on Wikipedia, and should stay with the article.

I agree that the "Notable People" section should stay with the article. I believe it is definitely relevant to the topic and has useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MGM87 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is about 11,500 words long. Wikipedia guidelines suggest that readers may tire of reading articles much longer than 10,000 words.

Consequently, while this article may stand to be shrunken somewhat, it does not need a substantial loss of content. Incidentally, the economic section is almost identical to the Wikipedia article Economic impact of Illegal immigration in the United States. So, one obvious place to start shrinking the article is in that section.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It still doesn't preclude the fact that some of us are finding it informative. If someone doesn't want to read the whole section they can merely skim it, it doesn't affect them in any way, however the information is still there for those who are finding it useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.250.169 (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit ambiguous there, i was referring to "Notable People" part there. I could've sworn i was responding to someone else too, shows how much i know about wiki editing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.250.169 (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't much care whether the economic content is removed because it exists in the other article. If anything, I prefer it to remain intact in this article. However, I'm just presenting options in the spirit of compromise.

This article is frustrating needs new blood. Even obviously inaccurate things such as the difference between civil and criminal law is hard to fix. I've never encountered this before. Every article on wikipedia that deals with a group of people or an activity has notable individual that are part of that group or participate in that activity. They are the most informative and interesting parts of the article. I don't see why you're fighting me on this and when people agree you accuse them of being a sock puppet. Even something as neutral and uncontroversial as a notable individuals section leads to this.

I too would be a fan of shrinking the article, but let us be conservative in our approach, discussing things here before removing willynilly.

Soccer mom 5/MGM87 - how is this information highly relevant to an encyclopedia article? - Schrandit (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a WP:BOLD step we can easily take now is to divide the article into 3-4 sub-parts. Nobody could really object to that and it would not necessarily mean we lose content. Each sub-article would be easier to improve in isolation, and if it turns out to be a bad idea we can always merge them back again. Thoughts?

List of notable illegal immigrants to the US

I think the new section is fascinating....but inappropriate for this article and just makes the length / organization problem worse. How about a separate article for that, or a category? Having a list doesn't really elucidate the issue, not directly. But it may be notable. Here's a new one to throw at you, Dan-el Padilla Peralta - article to come momentarily. Wikidemo (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, like most of the other sections on thisa article it would be better off being linked to a it's own article. However, this information is facinating and most people would agree and it belongs on wikipedia. People are letting their agenda's get in the way of rational thought. Grant23 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

facinating =/= encyclodepdic. - Schrandit (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Schradndit but if you look above most people agree with me that it should stay. However, I think we should work on expanding it and maybe making it an article of it's own once we get a few more names down. Grant23 (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Grant23 that it should stay. People will find this information interesting and I can't see a reason for not keeping it. Right now there aren't enough names for its own page; though if it does expand, it might be better suited on its own page.Swim19 (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Grant23 and Swim19 that the article should stay. And I also believe that it should have its own page once there are enough names written down. The article is interesting and adds new educational information. It pertains to the topic because it deals with illegal immigration and the people who were able to move past the stereotypes and make a name for themselves. I believe it should stay for this reason. MGM87 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting is irrelevant. We already have a category for this. This is an encyclopedia, consensus means nothing if the content you are proposing is not supposed to be here to begin with. - Schrandit (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The information isn't irrelevant though, Schrandit. I can see how just because something is interesting doesn't mean it should be on here or if something is uninteresting that it shouldn't, but that isn't the case with this. The page deals with immigration and the information about this people is very on-topic.Swim19 (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me here and now how a list of individual possible illegal immigrants and relatives of illegal immigrants expands and individual's understanding of this topic in an encyclopedic manner. - Schrandit (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Did someone just make an illegal immigrant population page? I think this section belongs in that page. So I moved it.Grant23 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not synonymous with illegal entry

Illegal immigration is not synonymous with illegal entry. Yet one editor insists on leading the article with a long quote about illegal entry from U.S. Code Title 8 Section 1325[2][3], creating the misimpression that illegal immigration to the United States is a crime. However, as our reliable sources substantiates, Illegal immigration to the United States is not a crime, but a civil infraction.[4][5] Terjen (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at the section earlier in this talk page title "Intro". This has been discussed at length already and a consensus has been reached. Any further discussion on the issue belongs there. The section of the law which has been quoted is titled, "Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts". Section 1325 is the basis for the 'illegal' in illegal immigration. Illegal immigration -is- a criminal and civil offense as per the law (title 8). Editors, reporters, and politicians trying to win votes are not reliable sources on the law. You are being a disruptive editor. I advise you to stop it. If you wish to go against the consensus here, then I suggest you create an RfC.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus in favor of illegal immigration being synonymous with illegal entry in the Intro discussion per 0:19, 16 July 2008. Your layman interpretation of Section 1325 of the US code is original research. We have reliable and NPOV sources stating that illegal immigration is not a crime, but a civil infraction. The editors of a major paper like the Seattle Times[6] is a reliable source; so is Associated Press citing a prominent former U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York going on the record stating that Illegal immigration is not a crime, and its significance is not reduced by that this Republican was taking a considerable hit for stating a politically incorrect fact.[7] I advise that you immediately stop reintroducing your spin.Terjen (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you didn't notice, but there I gave no interpretation of the legal code in the intro. I just quoted the legal code in the intro.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your spin. First you changed the lead sentence so our key term refers to the act of foreign nationals becoming illegal aliens in the United States where Illegal aliens are aliens residing in the U.S. in violation of U.S. immigration law. Next you inserted a quote from U.S. Code Title 8 Section 1325 about illegal entry, creating the impression that this is equivalent to illegal immigration. You then made a point of that Title 18 is Crimes and Criminal Procedures, creating a synthesis. Finally, you introduced the term however in front of the statement from our NPOV sources, creating the misimpression that they somewhat conflict with the US code when concluding that illegal immigration is not a crime. You're being deceptive. My good faith is long gone. Terjen (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

-Yeah a consensus was reached that people were intrepeting laws in their own way and that we should stick to literal rule of the law ans not mix our own thoughts/feelings on it. It's pretty clear that there is a difference between civil and criminal.Grant23 (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That code citation is out of place in the lead. We should just move it down to the legality and definition sections and, if necessary, say that there are varying definitions including a legal code and a common understanding. Nothing wrong with saying that a phenomenon has slightly different interpretations - see, for example, patent troll#Definition and etymology. Whatever the legal standard, the common concept of illegal immigration implies that there is immigration too, i.e. some intent by a person (or if a minor, their guardian) to stay here long term and not just sneak across the border (say, a foreign spy). Wikidemo (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

By definition, illegal immigration, being illegal, is an issue of law. Section 1325 is what puts the illegal in illegal immigration. It is, therefore, definitional. The intro should contain the definition of the article's subject. -75.179.153.110 (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Section 1325 of the US code does not define illegal immigration, nor is it what puts the illegal in illegal immigration. It has no place in the introduction. Terjen (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Plan on Shrinking the Article

Let's talk about what we can do to create a few articles and in the process shrink this one. How long should we keep each section - no more than 3 paragraphs? Grant23 (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

-Impact on law enforcement, took out anything without a reference and combined the rest into one paragraph. Grant23 (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Grant23

-Police and Military Involvement, took out anything without a reference but it's still too long. If no one can make it more concise without losing information, we should make it it's own article. Grant23 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Grant23

-History, this should definitely stay as it is very relevant but maybe a summary paragraph and a link to a larger article would be better? Grant23 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there chief, talk first, shoot later. If you feel a non-controversial section needs better sourcing hit it up with the fact tag. This draws the attention of the other editors and gives them a chance to find a source. General rule of thumb is that if it isn't controversial give it a month or so and then take it down. - Schrandit (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

-I didn't delete it but I want your approval on deleting it and linking it. We can all agree this article sucks and is not informative in it's current state. Waiting a month is pointless adn may never get done if we do thatGrant23 (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)grant23

Do you think you are the first person to ever edit wikipedia? These rules are in place for good reasons. I assure you that waiting to ensure quality and consensus is worth it. This article used to be even worse, but through good diligence and following wikipeida guidelines it has been improved. When you say you want to delete it, specifically what content from which sections? Try tagging it first.

The economic impacts section needs to be moved to the child article and summarized here. It's mostly a duplicate of that article, yet it's become longer than the child article. We can safely merge the content there. The timeline can simply be broken out and referenced. Wikidemo (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a page on the history of laws regarding immigration to the US but it is lacking. I'd like to see who ever does the removing of the time line make sure that the information ends up there. I'm fine with shrinking those two sections, just whoever does it try to make sure information doesn't get lost in the transition. - Schrandit (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes on page

• "The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a bureau of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is the primary federal agency tasked with enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act of the United States of America. " No, it's not. It doesn't do enforcement.
• A consensus was reached that people were interpreting laws in their own way and that we should stick to the literal rule of law. Instead of doing this, Grant32 did the opposite. He replaced the direct quote from the legal code with a reference to a significantly less reliable source - a politician trying to win votes and a news reporter
• According to several news editors and reporters, illegal immigration to the United States is not a crime, but a civil infraction.
• The source provided does not say that Schwarzenegger was an illegal alien. It says that he might have been.
• Added source for "From criminals"
• Restored "Impact on black Americans" which had been removed without reason

- we've discussed this a;ready, it's not appropriate for wikipedia, it opens the door for impact on white Americans, Asian American, latino Americans, etc. Grant23 (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Did we now? Where was this discussed? Under which wikipedia policy (not merely your opinion) was this deemed not appropriate? - Schrandit (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

-I have to agree with Grant23. Impact of Illegal Immigration on Black Americans should not be there. It is inappropriate for wikipedia. It is opening up a door that shouldn't be opened, not in this kind of information venue. It only deals with Black Americans and not other, such as white americans or asain americans, etc. It sounds offensive to African Americans and sounds more of a POV than anything else.Swim19 (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And which wikipedia policy says it is inappropriate? - Schrandit (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

1 - Please don't retro-edit your posts

2 - Many other articles do the same thing, more over - which wikipedia policy says it is inappropriate?

3 - Most of the section quotes black leaders, how is it POV? - Schrandit (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism for making good faith edits. That's unnecessarily confrontational, and it's also incorrect. See WP:Vandalism. I've reworded the heading to be more neutral. On the substance, we use summary style rather than being a data dump, and we don't do our own legal analysis - we quote secondary sources.Wikidemo (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing other editors comments in the discusion page is against Wikipedia policyWikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Avoid doing so in the future-198.97.67.58 (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

See the section on that page you quote about "Behavior that is unacceptable". Also, see WP:REFACTOR.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Even better, see the "Editing comments" section.

“ Section headers: Because threads are shared by multiple users, the original title becomes communal property. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss changes with the editor who started the thread, if possible, but it is generally acceptable to change section headers when a better header is appropriate. This is under the purview of threads themselves being shared property rather than a single editor's comments. ”

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

-Scroll up Scandit to wikidom's suggestions on shrinking the article. No offense buddy but you're part of the reason why this article stinks, you don't allow any changes. It's looks like a control issue for you.

Are you purposely misspelling my name or what? I want to know where we discussed the section you just deleted. - Schrandit (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Restored content from Tanis J. Salant and others, Illegal Immigrants in U.S./Mexico Border Counties: The Costs for Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice, and Emergency Medical Services (report prepared for the United States/Mexico Border Counties Coalition, February 2001). which had been removed without reason
• Comparatively lax U.S. laws on guns make it possible for guns to be smuggled out of the U.S. and into Mexico into the hands of drug cartels where the laws are more strict on the purchase of guns. removed as this article isn't about Mexico and this point isn't about IIUS

- what do drug cartel in mexcio have to do with illegal immigration either, shouldn't the drug trade be a different article then? Grant23 (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, in so much as it pertains to Illegal immigration to the United States is should not. - Schrandit (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• "This exemption would have authorized the United States Secretary of Defense to detail members of the Armed Forces to enforce the immigration and customs laws in border areas. U.S. Army personnel were stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border to help stem the flow of illegal aliens and drug smugglers. These military units brought their specialized equipment such as FLIR infrared devices, and helicopters. In conjunction with the U.S. Border Patrol, they would deploy along the border and, for a brief time, there would be no traffic across that border which was actively watched by "coyotes" paid to assist border crossers. The smugglers and the alien traffickers ceased operations over the one hundred mile sections of the border sealed at a time. " restored as it was removed without reason-198.97.67.56 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

-No reference and it will stay down unless one is provided, this is wikipeida not a blog to express your opionions66.41.248.101 (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is a lot of sketchy content being put up and a lot of good stuff being taken down. Lets try to find consensus here and talk over planned changes before anything goes down. - Schrandit (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when is an immigration lawyer an unreliable souce on immigration law?

I'm removing the unreliable source tagGrant23 (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Reorganized article

• whew*

To help further improve the article I've reordered everything. I tried to make as little change as possible to the actual substance of the article - that comes later. What I did was to put everything in a logical order, put the sections and subsections in order too, move material from one section to another if it belonged there, etc. I also redid many of the headings to flow better, be more consistent, and so on. I worked some of the lead material into the main article, consolidated all the legal stuff into a legal section, organized the legal section in some process / time order (what the law is, how we prevent illegal immigration, how we apprehend it in different places, how we punish people, and then local and private responses), grouped all the profile and demographic info into a section, and so on.

I think you'll find the article reads a lot better now even though I didn't change much of the language - it just needed to flow better. Being better organized means that if you want to improve a section or talk about an issue it's all in one place. Things that need fixing stick out more because you can see them more clearly.... for example you can see that the same thing sometimes got said two or three times in different sections. It's more obvious now because you can see it getting said 2-3 times in a row now.

If I've accidentally deleted something, or reworded it in a way you don't think is right please go ahead and edit. Don't revert the whole thing please, but don't feel like I've stepped on anybody.... the whole purpose was to get it tighter, not to take any positions on how we should word it - so if I've done that just restore the best version.

Hope this works out....Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like you have done a solid effort to improve the article. Cheers! Terjen (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to change a few things back.

• Police and military involvement - I'd like to change Hernandez's description back to goat herder, I believe it makes a lot more sense as normal folk would wonder what a high school student was doing near the mexican-American border with a herd of goats. I'd also like to re-add the bit about him previously firing shots at border agents.
• Popular conception - I'd like to change that back to Unofficial definitions. This section is all about what newspapers call illegals, the phrase popular conception is vague.
• Minorities - this section only addresses blacks, lets change it back to black Americans.
• Private enforcement - I feel that the word private implies that someone has a commercial interest in the enterprise - lets change it to community-based enforcement or volunteer enforcement or something like that.

Schrandit 08:06, 16 July 2008

Hernandez was primarily a high school student, so we shouldn't take that out. We already state that he was herding goats. I'll add some more content to make it more apparent why he was in the area. Terjen (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the goats. "Unofficial" implies that the government definition is "official". As an encyclopedia, common usage is official to us and government definitions are just that. So we should not imply that the government defintion is the actual one. Let's imagine a different topic, say, erotic art. We would not adopt a government definition of "erotic". Indeed, with immigration it is the government that says who is legal and who is not. But illegal immigration goes well beyond a legal / governmental thing - as shown by our sections on popular opinion, economics, dangers, etc. "Popular" may sound a bit too informal, but if there's a way to simply say that there is a legal / government definition, and there are other definitions used for non-legal / non-bureaucratic purposes. I deliberately expanded "black" to include more minorities in hopes of widening the section. As a somewhat racial issue, illegal immigration affects different groups differently. There's certainly an effect on (legal) Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans. Of course whites too, but that's implicit (it would be strained to try to describe how illegal immigration affects whites as distinct from America as a hole, whereas it probably does affect the Hispanic community in a special way). Some people may want to take that whole section out on theory that race isn't really the issue, and I'm not really advocating for keeping the section in at all - just saying that having a section just on African-Americans is a little odd. I was using "private" in a legal-ish sense, to distinguish it from government action. I agree that it takes on an overtone I didn't mean - not private companies, just private citizens. "Community" isn't quite it because communities have governments too - if a city responds that's a community response too. "Volunteer" sounds a little awkward. The minutemen are volunteers, sort of... but not really - is it a nonprofit group? The salient part isn't that they are unpaid but that they're doing it outside of a government program. How about "non-governmental?" Wikidemo (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vigilantes takes justice in their own hands without government sanctions when they deem the response of the authorities to be insufficient. Terjen (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• "'Unofficial' implies that the government definition is 'official'. "

This is a matter of law. That's why it's called "illegal". The INA is the definitive source, therefore it is official.

• "As an encyclopedia, common usage is official to us and government definitions are just that."

huh? Where'd you get that? "Official" is defined as "having official authority or sanction" Common usage has no sanction.

• "We would not adopt a government definition of 'erotic'."

We are not discussing illegal eroticism (though that would undoubtedly be a much more interesting article to work on). Your analogy doesn't apply.

• "But illegal immigration goes well beyond a legal / governmental thing - as shown by our sections on popular opinion, economics, dangers, etc."

Irrelevant because "popular" is not synonymous with "official".

• "There's certainly an effect on (legal) Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans."

Oh, absolutely there is. "You don't speak for me" and the protests by Native Americans regarding the ecological destruction taking place on their lands are great examples of that. But the current section, as written, is about blacks. Please add the content on the other minorities and then we can consider changing the subsection's name.

• "'"Community' isn't quite it because communities have governments too" Communities don't have governments as far as I know. Cities have governments. Towns and villages might have governments (if incorporated). Communities don't have governments.
• "'Volunteer' sounds a little awkward. The minutemen are volunteers, sort of... but not really - is it a nonprofit group?" Er, what makes it not a volunteer group?-198.97.67.57 (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Who did the intro? Awesome job, much better than before.Grant23 (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)grant23

Overall, agreed. But we're an encyclopedia, not a legal tome. Legal truth is no more official than any other kind for us. Illegal immigration is not entirely a legal concept and saying that the legal definition is the only official one is a judgment call. I don't really want to add racial / ethnic content here but if we don't extend it beyond just blacks I think people will be advocating for removing the section. Yes, communities have governments. Community is a synonym for a town or other local population center. I think people might understand "community response" to include local government acts. Volunteer isn't the gist of the matter. Armies are also "volunteer". Wikidemo (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Which thesaurus are you using? I went to www.thesaurus.com and did a search on both "town" and "community". Neither lists the other as a synonym. I think you made that up. I'd also like you to point out in Wikipedia policy where it says, "Legal truth is no more official than any other kind for us. ", because it looks to me like this is something you made up as well. Illegal immigration is entirely a legal concept. A newspaper reporter or activist can no more change the meaning of "illegal immigration" than they can change the meaning of "illegal operation of a motor vehicle". The rest of the article discusses how people feel about illegal immigration, whether it should be illegal, the ramifications of engaging in the illegal act, how it should be enforced, etc.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Per dictionary.com[8] some of the definitions of community include "A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government" (American heritage, 1a) , "the district or locality in which the group lives" (1b), society as a whole (4), wordnet: ("residential district"), "Society at large; a commonwealth or state;" (Webster's Revised, #3). Of course there are other definitions, most particularly a group of people who are like-minded or share a common heritage, origin, locality, etc. Anyway, I think you can see where I'm going. Community response does not preclude or distinguish it from government response. Having been involved in local politics occasionally, my experience is that when people talk about "community" action they sometimes mean it's grassroots and non-governmental, but sometimes they mean they want their local government to do something. As an example, Community policing is done by the police, not private citizens. I disagree about illegal immigration being entirely a legal concept. There is simply no fixed definition. The law says what is legal and not legal. But the law does not say what immigration is, or which illegal acts are illegal immigration. I don't need any wikipedia policy to say that all forms of truth are worth reporting or that the law is no more "official" than other things - it's inherent in WP:V. If I find a bunch of news sources and academic works that describe the phenomenon of illegal immigration, that meets WP:V and WP:RS. You would have to argue why, despite being reliably sourced, they're not the official version. Here are 27,000 scholarly references to illegal immigration.[9] Here are 700+ books, many saying that there is no single definition of illegal immigration.[10] You can't tell me that law trumps scholarship. Wikidemo (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wikidemo. There is not one definition of illegal immigration. Therefore, we cannot say that the law is the only official one and all other valid definitions are not. MGM87 (talk)

• Hernandez - I think what we want to imply is that this guy was young. I think high school student implies that this guy was just a normal teenager who wandered into a field and got shot. Also, do we even know that he was a high school student? I'd be a fan of saying that he was 18 years old rather than a high school student. It believe it is less vague but still conveys the fact that for some reason, we shot a really young guy. I'm not married to this idea, if you really want to keep high school student thats fine.
• Official v. Government definition - I'd be a fan of "Government" but at the same time "unofficial" is the best I can come up with for the journalistic approach. Unless of course you just want to head that at "In Journalism".

• There is a definition of illegal immigration. Just because we are not smart enough to discern it and agree about what it is does not mean that there is not one. I bet somewhere the government has laid out a broad one sentence definition, lets go with something like that.

• Blacks - I like keeping a separate section, there is information exclusively on that community and illegal immigration is effecting that community differently. I know its odd but I think the correct thing to do from an encyclopedic standpoint is to document this.
• Community - not a big deal but I'd rather go with volunteer. I think the way the word community is used to describe different sections of our nation does not convey the makeup of these organizations. The minutemen are not vigilantes because while they're not with the government program they are merely enforcing the government's laws.
• Also! - Mass Deportations - another situation where I think the phrase is heavily weighted (with images in reader's minds of civilians being rounded up in the night and herded into cattle cars) but I can't really think of a better one. I believe history shows us that if our government got the political will together to enforce our immigration laws it would look something like this. Any thoughts on how to avoid a term so weighted with emotion? Maybe I should just mention the historical precedence in the section. - Schrandit (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Non-governmental?" Journalists are simply supposed to report what's out there, not make up their own. My opinions are just my opinions, and I don't consider any of these a big deal... so I'll explain my position if asked but I'm not going to insist on anything. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Law is created by the government. Illegal immigration is, by definition, a legal issue. When it comes to law, the government is official. If there is a government definition, why wouldn't that be the "official" definition of the term? The government is the entity you would expect to create official definitions of law-related terms, to the extent that any definitions exist that are "official." In the context of U.S. law, "illegal immigration" would be officially defined, if at all, by the U.S. government. In the context of French law, "illegal immigration" would be defined by the French government. Similarly, in the context of, say, a sport, if a national or international body governing that sport exists, I would naturally expect "official definition" to refer to a definition created or sanctioned by that body. If there are multiple competing governing bodies, I would expect the scope of the "official definition" to be qualified accordingly, but there is only one entity that defines U.S. immigration law: the U.S. federal government. PubliusFL (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Labeling the legal terminology "official" is ambiguous and misleading, as it may not be the only official terminology. For example, newspapers or academics may choose to define their own official terminology for immigration related issues. Better to call the definitions in legalization what it is: Legal definitions. Terjen (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Some people don't seem to understand what the word "official" means. Here's the definition, "having official authority or sanction" Newspapers and academics have no sanctioning power in issues of law, therefore their opinions cannot be official.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a Non sequitur. Newspaper editors have authority when it comes to the language used in their papers, and academics may have similar authority when it comes to the language used in their reports. Terjen (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Promise me something, okay? If you ever get in front of a U.S. judge for some violation or other, tell them that reporters have sanction over what is and what is not "illegal". Only, before you do it, please have somebody videotape the judge's reaction. I could use the laugh.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a recurring debate over whether to label the legal definitions as official. It appears as if it is the same editor as in previous years that now again insists on using the label official, despite its problems. It is clearer to call the section header Legal definitions and avoid the ambiguous official. Terjen (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I still think "official" is appropriate. In your last reply to me, you said "newspaper editors have authority when it comes to the language used in their papers, and academics may have similar authority when it comes to the language used in their reports." That's true, but it just goes to show what I had already argued: that what is "official" depends on the context. In the context of the New York Times, the editors of the New York Times decide what is official. In the context of Harvard University, the faculty and administration of Harvard decide what is official. In the context of the United States as a whole, and especially in the context of U.S. law (defining what is legal or illegal in the U.S.), the U.S. federal government decides what is official. This article is "Illegal immigration to the United States," so it seems appropriate and objective to conclude that federal government definitions are the definitions that are "official" in this context. PubliusFL (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The context here is that of a wikipedia article. When used without a modifier, it would seem to me that the word official would refer to official wikipedia policy. This is not a newspaper, an academic institution, nor a court of law, all of which may have their own official policies. This is Wikipedia. If the word official is used to mean anything other than official wikipedia policy, then that needs to be explicitely stated.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that a reader seeing the word "official" in a mainspace article would assume it was referring to Wikipedia policy. In talk or WP, maybe, but not in a substantive article. If you were to look at the article List of official languages by state, would you really assume it lists languages that Wikipedia policy declares to be spoken in each state? No, it obviously refers to languages approved or endorsed by some public authority (i.e. government) in each state. PubliusFL (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues

• the editor removed references which had been cited
• the editor made claims about the article which the article doesn't support. In particular, the editor wrote, "The studies that have been done show that immigrants and especially illegal immigrants are five times less likely to be in prison than American citizens, it is thought that the fear of deporations serves as an incentive to be more law abiding.." What the article actually says is, "The incarceration rate of U.S.- born men 18 to 39 years old in 2000 was 3.5 percent — five times higher than the incarceration rate of their immigrant counterparts, the study found" and, "mmigrants — both legal and illegal — do not raise the rate of crime in the United States, according to a study released Monday." It doesn't say anything like "illegal immigrants are five times less likely to be in prison".
• the editor added a source which was already in the article, but added no new verifiable content for it-75.179.153.110 (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove anything, I just added "needs citiation" You put immigrants when they are not immigrants, I don't know why, I'm guessing because I did it. You need to read the whole article.

I've noticed you have an agenda to push. This isn't the place for it. I'm trying to make this article more neurtral and fact based but you stand in the way. Stop pushing an agenda and go start a blog. This isn't the place for it. Grant23 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You do keep taking down tags, please don't do that. - Schrandit (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi protection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion is not going anywhere and has descended into vitriol. CIreland (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I have requested semi-protection for the Illegal immigration to the United States article. It is a magnet for disruptive edits by IPs and newly registered users, with some of the IP accounts appearing to be the same editor, e.g. 198.97.67.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 75.179.153.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Restricting editing to established accounts may allow us to improve the quality of the article without constant disruption. Terjen (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Further research reveals that User:Psychohistorian is the owner of many of the IP accounts in the edit history of our article, including not only 198.97.67.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 75.179.153.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but also 198.97.67.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 198.97.67.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 198.97.67.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and historically 75.179.157.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 24.210.218.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 75.179.159.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 71.74.209.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Terjen (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have my suspicions that more than one user account involved on this page is owned by the same person, not throwing out any names, just saying. As an user who has been around this page for a long time these things ebb and flow, I think once either grant23 or the annon give up on the conflict they're having (and I admit, I have been participating in) things will quiet down. Also, I believe a lot of the action on here was in response to the reorganization and now that that is done things are starting to cool off.

I like freedom and I like it on this page, if we're going to do this lets do it for 3 or so days and reassess the situation from there. - Schrandit (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As Schrandit were the editor requesting a checkuser for Grant23, it is already explicit who he suspect has multiple accounts. Terjen (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

-this is too funny, who do you think I am? Please humor me. I'm curious as to who you think sounds like me. I doubt any of them like to have some fun with you on the discussion section like I do ( I do it because I like you, even if you are incredibly biased scandit). No offense buddy, but you've gotten away with pushing your opinion on this article because no one challenged your biased approach until now. I'm not going anywhere, this article will reflect both sides, whether you like it to not.So let's stay on good terms, Grant23 (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I remove tags because you refuse to read the entire reference before adding tags to serve your point of view. Having a point of view is great but this isn't the place for it to show. I used to have a lot of respect for you and the time you spend on this article but now I'm beginning to see it's only to push your opinions, not for the benefit of this project. Prove me wrong.Grant23 (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I have read the entire reference, I have read all of them and only add tags after reading them. Editors can challenge your references (like you did to something I added and which I will now defend), if we couldn't anyone could just cite anything they wanted. Stop taking down tags, defend them on the talk page.

No, stop the vandalism or I will request your IP be blocked. "Despite Mr. McCain’s emphasis on legal immigration, the first two Hispanic soldiers killed in the Iraq war had arrived in the United States illegally." 2nd to last paragraph, last line. This is about the 5th time you have said this and every time you refused to read the whole reference, get a life and stop pushing an agendaGrant23 (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what "further research" means in this case. I mean, some third party edited the Psychohistorian account for reasons unknown. That's not "further research". Making unbased accusations is easy.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"I like freedom and I like it on this page"-Scandit, yeah the freedom to delete things you don't agree with and add only your point of view. 17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant23 (talk • contribs)

There are so many things I could say right now, but I'm a nice guy so I won't - Schrandit (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Psychohistorian has used several IP accounts for editing, often in a disruptive manner. This can be easily confirmed by a comparrison of their histories. In my experience, these IP accounts will neither confirm nor deny their identity when directly asked. (Note the rather characteristic "making unbased accusations" nondenial above.) I think that semi protection on this article would be appropriate, given the history of disruptive anonymous edits. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ramsey appears to be one of those editors who edited the Psychohistorian account making such unbased accusations. Regardless, this discussion page is about this article, not about conspiracy theories regarding anonymous editors.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you User:Psychohistorian? --Ramsey2006 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter so much whether the unregistered user is or was user:Psychohistorian. Of current concern is which IPs the user is using, so that we can all be clear on who's making which edits, and in case there are any disputes over 3RR or skewing consensus. At one time a single editor was found to be using these logins:
  • 198.97.67.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 198.97.67.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 198.97.67.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 198.97.67.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 75.179.159.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 71.74.209.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 24.210.218.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 75.179.153.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 75.179.157.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• I see that several of these have been active on this topic in the last few months. If the current editor is not using any of these IPs could he please designate the IPs that he's not using anymore? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand and I missed any old drama. If someone is using multiple accounts to create a false appearance of consensus / vote-stacking, to conduct controversial edits in a way that does not reflect on their other account(s), or to get around a block / ban, that's abusive WP:SOCKing and they can be blocked. The procedure would normally be to do a WP:SSP to gather evidence if necessary, and when you have enough request a: WP:RFCU. From my experience dealing with difficult articles it seems unlikely that an administrator would be willing to grant semi-protection just to flush out socks on a suspicion of sockpuppetry, and any semi-protection would be brief and not helpful for the purpose. It all gets down to the "anybody can edit" part and allowing people to edit anonymously. People are free to edit anonymously and many of those people have dynamic IPs. If someone edits under both IP and named accounts you have to distinguish between innocently forgetting or not bothering to log in (which is sloppy and too bad, but not disruptive to the point of being blockable), a "right to disappear", or some deliberate manipulation of the system. If it helps to keep some perspective, the disputes I've seen on this article are not terribly contentious compared to many other articles. And the article itself is not in bad shape. It still has a lot of room to improve but it's basically a sound article with lots of good neutral information that's worth reading. Wikidemo (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Given as how User:Psychohistorian doesn't seem to have made a post since sometime mid 2006, it appears that several users including Terjen and Ramsey have held a long standing grudge against that user. It also appears that they have developed and maintain a number of conspiracy theories about it sufficient to keep this running for the last two years in which there has been no activity from that user's account. Its hard for me to believe that the issue is really about a user who has been dormant for two years. I think they actually hold a grudge against anonymous IP editors who disagree with their politics regarding illegal aliens and that User:Psychohistorian has somehow become a focal point for their grudge. Further, it's worth noting that these conspiracy theorists have pulled the same stunt against other IPs that they are pulling here. And, when outside editors who aren't true blue believers in this conspiracy theory look into the issue, the result is always the same. Those outside editors find that the anons are working in good faith. Bringing up this conspiracy is all a misdirection. As I said before, despite how much certain editors want to make it about User:Psychohistorian, the issue we should be focused on here in this discussion page is the article. Personal issues should be left for other, more appropriate, places. The appropriate manner in which to address such issues is as was done when Schrandit didn't disrupt the discussion page while having another editor checked for sock puppetry.

Unfortunately, these conspiracy theorists didn't handle their concerns in such an appropriate manner. They dragged down the discussion page for this article. I'd like to get the discussion page back on topic. To that end, I'm willing to just ignore all this noise they raised so that we can get back to doing something productive.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to assume good faith when you make patently false claims like saying that Psychohistorian has not posted since 2006. That is simply an out and out lie. Psychohistorian has been posting more or less continously since then under a variety of anonymous IPs, including your own. If you would stop lying, then maybe it would be possible to get somewhere. It is difficult to work with editors who blatantly lie. And that has nothing to do with "grudges" or "conspiracy theories". It has to do with bad faith out and out lying. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You're starting to make me angry. While there's quite a lot I'd love to say, I'm going to restrain myself, because it simply doesn't matter. You are irrelevant. Your baseless accusations and conspiracy theories are irrelevant. What is relevant is that you are now well on your way to being a disruptive editor. As I pointed out before, this discussion page does not exist to focus on people (either you, Psychohistorian, or IP anons). This discussion page exists to focus on the article. Your ongoing struggle to shift it off that focus is making you a disruptive editor. If you have an accusation, then make it in the appropriate, official channel. This is not it.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, fellas, take this somewhere else. If we're going to protect the page I say we do it for 3ish days and reassess from there. - Schrandit (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ramsey, Psychohistorian makes no constructive additions and is often juvenile and counter productive. Grant23 (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We know from past discussions that User:Psychohistorian originally used multiple anon accounts assigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base/Road Runner HoldCo LLC of Herndon, VA/Verizon Internet Services Inc. of Reston, VA. On August 8, 2006 the editor in question took the name Psychohistorian (see Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 2# Anon edits . The User:Psychohistorian account was active from August 7, 2006 until February 23, 2007 After August 8, 2006 there where no additional edits to either this page or any other related pages (such as Anchor baby) by 198.97.67.56. On March 8, 2007, 198.97.67.56 again edited on this page, so there is a break in 198.97.67.56’s editing of this page that directly corresponds to the time that Psychohistorian was active. When the Psychohistorian account went inactive the anon account was revived. It is also notable that both 198.97.67.56 and Psychohistorian have shared edit histories on other non-immigration pages such as William Durbin and Accelerated Christian Education; the last edit by 198.97.67.56 to the Accelerated Christian Education, was only 10 days ago.

Here is one example of Psychohistorian using two separate anon accounts in an attempt to appear to be two separate individuals during a discussion. 66.213.90.2 can be traced to the Ohio Public Library Information Network, which includes Dayton, Ohio. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is located in Dayton, Ohio. 75.179.153.110 is an acknowledged account of Psychohistorian. In a nation of over 300 million people, the odds that 66.213.90.2 and 75.179.153.110 are separate, unassociated people is nearly a numerical impossibility. You have 2 people out of 300 million involved in the same discussion on the same talk page on the same day, and take the same POV, and they both live and work in the same community; its hard to imagine that they are not the same person.

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)

Brimba (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"In a nation of over 300 million people, the odds that 66.213.90.2 and 75.179.153.110 are separate, unassociated people is nearly a numerical impossibility."

No, it really really really isn't - Schrandit (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Some people don't seem to comprehend the following, I'll repeat it one more time in case that helps at all.

The discussion page is not for the discussion of editors. It is for discussion of the article. The appropriate way to handle suspicions of sock puppetry is as Schrandit did it - to take it to the appropriate official channel. This isn't it. Either address the issue appropriately (so that I can respond to it appropriately and stop this nonsense) or don't address it at all.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edits

• the edmonton and smith reference has been repeatedly removed by Grant23 and his various sock puppets. I've restored it one more time.
• the study by the Immigration Policy center was already referenced in the article. I had taken the time to find the original study and linked to it. The actual source is Public Policy Institute of California. Someone readded the IPC which made it redundant.
• Grant23 keeps removing the foxnews reference without providing a reason. It has been restored.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Um No, stop making things up, I have not deleted any references. Provide proof if you're going to make things up. You need to be banned for you dishonest and junvile tactics.Grant23 (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC) The only time I change this is when they do not stick to wikipedia's neurtality policy which is something that you need to learn. Great, you have strong opinions on this topic but this isn't the place for you to express them and stand in the way of people who are trying to make it fact based.

Well, just in the late 50 revisions you did delete the foxnews reference here, here, here and here and soccer mom 5 removed it here and MGM87 removed it here which is a bit suspect. - Schrandit (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the multiple removals of the edmonton and smith reference done at the same time.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

First of the sentence makes no sense can an editor please fix it and "illegal aliesn" is not appriate just as "undoucmented immigrant" is not appropiate. We have to use neurtral language (which is hard because you are hell bent on pushing an agenda). If any of your prior edits made sense or were neurtral in nature they could have stayed as they were but they weren't.

Oh yeah, if you think I am mgg or soccermom, look it up before you accuse me. Unlike you, I don't use mulitple acocunts to fake consensus, just because you have no scruples, doesn't mean we all don't. Grant23 (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. Using neutral language is hard because it is hard to define neutral language (why should we use what you consider to be neutral rather than what someone else considers to be neutral?). You keep accusing the annon of having an agenda to push, he probably does but to be fair you clearly have one as well. The beauty of wikipedia is that if the rules are followed an agenda won't damage an article. As long as we're going to keep that paragraph (I think we should get rid of the whole thing) you've got to stop deleting the foxnews reference. As per you being MGM and soccer mom, I did look it up

Well, they aren't me and I feel bad they were unfairly accused. I hate the term illegal aliens or undocumented immigrants, both are loaded and no self respecting person should use either. If we allow illegal alien, we have to allow undocumented immigrant and I don't want either. Almost every media outlet uses illegal immigrant, only the biased ones use illegal alien or undocumented immigrant. To balacne it out, you're going to force me to start using undocumented immigrant, which is not very appealing at this moment but I'll do what it takes to keep it a neutral and fact based article. Grant23 (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Illegal alien" is accurate and precise. "Undocumented immigrant" is not for any number of reasons but just to mention one - other people besides illegal aliens can be undocumented.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Undocumented worker" is at least factual, if not a complete description of the issue on either side. It also applies to employment, which is just one piece of the immiration puzzle. "Illegal alien" is pejorative and wrong on its face. There is nothing illegal about being a living human being, yet the adjective attaches to the noun. What is illegal is their arriving or remaining inside the country without status, an act, not their existence as a human or an alien. Wikidemo (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't how the word "illegal alien" evolved - and how people understand it consciously. It's from "illegal immigrant", replacing "immigrant" with "alien" because not all aliens to a country come to permanently settle. MantisEars (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

5.7% of U.S. -Born Adults have neither a passport or a birth certificate. Being born in the U.S., they are U.S. citizens. Yet, if these people have jobs, they are undocumented workers. "Factual" isn't sufficient. "Animal" would also describe illegal aliens factually. "Biological organism" would also describe these illegal aliens factually. Terms must be accurate -and- precise. That means that we need to use terms which define the group and limit as much as possible anyone who is not under the group we are really talking about.

As for there being nothing illegal about being human, you'd have a point if anyone was saying there is. But any honest discussion about this must include the fact that it isn't the fact that they are human that is being called "illegal", but the fact that they became aliens illegally.

"Illegal immigrant" has the same problem as "illegal alien", and that's why both terms, though commonly used, are disfavored in many circumstances. You cannot deny that people take umbrage at the wording. It brands the person as illegal, not the conduct. That's the difference between committing a crime and being a criminal, for instance. Undocumented worker is a term that is often used - we don't call them undocumented animals. Whether or not the word's evolution is benign it's a disputed term that many refuse to use or object to. Undocumented worker is used in many official contexts, and objecting to it on syntactic grounds, I think, is just being contrarian. Kind of like the shift from "colored person" to "African-American". Neither is really correct, but the change was made because people took justifiable offense. Wikidemo (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can deny it - because it's not true. "Illegal alien" no more marks "human" as illegal than does calling a drug dealer a criminal. As for it being disputed, there are lots and lots of terms that are disputed by someone. We don't cease to call Methodists 'Christian' because the Landover Baptists dispute that they are. -75.179.153.110 (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the point made above that "'we need to use terms which define the group and limit as much as possible anyone who is not under the group we are really talking about." The legal term alien is much broader than immigrant (also with the illegal prefix), as it includes non-immigrating foreign persons. Thus, the terms alien and illegal alien are of limited use on a page about illegal immigration. Terjen (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, those of us who are actually following the discussion in the talk page know that the term under question is not "alien", but "illegal alien". And "illegal alien" does, in fact, define the group and limit as much as possible anyone who is not under the group as we are really talking about."-75.179.153.110 (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We generally don't use pejorative terms for groups of people here, and "illegal alien" is considered pejorative by many. As a random example, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.here[11] The term "illegal immigration" is neutral because it describes the phenomenon without branding the people. That is also the subject the article as written addresses - it is not about employment specifically. We should keep in mind that workers lacking proper documentation, non-citizens who are working without a work visa, and immigrants who do not have legal status are three distinct but related issues. There are many side-issues as well, e.g. children who have no say in the matter who are here illegally, sex slaves, and people who made simple paperwork mistakes or were hoodwinked by fraudulent immigration law practices.Wikidemo (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

See this article, Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade. An encyclopedia in which we have reliable sources identifying nazis as nazis, but we can't call them that for fear of offending them, or where we have reliable sources which identify drug offenders but we can't call them that for fear of offending them, is not an encyclopedia. Its a mouthpiece for political correctness. In this case, we have reliable sources identifying these people as illegal aliens, so that's what we should call them. Most official sources define 'immigrant' in a way which precludes these people from being called 'immigrants'.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many derogatory terms we do not use here because they are offensive. It seems like you are making some point here beyond editing the encyclopedia. This is not the place to rail against political correctness or changes in the language. This article, at present, is about the phenomenon of people resettling in the United States without legal permission to do so. I see no reason to change the focus or the title, which is perfectly adequate to describe that. Now that we're at Godwin's Law I don't see any need to discuss further. Wikidemo (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"It seems like you are making some point here beyond editing the encyclopedia." I could very easily say the same of you. But focusing on editors rather than the article is counterproductive.

"This is not the place to rail against political correctness or changes in the language." This is absolutely the place to rail against political correctness becuase you insist on making it about political correctness. "I see no reason to change the focus or the title, which is perfectly adequate to describe that." I have not been arguing that the title should be changed. "Now that we're at Godwin's Law I don't see any need to discuss further." That's your choice, but you are misapplying Godwin's Law. Godwin's Law does not mean that a conversation cannot be productive after nazis have been mentioned. Sometimes mentioning nazis is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.153.110 (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not just go with the government's terminology? I'd be a fan of illegal alien because I believe it is the most accurate (a large number of illegal aliens are not here to stay, thus, they are not really immigrants) but I'll settle for illegal immigrant. - Schrandit (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No thoughts on that? None at all? - Schrandit (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there an official US government term? If so we can stick with that - even if objectionable to some it's official. It is a negative term but that may be inevitable because they are breaking the law for the most part. I think the difference between being an illegal immigrant and an illegal alien is slight - there are probably only a few people (spies, terrorists, coyotes, thieves) who mean to be here just for a moment rather than long term. Undocumented (or unpermitted) workers is a concept with lots of overlap but still quite different. Not all illegals are employed, some are documented (fake documents), and as was pointed out some people who are allowed to work don't have documentation (which is still illegal on the employer's part). I realize I'm using some of the terms that I complain are unfair, but it's hard to get away from them. There are believe it or not some people living near the Mexican border who cross routinely on forged papers or the like to work in the US illegally. And finally there are people here on a valid tourist visa or the like who are working without permits (thus, undocumented workers but not illegal aliens at all). So part of this is a question of what the focus of the article should be. Is it all visa violations? Or is it something more specific? For the title and focus of the article I think it's a very interesting and useful thing to focus on the phenomenon as a whole rather than or in addition to the group of people involved.Wikidemo (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to Edmunton and Smith (p 39), many of the people we are discussing are sojourners entering the U.S. only temporarily (a couple of years at best). (The source is in the article, you might want to double check that I remembered it correctly, search for 'sojourn').-75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that many are sojourners living in the US only temporarily, perhaps the more precise term is expatriot. Terjen (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Expatriot" would not be a better choice. The reason is that expatriot focuses on the country of origin. For example, an 'illegal expatriot' is someone who expatrioted from his country of origin illegally, not someone who entered a country illegally. -198.97.67.58 (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protection, sockpuppetry etc.

The article is protected until disputes about content have been resolved. I would suggest that one of the interested parties starts an article request for comment to gain outside opinions.

On the subject of multiple accounts, I am of the opinion that the following are obviously the same individual with a dynamic IP:

• 198.97.67.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 198.97.67.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 198.97.67.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 198.97.67.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Any other 198.97.67.xx IP I may have missed

And also that these are same individual, also with a dynamic IP:

• 75.179.159.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.74.209.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 24.210.218.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 75.179.153.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 75.179.157.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Any other 75.179.xx.xx IP I may have missed

I am unsure whether the first and second groups are linked.

There is nothing prohibited about editing anonymously even if you have a dynamic IP. Of course, for the purposes of the three revert rule, it is reverts by individuals that count, not specific IPs. If the user or users editing anonymously believes I am error here, it would be best if they could leave a note on my talk page, in the interests of centralizing discussion and keeping this article talk page focussed on discussing improvements to the article.

CIreland (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that 75.179.153.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is claiming to be 198.97.67.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) here: [12], which would link the two groups of IP's above--Ramsey2006 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That link appears, in fact, to be well established. See this archived WP:ANI discussion from 2006, in which it was made evident that several of the above IP addresses were being used by the same individual, together with strong evidence that this same person was also the owner of the Psychohistorian account (an account which appears to have been abandoned in early 2007).

Another issue that may be worth considering (I'd like to hear what others think of this) is whether the editor in question could be unduly biased by virtue of his/her employment by the Air Force (the 198.97.67.* IP address block is assigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio). I'm not yet fully convinced that the mere fact of being a uniformed member or civilian employee of the US armed forces automatically represents a conflict of interest vis-à-vis illegal immigration issues, but I do believe that it would be far more appropriate under these circumstances for this particular editor to sign up for an account (or use his/her existing account if he/she already has one), explicitly acknowledge any arguably relevant ties on his/her account's user page, and consider whether the COI guidelines on editors who may have a conflict of interest might possibly suggest certain changes in the way he/she works on this and related pages. Richwales (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As an addendum to what I wrote above: While I'll freely concede that I do have (and have previously expressed) concerns over the operating style of the anon IP editor being discussed here, I am not trying to "out" him/her, bully him/her into going away (as if I could!), or indulge in a personal attack by bringing up a suggestion of conflict of interest on an article talk page. I would have been happy to start out by mentioning the issue on his/her user page, except he/she doesn't have one (at least, not one that he/she currently appears to acknowledge). And I didn't want (yet) to take the more serious step of lodging a formal complaint on the COI noticeboard, because although I do see a potential here for COI that should at least be openly acknowledged and addressed, I'm not sure if others will agree. If the consensus here is that there really isn't a problem after all, I'll willingly drop the issue for now. Richwales (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you do not post a COI, then I will. This last post of yours following on the heels of your wikilawyering accusation is demonstrating a clear propensity towards making personal attacks on your part. I'm graciously giving you the opportunity to make the first move in elevating the issue, but rest assured it will be elevated.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have waited a week now for you to make your move and surrender to COI. Please go ahead, make my day. Terjen (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

{{editprotected}}

Proposed change:

An alien, according to the Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the State Department, is any person who is not either a citizen or a national of the United States, this includes legal as well as illegal immigrants..: Mke last word aliens to avoid confusion , and aliens is what the source uses.Die4Dixie (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of comments emboldens me. Done.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Any real reason why we shouldn't go with illegal alien? - Schrandit (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My one concern is that we aren't being consistent with the terminology. Elsewhere the article mentions "illegal immigrants". If we change the term -here-, does it run the risk of confusing people into thinking that reference to an illegal immigrant elsewhere in the article means something else?-75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

YEah, but the lead word is alien and alien is what the source uses. Using it at the end can't be more confusing than at the beginning, and probably a whole lot less so than the introduction of a new unsourced term.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change all mentions of illegal immigrants through out the article to the term illegal alien? - Schrandit (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that would fly.I'm a fundamentalist. My mother was a resident alien for 50 odd years. I remember her alien registration card well. The word was in our daily parlance and as the son of an alien, I'm not offended by its use.I certainly don't understand why we cannot call a spade a spade;however, a consensus on that would be impossible.I don't think I could agree in good faith. There is an article on that subject that might need some judicious editing.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as of yet we seem to be the only ones interested in discussing the matter. If our agreement does not constitute consensus how long ought we wait for one? - Schrandit (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If there are other editors who disagree, then they should be participating in the discussion, not just waiting for the green light to start edit warring.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Add the template request then for my proposed edit.Die4Dixie (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure we dot our "i"s and cross our "t"s, the proposal is to change all references of "illegal immigrant" to "illegal alien" throughout the article - right? -75.179.153.110 (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on changing all references of "illegal immigrant" to "illegal alien", as illegal alien" is an American legal term, not synonymous with "illegal immigrant". Terjen (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Immigrant is also a legal term and, while its not synonymous with alien, it is a subset of alien. The disputed section says this includes legal as well as illegal immigrants. It does not say "this exclusively includes legal as well as illegal immigrants" -198.97.67.58 (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's to change it in the one place in which I made the suggestion. You're going to have to settle for a lot less than you want here.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be an improvement to change the last word in "this includes legal as well as illegal immigrants" to "aliens", as it would better match the first part of the sentence, particularly as all aliens are not immigrants. Although I suggest we just delete "this includes legal as well as illegal immigrants". Terjen (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, for grammatical reasons, "any person who is not either a citizen or a national of the United States," should be changed to, "any person who is neither a citizen nor a national of the United States".

So, how about this, "An alien, according to the Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the State Department, is any person who is neither a citizen nor a national of the United States[4][5][6]. One may become an alien through legal or illegal means."-198.97.67.58 (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "legal or illegal" is all inclusive, and thus unnecessary. Terjen (talk)

If this were a computer program, I'd agree with you. It isn't and I don't. The article is meant to be read by human beings. As such, the wording I've offered clarifies that alien isn't a term exclusive to illegals.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify that alien isn't a term exclusive to illegals, perhaps we could say The United States Government distinguishes between legal and illegal aliens. It should be trivial to substantiate with a reference. Terjen (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's redundant. Of course the United States Government distinguishes between legal and illegal aliens - it's a matter of federal law. As a matter of federal law, it rests in the hands of the U.S. Government. It simply isn't conceivable that some force other than government decides law - its definitional.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For a reader not familiar with the topic, it isn't obvious that the United States Government distinguishes between legal and illegal aliens, or that there are different categories of aliens. Terjen (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How about, "Under U.S. Code Title 8, the United States Government distinguishes between legal and illegal aliens." That adds a little more meat to the bone so that the average reader isn't going to say "well, duh", but the reader who knows nothing will still learn that legal and 'illegal is a matter of federal law.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the phrase "illegal aliens" is the most accurate and best discriptive, its not perfect but its as good as we're going to get - lets use it. - Schrandit (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How would you use it? I mean, give example wording.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we make an article "Alien"? We do [13] and it is in desperate need of attention.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Happy‑melon 11:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of the change is. I'm convinced now that "illegal alien" is used widely enough and in enough official contexts that it's a reasonable term when identifying people (despite some objection and some linguistic problems). However, this article is about the phenomenon, not the people. A new title "illegal aliens in the US" is not unreasonable but I think it's a little less precise than "illegal immigration to [should be 'in'?] the US", which highlights the actual issue. So at best we're going to intersperse the word "alien" with "immigrant." It might take a careful rewording here and there, which is probably best done if and when this article ever gets out of page protection. I forget why this is page protected. Is it going to be okay if protection is lifted? Wikidemo (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely do not want the page protection lifted at this time. The reason is that, with the exception of Terjen, the people causing so many problems which led to page protection in the first place have not been participating in the discussion - leading me to believe that they will jump at the opportunity to disrupt the article once more. In case you forgot, there was rampant sock puppetry, deletion of sourced references (such as the repeated deletion of U.S. law and replacing it with statements by non-legal experts (ie. journalists) about the law), etc. I don't want to go back to that. This way, people have to discuss and agree on changes before those changes are made. This is a vast improvement. Further, we've been slowly learning how to do exactly that - work together to gain consensus on the changes before making them - and I'm very much liking the fact that we're finally starting to work together (though we haven't yet learned well enough how to work together to take the training wheels off the bicycle). -198.97.67.59 (talk)

Let's narrow this back down . What is the opinion on my proposed change to the text. What are alternatives to the specific text which I proposed. Also, someone jacked up the template, which I have fixed.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we've gone past this. The current version being suggested is, "An alien, according to the Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the State Department, is any person who is neither a citizen nor a national of the United States[4][5][6]. Under U.S. Code Title 8, the United States Government distinguishes between legal and illegal aliens." -198.97.67.59 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fine with that. Either version is okay. Wikidemo (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence needs to have a reference, preferably a secondary source. Terjen (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• ' Agree'. Let's make it happen.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that definition. I would like to keep the page title and merely describe people as "illegal aliens" when the need arises while continuing to forcus on the phenominon of illegal immigration. - Schrandit (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We should generally avoid describing people using the legal term alien, except in the legal section, where it has a specific meaning. Terjen (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

By the same token, we should generally avoid describing people using the legal term immigrant except in the legal section as well, as it also has a specific meaning. Perhaps migrant would be better. With one exception. If the referenced source uses either the term alien or immigrant, then we should stick to its usage.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In contrast to alien, the term immigrant has a common language meaning that makes it reasonable to generally use in our article. We should of course not assume the specific legal meaning of the term immigrant when using it outside of a legal context, just as we shouldn't assume the legal meaning of terms like person and foreigner outside a legal context. Terjen (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

True, even "person" can have a legal meaning. Immigrant can have a legal or a common usage, and I think the common usage is the one most people understand when they read the word. Migrant doesn't work because it includes movement within the United States - migration does not imply crossing borders. Since each of these terms is a little different in meaning, how about using the term that most closely describes (sourced, as necessary) the specific thing we're talking about in the sentence. For example, in some sentences we're highlighting that they're non-residents in which case we could say "non-resident" or "alien." In some cases we're highlighting that they're working improperly so we would say "undocumented workers" or people "working without a work visa" (whichever applies). In yet other cases we're highlighting that they're moving here to stay, in which case "immigrant." And so on. Instead of using interchangeably we use each term where it fits! If the words aren't fitting it might turn out that the thoughts being expressed are unclear and ought to be worded better or thought through. For example, if we say that "undocumented workers" are (apparently) committing some crimes - no, it doesn't matter whether they're working or not! Whereas when we talk about fining employers for hiring illegal aliens, that's not right because the actual statutes talk about documentation. If an illegal alien gives an employer a forged document and it checks out, the employer has done its duty so there's no violation, so there it's "undocumented workers." Just a thought. Wikidemo (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Before we invest too much effort on the issue of whether the common meaning of the term immigrant should be used, we should establish whether or not we can determine (by Wikipedia verifiability and reliable sources) what the common meaning of immigrant is. I've most often seen the term used to mean lawful permanent resident.

"migration does not imply crossing borders" Yes, it does, and there are many sources which use it in just that manner. I'd like to come back to this to get you those sources, remind me.

All of your terms ("undocumented worker", "non-resident", etc.) are in dispute and you seem to be making an arbitrary decison as to what to use - and, I have to add, it appears that you are constantly desiring politically correct terms. PC is NPOV. Instead of making such an arbitary decision, let me repeat my earlier suggestion that we use whatever term is in the referenced source.

" we're highlighting that they're moving here to stay, in which case "immigrant" Again, many people dispute whether "immigrant" means "permanent resident" or "lawful permanent resident" (in fact, both definitons are used by the U.S. government) - hence the problem with your suggestion.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment demonstrates the problem of assuming a legal meaning of terms outside a legal context. If we assume the legal definition of immigrant in the article ("lawful permanent resident") then illegal immigrant is an oxymoron. Terjen (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Word usage - that's English, which is not a matter for verification. Migration clearly doesn't mean crossing boarders, e.g. "westward migration". Not a precise term for people coming to America from elsewhere. Immigrant in common usage means someone who leaves where they were to come to a new country. Common usage may be without reference to legality, particularly without regard to legality at time of entry, e.g. early U.S. immigrants (there was no legal system at first even). The usage is the opposite of arbitrary - I'm saying use the term that fits the situation. And please don't pull the nonsense complaint about PC to dismiss terms you simply don't agree with. Wikidemo (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• This issue has been debated endlessly. (See the archives.) U.S. government usage is not binding on Wikipedia. Like any article, the name should be the most common usage that readers are likely to be looking for, per WP:NC. As for the usage within the article, we should stick with what the sources say. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether common use definitions can be assumed or need to be verified has been posted at the Wikipedia verification discussion page.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in the section legal terms and common use. Terjen (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The undisputed conclusion from Verifiability Talk was that we should be using common meanings of words in our articles (although, we can and in this case should discuss the legal definition as well.) Terjen (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a serious problem here? I'd go with illegal immigrant, if only because that does not have and semblance of jargon...I hope that everyone knows the definition of 'immigrant'! I don't know if it really matters, however; just PICK ONE! Hold a vote, if need be. the_ed17 02:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute in "birthright citizenship" article

There is an unresolved dispute going on in the "Birthright citizenship in the United States of America" talk page over whether it is appropriate for that article to use "anchor babies" (or perhaps "so-called 'anchor babies'"), instead of some other expression such as "U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants". A request for comments (RfC) has been posted, but no new outside participants have chimed in yet. Anyone who is willing to come over — whatever your position on this question might be — and help form a consensus would be welcome. Thanks. Richwales (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig31-2008jul31,0,5003860.story
Stuff is happening in the world of illegal immigration.
I think tensions have cooled and it looks like Grant23 is gone for good so I'd be a fan of unblocking the page nowish.
Thoughts? - Schrandit (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I expect that if we unblock, we will be back to the same situation with anonymous IP editors and newly registered accounts. The page would benefit from semi-protection instead of unblocking, limiting editing to established accounts. Terjen (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Find an admin willing. I'm tied up, or would look.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Done – article unprotected. Feel free to request re-protection. Won't preemptively semi for now until actual ip vandalism/socking presents itself again. Cheers. =) --slakr^\ talk / 07:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of name-calling and epithets in immigration related articles

This really has to stop. I just removed two instances from this article, one of which I had reciently removed the other day but which was just reinserted this afternoon. Let's act like adults and knock it off with all this name-calling and the epithets, OK? We are all adults and as such we are quite capable of getting our points across without such juvinile behavior in the main article space.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and assume you're referring to my use of the term "Anchor baby". Look, there is a phenomenon where a child born in the US anchors the rest of the family here - I wish there was another way to describe that but right now the term in use now anchor baby so in the interest of being factual I used that term rather than leaving the information out. - Schrandit (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is really quite simple to say in plain english without resorting to derogatory epithets: US born children of undocumented immigrants. In fact, that is the line (or something very close to it) that generally gets deleted whenever people want to insert the epithet into an article. And if editors want to say more (such as impuning the motives of the parents), then the editors should come right out and say it directly in plain english, and not rely on the connotations of a derogatory slur to do it for them surrupticiously. All that I ask is that we as editors behave as adults, and say what we mean up front in plain english. I don't think that this is too much to ask for here. Relying on the hidden negative connotations of slurs to convey the shades of meaning what we wish to communicate under the table is sloppy editing.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the term from most of its applications throughout the project. It's utterly gratuitous in most cases - not supported by the sources cited, and unnecessary to make the point. The term is pejorative and inaccurate - the babies themselves are not anchors, the parents do not have an easy path to migration, and even if it happened it asserts without any proof that all babies born of illegals serve this function when, in fact, only a very small number of such babies ever become a vehicle for their parents to immigrate. The only legitimate usage I can see for the term is reporting that someone said or used it, and that is rarely notable to the article. I also uncovered and nominated for deletion Birth tourism, which does not seem to even be a legitimate term, just a neologism that's thrown around once in a blue moon. - Wikidemo (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten into a bit of an edit war on this over at Immigration reduction - normally I try hard to avoid getting involved, and I'm not going to revert again anytime soon, but racially-tinged epithets are a sore spot for me. There's also been edit warring at Birthright citizenship in the United States of America. The RfC here has expired, with what looks like a consensus to limit use of the word to reporting it as a derogatory term used by some people, but no clear mandate. I'm wondering what's the next step dispute resolution here: another RfC that encompasses the entire project? Some other forum? Wikidemo (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Family reunification

The subsection in question reads as follows:

• According to demographer Jeffery Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center, the flow of Mexicans to the U. S. has produced a "network effect" - furthering immigration as Mexicans moved to join relatives already in the U.S.[14], often through Chain migration. According to Ramah McKay of the Migration Policy Institute, many analysts believe that the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. could be reduced significantly by alleviating the backlog by processing increased numbers of applicants each year and raising the cap on the first and second preference categories for family reunification,[15] making all of them citizens.

The first sentence is based upon the following paragraph from the cited source for that sentence:

• Finally, the steady flow of Mexicans to the United States has produced a momentum of its own — what Jeffrey Passel, a demographer at the Pew Hispanic Institute, calls a “network effect,” in which young Mexicans travel to the United States in growing numbers to join the growing number of family members already here.

Note that Chain migration is nowhere mentioned. I realize that the phrase comes after the reference, but tacking it onto the sentence makes it appear that Jeffery Passel is making a claim about chain migration (which seems from the corresponding wikipedia article to be an expression related to a means of legal immigration) as a major cause of illegal immigration. Such a counterintuitive statement should not be attributited to Passel without a source, even with the tag.

The second sentence is based upon the following paragraph in the cited source for that sentence:

• Many analysts believe that alleviating the backlog by processing increased numbers of applicants each year and raising the cap on the first and second preference categories would reduce significantly the number of illegal aliens in the United States.

Note that Ramah McKay makes no assertion about making "all of them" citizens (whoever the group of people that "all of them" might refer to, which is not at all clear to me). In fact, nowhere in McKay's article does he talk about making anybody a citizen. He explicitely talks about a program for relatives US citizens qualifying for admission and "lawful permenent residence" in the US. In this case I have moved the citation for that sentence so as not to include the phrase "making all of them citizens", and I have added a tag to that phrase. I am concerned, however, that the phrase in question, as currently written, still gives the impression that Ramah McKay is saying something that he not only doesn't say in the source, but which is diametrically opposed to what he says in the source.

In both cases, the phrases at the end of the two sentences seem to be attributing to a specific individual something which they are not saying, and posibilly even attributing to them views which are in contradiction to their stated views in the sources.

Rather than engage in what looks to be building into an edit war over the two phrases often through Chain migration and making all of them citizens, I thought it better to bring up the matters here on this talk page for resolution.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense - we should attempt to be as precise as possible, and only attribute to people what they actually said, not some other concept. If the other concept is supportable it needs its own citation or it can go in some other sentence. Wikidemo (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

More on whether illegal immigration is a crime or not

On today's dispute, my initial impression is that the "anonymous IP editor" has a point that deserves to be considered (and not just summarily reverted and re-reverted).

Of the two sources cited in support of the claim that "Illegal immigration to the United States is not a crime, but a civil infraction", one of them appears to be relying on a statement from Mike Stanton, executive news editor of the Seattle Times. Stanton, as best I can tell, is making this statement himself, without citing any source other than his own say-so. It seems like a no-brainer to me that a newspaper editor is not a reliable source of legal information — and what minimal amount of discussion has taken place so far about this on the WikiProject Law talk page seems to support this view — so I don't see any value at all in this first source.

The second source may be another matter. It quotes Rudy Giuliani as saying that illegal immigration is a civil matter, and not a federal crime, and that it neither is, can, nor should be handled in criminal proceedings. Giuliani said, "I was U.S. attorney in the Southern district of New York, so believe me, I know this." While I think the first source (from the Seattle Times news editor) is useless garbage, this second source is potentially useful (as a quote from a former federal prosecutor talking about what the law is). I'm still not totally comfortable with using this one source alone — given the controversial (or, at least, non-obvious) nature of Giuliani's claim — and I'd like to see a more intensive search for reliable sources discussing the issue one way or the other. Otherwise, I fear we're headed for an edit war, if we aren't in the middle of one already. Richwales (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In addition, the Giuliani quote is an advertisement designed to elicit favor among hispanics for his POTUS campaign. As such, it is equivalent to the quote from a guy who is a scientist Monday through Friday now speaking in church on Sunday morning about God creating the world in seven days.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Guilliani statement got widespread attention at the time it was made, yet most of the criticism concerned that he was politically incorrect rather than factually incorrect when stating that illegal immigration is not a crime. Let's consider what our article use to substantiate the opposite viewpoint that illegal immigration to the US is a crime: a wikipedia editor's own interpretation of the laws, original research using the US code as primary source.[16] That's got to go. Terjen (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear what the problem is, then. If the Guilliani statement got widespread attention, you should have no trouble finding a reliable source which supports his claim that illegal immigration is not a crime. If you did that, it'd solve the issue in a heart beat.-66.213.90.2 (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already provided reliable sources for Guilliani statement. But given that it got widespread media attention and he made the statement at a time of scrutiny, others should have no problems coming up with multiple reliable sources stating that he was factually wrong, if that's actually the case. Terjen (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone is clear on this, quoting a source is pretty much the opposite of original research. Title 8 is quoted in the article.-66.213.90.2 (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Title 8 a primary, secondary or terciary source?--Ramsey2006 (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources on legal matters, Paraphrasing rather than quoting the law based on a personal interpretation is original research, as when the article says that "the United States code identifies illegal immigration as both a criminal and civil offense"[17] with a section of the US code as source.[18] Terjen (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've really got to say I'm having a very hard time reading 8 USC 1325 without concluding that entering (or attempting to enter) the US improperly is a criminal offense subject to imprisonment (and/or fines). And 8 USC 1326 says that someone who unlawfully "enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States" (boldface mine) after being deported or denied admission to the US is also subject to imprisonment and/or fines. (Yes, I know that section doesn't appear to include people who enter the US illegally and then stay in the US without having previously been kicked out.) Now, I'm not going to propose that we should cite our own interpretations of the law as sources, but I do think it's reasonable to say that if we come across sources which seem to deny that illegally entering and/or remaining in the US is a criminal matter, we ought to be skeptical unless we can successfully reconcile such claims with the above sections of the law which strongly seem to say otherwise. Richwales (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Section 1325 is about improper entry to the US, which is not the same as illegal immigration. There can be improper entry without illegal immigration (e.g a non-national takes a quick trip across the border without authorization from the US government), and there can be illegal immigration without improper entry (like if somebody overstay their visa and settle in the country). Illegal immigration is about residing in the U.S. in violation of immigration law. Back in 2005/2006 Hr 4437 attempted to make unlawful presence in the US a felony, but failed. Congressman Tom Tancredo, a strong opponent of illegal immigration, wrote in USA Today at the time: "Right now, illegal presence in the USA is not a crime; it is a civil infraction. The House Judiciary Committee voted to make it a felony but then was counseled that millions of new felons could clog our courts."[19]Terjen (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As you point out, section 1325 says that illegal entry is a crime. Its not clear whether it covers visa overstays. However, visa overstays are a crime under section 1253. Both sections are in the article.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You claim that visa overstays are a crime under section 1253. Can you substantiate that overstaying a visa is a crime, with references to reliable secondary sources rather than just your own layman interpretation of the law? Terjen (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard regarding whether the way section 1253 is used in this article constitutes original research. So far, outside opinion is that we are basically quoting from the law and, so, there is no layman interpretation/original research being made here.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The layman interpretation and original research is when you claim that visa overstays are a crime under section 1253. Do you have reliable secondary sources to support this interpretation of the US code? Terjen (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed what was said earlier, I'll quote it for you. "So far, outside opinion is that we are basically quoting from the law and, so, there is no layman interpretation/original research being made here." -198.97.67.58 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The claim that visa overstays are a crime is not a quote from the law but original research. I challenge you to support it with reliable secondary sources. Terjen (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is that claim in the article? I can't find it. I think the current summary of section 1253 is a little flawed in that it doesn't make it clear that all of clauses (a)(1)(A) through (a)(1)(D) apply only to aliens "against whom a final order of removal is outstanding." A final order of removal is the result of a successful deportation process. So this section deals with people who have been through an immigration hearing after becoming a "deportable alien" and are willfully evading deportation. The current summary makes it look like (a)(1)(B) ("willfully fails or refuses to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to the alien's departure") applies to aliens who are not subject to a final order of removal. On section 1325, however, I think it's entirely reasonable and appropriate for the article to state that a majority of illegal immigrants (55% non-overstays according to the study mentioned in the article) are subject to criminal penalties. PubliusFL (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

PubliusFL, you wrote, "A final order of removal is the result of a successful deportation process. So this section deals with people who have been through an immigration hearing after becoming a "deportable alien" and are willfully evading deportation. " I don't think that's at all clear. What's your source for saying that a final order of removal occurs only as a result of a successful deportation process and that a successful deportation process requires an immigration hearing? (In other words, that it's not a crime until you get caught?)-198.97.67.58 (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

PubliusFL has not attempted to write his or her lay opinion into the article. This sort of difference of opinion between law persons when doing OR on primary sources is probably one of the reasons why wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources in the first place.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what a "final order of removal" means. Removal orders are issued by immigration judges after "removal proceedings," particularly under 8 USC 1229a. See that section of the U.S. Code, especially 1229a(a)(3). It seems pretty straightforward to me, but I can cite to federal court decisions if you need me to. PubliusFL (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There was an extensive discussion over the past three days on the WikiProject Law talk page , which after initial dispute, agreed that residing in the U.S. in violation of immigration law is not a crime, but a civil infraction. Multiple reliable secondary sources substantiated the claim. No reliable secondary sources contradicted it. Terjen (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That still begs the question, which is whether "residing in the U.S. in violation of immigration law" is a complete definition of the term "illegal immigration." In fact, it seems to me that the term "illegal immigration" is used more broadly than that. Please clarify your source for such a restrictive definition. "That's the way it's been in this article for a long time" is not enough -- there are plenty of articles that have gone completely unsourced for years. PubliusFL (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please keep talk page comments in correct order

It makes it alot easier to read the talk page that way.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that now that this article is listed with the Wiki Project Law, people who are unfamiliar with what has been going on here are likely to be trying to read the discussion. If having things out of order confuses us, just imagine how it makes things for somebody who has not participated in this discussion and has not watched the discussion unfold. As a courtisy to these new eyes it is doubly important that we keep our house in order.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

For an example of indentation style, see WP:Talk page.

Coding:

How's the soup? --[[John]]
:It's great!! --[[Jane]]
:Not too bad.. --[[George]]
::I made it myself! --[[John]]
I think the soup-discussion should be moved to [[Talk:Soup]].. --[[Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[George]]

What is shown:

How's the soup? --John It's great!! --Jane Not too bad.. --George I made it myself! --John I think the soup-discussion should be moved to Talk:Soup.. --Jane I tend to disagree. --George

--Ramsey2006 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of the first 3 lines: In the above, first John made a comment. Then (in chronological order) Jane replied to John and subsequently Goerge also replied to John.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Anchor baby article

Just a heads up for anybody interested in commenting. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchor baby.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre circular introductory sentence

Can we do something about the introductory sentence of this article? (I'm not a writer, and composing introductory sentences is well above my pay grade here.)

• Illegal immigration to the United States refers to the act of becoming an illegal immigrant. An illegal immigrant is someone residing in the U.S. in violation of immigration law.

Can anybody imagine wikipedia articles starting with any of the following?

• Murder refers to the act of becoming a murderer. A murderer is somebody who kills somebody in violation of the law.

• Robery refers to the act of becoming a robber. A robber is somebody who...

• Rape refers to the act of becoming a rapist. A rapist is somebody who ...

Just because there are labels that are used to refer to people who engage in various actions does not mean that the actions themselves are fundamentally defined as the act of becoming a particular kind of person.

Our introductory sentence is really an anomoly here at wikipedia. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The bizarre circularity is the result of recent changes originally redefining illegal immigration to be the act of becoming an illegal alien. An earlier version from July said Illegal immigration to the United States refers to the act of foreign nationals voluntarily resettling in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration and nationality law. Terjen (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The July version seems much preferable. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the bizarre circular version with the more straightforward longstanding consensus version from July. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The deliberate vandalism and misrepresentation of this article has got to stop

Terjen used the CRS Report as a source but deliberately left out the part (just after the part that he referenced) where it states, "Criminal violations of the INA, on the other hand, include felonies and misdemeanors and are prosecuted in federal district courts. These types of violations include the bringing in and harboring of certain undocumented aliens (INA §274), the illegal entry of aliens (INA §275), and the reentry of aliens previously excluded or deported (INA §276)". Section 275 of the INA which this quote references is exactly the part that was in the article earlier pointing out that illegal entry is a crime. These editors have engaged in a coordinated, deliberate effort to use dubious sources (such as the journalists), to cherry-pick and misrepresent law, and, all in all, to create an article on Illegal immigration which is anything but adhering to the three pillars of Wikipedia. Sadly, there are far more of these editors engaging in this action than there are editors trying to prevent it. Further, they engage in political games such as putting me through constant reviews and (since every third party admin who has reviewed my edits has found that I've been editing in good faith), finding some editor with admin rights who doesn't review requests for banning and getting me banned anyway. Frankly, I don't have the energy to put up with these machiavellian vandals.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that attempts to minimize any mention of criminal aspects of illegal immigration have made the article a little unbalanced. Do you have any specific suggestions? I know you're frustrated, but let's please try to avoid namecalling even if you believe the names are justified. PubliusFL (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made every effort to avoid name calling up until now. In return, I have been accused of wikilawyering, been subjected to multiple reviews, been banned, been repeatedly accused of sock puppetry (despite being repeatedly found by third party admins to not be engaging in sock puppetry), and on and on and on in a consistent and all too obvious pattern of harassment. I even recently made an effort to bury the hatchet only to discover that one editor who stated he was willing to also bury the hatchet was engaged in an ongoing off-article effort with another editor that resulted in getting me banned for vandalism without a proper review (again, despite the fact that every third party admin who has reviewed my edits has judged that I'm editing in good faith) .

To be honest, I note that you write "please try to avoid name-calling", but you've been silent regarding the ongoing harassment I've been subjected to. What am I supposed to make of that?

There comes a time when it is appropriate to call a spade a spade and there is certainly something rotten in the Illegal immigration in the US related articles on Wikipedia.

Frankly, I don't know what else to do. Like I said, I tried to bring in outside parties. Terjen refutted them by referencing a source which, apparently, nobody else bothered to read. If people aren't even going to read sources (either in the article or in discussion), then I have no idea how Wikipedia is going to be neutral and rest on verifiability. Apparently, most editors simply don't care about such things.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have avoided this debate because frankly, the question of whether illegal immigration is a crime versus a civil infraction or something else is not important enough for me to want to wade through the sources, much less walk into the middle of a content dispute. In fact, the whole issue seems tangential to the subject of the article, which is the phenomenon and not the law. Further, we generally cannot verify claims as to what the law is via citing primary legal sources - we have to find journalists, commentators, or at least a secondary legal source (a law journal article, a treatise, etc) that lay it out. However, as some advice about process, if you believe that other editors are not operating in good faith your best bet is to bring it up at the appropriate administrator's forum, seek your relief there, and if none is forthcoming to live with it. Making accusations against other editors here on this page cannot (particularly exaggerated ones like calling edits "vandalism" that clearly are not) cannot help anything, and is likely to lead to further dispute. Wikidemo (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you, 198.97.67.59, the editor that originally brought up the issue on the WikiProject Law talk page, posting as 66.213.90.2? The facts about what reliable sources says about the law were extensively debated on that page. You also posted there as 198.97.67.59, so you must certainly be aware of the discussion. Terjen (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you (the "anonymous editor") interpreted my exchange with Milomedes as an "ongoing off-article effort" to get you banned. I was, in fact, simply trying to get some guidance from this other editor on how to deal with what (to me) has been a very distressing situation. Anyone else who may be interested is, of course, welcome to read the conversation on Milo's talk page and draw their own conclusions.

My offer to bury the hatchet and put disputes behind us was and is sincere and still stands — even though my impression is that you rejected my offer because you felt my interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS and other issues was off base. I'm sorry, BTW, that you're so put off by the way the editing of this page has been going, and for what it may or may not be worth, I don't necessarily agree myself with how it's been going, but I do have faith that the snags will eventually get ironed out.

You said you had been banned, but I'm confused because I couldn't find any mention of you in the list of banned users or the IP block list. Milo didn't ban you (he's not an admin, so I don't think he can); the way I understood what he said on his talk page was that he felt you were probably going to end up being banned, based on his opinion of your behaviour. I don't intend to ask to get you banned (either directly or by lobbying others), but I understandably am not in a position to speak for others who might feel differently. Richwales (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was banned due to the actions of another editor who is using the IPs I'm using - actions which could easily be called vandalism. I assumed that actions I was engaging in were unfairly judged to be vandalism and that I was consequently banned for that. So, it's time for me to apologize for having jumped the gun. I'm sorry I got stressed out and reacted like that. Editing these articles is stressful - particularly since some editors have no intention of adhering to policies they don't like, other editors flat out fabricate sources and misrepresent them, and other editors have engaged in a history of harassment against me (such as repeatedly forcing me to go through reviews by admins). Some of you also see the problems in these articles. It'd be fantastic if we could just all set aside our personal politics, make a commitment to adhering to Wikipedia policies (whether we like them or not), and stop making it personal (that is, end the harassment of other editors). Can we all do that?-198.97.67.58 (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you were the unintended victim of collateral damage. I realize you may not be inclined to hear this again, but this is a strong reason (on top of many, many others) why you really should use an account — if you had been using an account, you would have been able to continue editing even if the IP address you happened to be using had been blocked due to someone else's abusive actions. While using an account is (as you know) not by any means mandatory when editing Wikipedia, it's definitely the accepted and encouraged norm for people who are sticking around for the long term, doing lots of editing and discussing, and not just filling the role of a casual visitor or occasional contributor. And using an account does not have to mean that you agree with other editors' judgments or that you endorse everything they do.

As for the other concerns you expressed, I actually do think (believe it or not?) that just about everyone else working on this and related articles agrees with you. We do need to examine sources fairly and dispassionately. We do need to read other people's sources in order to double-check that they really did understand what the material said and what it meant. And if we believe there are problems with someone else's sources, content, or style, we need to bring this up in a calm, matter-of-fact fashion — always trying to be polite (even if we might think the other person isn't being so polite), always trying as hard as possible to assume other people are acting in good faith and treat them accordingly (even if we might have our private doubts), and always remembering that it can sometimes be hard to assess the emotions behind written material (you've surely heard people say that many times about e-mail — it applies just as much to Wikipedia talk pages).

And as far as policies are concerned — yes, we need to adhere to the policies, but we also need to remember that none of us (not I, not you, not anyone else here) has an absolute, exclusive, definitively enlightened understanding of exactly what all the policies mean and precisely how they are to be applied in each and every individual situation. Honest people, all acting in good faith, can honestly disagree as to what a given policy means — even to the point of saying that such-and-so can't possibly really be what the policy means — and that doesn't mean the other person doesn't care about the policies or about the ultimate goal of the project. And even if one of us truly does believe that others are flagrantly disregarding policies, pulling sources out of thin air, being blatantly uncivil, etc., etc., please realize that saying so in a discussion is not likely to be nearly as effective a technique for achieving a true consensus as sincere hashing out of the text and sources would be. Please remember, there are people here who, while honest and sincere, do not take criticism well and are likely to interpret even the most modest and diplomatically phrased suggestion of possibly suboptimal behaviour as a blatant, wholly unjustified personal attack — and once the other person thinks you're out for blood, they're probably going to shut down and not want to listen to anything more you say (even regarding the material we were all supposed to be discussing). Richwales (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not play polyanna, though. The fact is that there are editors working on this article who have repeatedly misrepresented sources, deleted sources which say things they don't like, and in other ways shown a practiced disregard for Wikipedia policies. There are editors here who have engaged in deliberate harassment of others (such as having an admin check me for editing in good faith, being told that I was editing in good faith, and then fishing for another admin to start all over). Until we fix these problems, any happy-happy-joy-joy talk about just rolling with it is disingenuous at best. The appropriate response to a collaborative, deliberate attempt to misuse Wikipedia is -not- to stick our heads in the sand. And, honestly, I don't know why you raise the issue of different people having different opinions on policy. The bigger problem of people just plain ignoring policy they don't like (you are, at least, open about your advocating that we should just ignore policy you don't like, others haven't been so open) is a far bigger problem in my opinion.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Too much wikidrama. An editor using the IP of a banned user - any IP editor in fact - should not be making vociferous claims of harassment, bad faith, disingenuousness, meatpuppeting, or vandalism. This petty bickering is drowning out attempts at meaningful work on the article. We should close this discussion because it is not going to get anywhere - the accusations of "vandalism", article ownership by a cabal, etc., are not actionable here. The proper place would be an administrator's notice board but I don't think any action would be forthcoming there either. To repeat what another said, if you want to avoid people's reasonable suspicion then please don't stir up disputes, and/or create an account. Wikidemo (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Uchitelle" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/weekinreview/18uchitelle.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss|title=Nafta Should Have Stopped Illegal Immigration, Right?|publication=New York Times|author=Louis Uchitelle|date=2007-02-18}}
  • Louis Uchitelle “Nafta Should Have Stopped Illegal Immigration, Right?” New York Times, February 18, 2007

DumZiBoT (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The citations to our most referenced article have been upgraded as suggested, Mr. 'Bot. Terjen (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Avoid technical terms from immigration law

Some terms get heavily disputed as to their meaning in these articles, how about we use something like the following?

Articles about Illegal immigration in the United States:
The United States government uses the term alien to refer to any foreign national who is not a United States citizen. Several pro-illegal immigration advocates argue that people are unable to distinguish whether those who violate U.S. immigration law are human beings or space aliens. To avoid such confusion, these sources advise that the word alien be avoided.

-198.97.67.56 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary. Our article already alerts that Immigration law has a number of highly technical terms that may not mean the same thing to the average reader, straight from the introduction of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services own glossary. Terjen (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The solution is already available to us: Limit the use of technical terms from immigration law in our articles. This was also discussed in an earlier section. As the legal term alien can be confusing, we should generally avoid using it outside the legal sections, where it is defined and has a specific meaning. Terjen (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My edit got reverted wholescale

In order to adoid an edit war - whats up with that? - Schrandit (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Better not to edit war. You made fourteen changes in a single edit. I thought the bulk if not all of it was improperly POV. Some parts were non-starters, like opining about chain migration and anchor babies. If you want to propose some of these changes, why not do it here on the talk page per WP:BRD in manageable pieces so we can discuss? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Good call, I'd like to start with what I view as a least controversial bits and then work toward the parts I can see being contentious -

1 - Reverting the title of the section "Government sanction" back to "Participation of authorities" and readding the "Matrícula Consular identification cards" subsection

I believe that the term "Participation of authorities" is more accurate than "Government sanction". Sanction is a passive term, it only implies that agrees with an action. In the cases listed the Mexican government took action to make illegal immigration easier.

Agreed - though I'll probably rephrase the loaded term "collaborating", just below. Wikidemo (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding (1), I suggest using the heading "Government facilitation" instead of "Participation of authorities". The latter is vague as to what authorities we refer to. Terjen (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

All the actions listed were perpetraited by the Mexican government, so how about "Participation of the Mexican government"? - Schrandit (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think facilitation is a more accurate word for what is described in the section. Although the content itself is overdue for review. It is a subsection of Causes for illegal immigration, but can we substantiate that these acts have any substantial impacts on increasing illegal immigration? Terjen (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Facilitation by foreign governments? I don't particularly care if it stays under the causes section - Schrandit (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Matrícula Consular identification cards" subsection was sourced and a big deal when it came out. I don't understand why it was taken down to begin with.

I don't know the history. The material is encyclopedic and sourced, but as written it does not show (or even assert) that this step encourages illegal immigration. That takes a leap of logic that's not so obvious. I seriously doubt one could find serious support for the proposition that the consular cards are a major cause of illegal immigration. Nevertheless, probably more than the comic books. I think the material is okay if merged (meaning, a bullet point rather than a heading) into the "participation by authorities" section because that's what it is.Wikidemo (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Matrícula Consular identification cards" seemed out of place in the past. Maybe it can be worked into the subsection. Terjen (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with it as another paragraph under the Government sanction/Participation of authorities/Government facilitation/Participation of the Mexican government section

The source (which, by the way, reads like an opinion piece, not a standard news article) also mentions El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, Poland, and Argentina. I don't think that something so general and widespread can be confined to a subsection about Mexico. Furthermore, according to the source, this form of identification is also available to legal immigrants, and does not readily distinguish the immigration status of the ID holder. For this reaon, the information, not being specific to undocumented immigrants, is probably more appropriately placed in the Immigration to the United States article, instead of this one. This article specifically focusses on undocumented immiggration to the US.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I second moving this content to the [Immigration to the United States]] article, rather than reinserting it here. There is a separate entry for Matrícula Consular so it is not like we're removing important content from the project. Terjen (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A - 8 out of 192 nations still makes this an oddity and there are plenty of other sources to choose from if you don't like that one

B - I didn't know about the individual page, can I get a lead-in from this page to that one? - Schrandit (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

2 - Removing the fact tag from the Mass deportation section

Currently there is a fact tag for the sentence "When the United States last deported a sizable number of illegal immigrants many more opted to return to Mexico." While that sentence is unsourced it wikilinks to Operation Wetback which does contain sources to back that statement up. I think that good enough and the fact tag is uneeded.

I hadn't considered this one in detail but given what you say, why not cut-and-paste a reference from that other article here? That would answer any citation concern.Wikidemo (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do - Schrandit (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added some more info on previous mass deportations and a couple of references for the Mexican Repatriation and for Operation Wetback.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

3 - Readding the Original Research tag in the Local enforcement section

The sentence "However, federal judges have ruled that control of illegal immigration is the exclusive domain of the federal government and have prohibited local communities and states from attempting to enforce ordinances intended to control illegal immigration" is currently sourced from [20] but if you check that source that information is not listed there. As such, I'd like to re-tag it as OR.

I probably wrote that summary and it's nothing I made up. I can probably find a source for this, but federal preemption is a pretty important and fundamental part of US immigration law.Wikidemo (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thats cool, but to be fair I should tag it as unsourced for now. - Schrandit (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

4 - Readding the bit about illegals in Indian Reservations

That was removed because it was unsourced, I found a source for it (from the GAO no less) and re-added it. That should be enough for inclusion.

It's fine to say that illegal immigration (and more specifically illegal immigrants crossing through - probably not settling there) is a strain on Indian reservations, as it is on border communities. There's an even more interesting issue, that at least one reservation spans the border and has basically been cut in half on this issue. The Indians themselves had no interest in using their border crossing to migrate anywhere themselves and they had crossing rights anyway. But drug and human smugglers used the lax security there to get things through, which had all kinds of harsh effects on the reservation and ultimately led the feds to impose stricter security, which only made the situation harder for the tribe. The only problem I have with this material is the words "flood" and "overwhelmed", which are too informal and opinion-ish in tone. A more neutral wording would be something like: "Illegal aliens passing through Indian reservations along the US/Mexico border leave debris and waste, and commit crimes on tribal lands. [115] [note - if you can source it, they also cause local corruption] Tribes have asked the US Government for assistance because they lack the resources to stop the illegal immigrants themselves." - something like that. Wikidemo (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll re-add it with an eye toward using less controversial words. Feel free to change it around if you're not happy. - Schrandit (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

5 - Readding a sentence in the Social Security section

The sentence "However, the cost of supporting the amount of illegal immigrants currently in the country is much higher and overshadows the amount they pay into Social Security." was taken down because it was unsourced, I found a source for it (the CBO) and re-added it. Again, that should be enough for inclusion.

It should read "is much higher than" - overshadows is an opinion, even if that opinion is offered in the CBO. Also, the material is being used as a counterargument to the claim about social security and it is superfluous there. A similar CBO finding appears a few sentences lower, in the next section: "The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants." It would be best to simply add "federal" to the list or make a new bullet point for it (also, the phrase "unauthorized immigrants" is kind of nonstandard) Wikidemo (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The economic impact of illegal immigrants are disputed by scholars, so we need to be careful to avoid one sided assertions on this issue. Terjen (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As to the phrase "unauthorized immigrants" being nonstandard, note that it is used by the cited source: "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments".[21] Despite much debate (see archives), editors have not standardized the immigration related terminology, but rather decided to use various terms as we see fit. Terjen (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The overall economic impact of illegal immigrants is disputed, however, their impact on taxes is not. Illegal immigrants do cost more in tax money than they put in. This may not be the best place to include that citation but this is rock solid fact highly deserving inclusion and I couldn't see a better spot. -Schrandit (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is in fact disputed that illegal immigrants cost more in tax money than they put in, see e.g. The Taxation of Undocumented Immigrants. Nor is it a rock solid fact, even the cited source point out the limitations of its methods. Terjen (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to change "much higher" to higher and preference it with the phrase "many sources, including the U.S. Government" but I really want this in the article somewher. I've got the highly respected CBO on my side. I can dig for more resources if you want. = Schrandit (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your suggested addition said However, the cost of supporting the amount of illegal immigrants currently in the country is much higher and overshadows the amount they pay into Social Security, cited to CGO. But this seems far from what is said in the CGO paper, which explains that Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box1), that impact is most likely modest. Already in the first paragraph, the CBO paper alerts about their sources that those estimates have significant limitations; they are not a suitable basis for developing an aggregate national effect across all states. Terjen (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

At the same time this is the only significant estimation I can find and has the blessing of the U.S. Government. For the record I'm currently proposing; However, many sources, including the U.S. Government estimate the costs of supporting the amount of illegal immigrants currently in the country is higher than the amount they pay in taxes - Schrandit (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not supported by the cited report. We are supposed to summarize from reliable sources, not slap authoritative references to our own viewpoints. Terjen (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

6 - Readding material in the Crimes committed by illegal immigrants

That was all sourced and I don't know why it was taken down to begin with. - Schrandit (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No POV objection but I think it may be unnecessary - it's all subsumed in the reliably sourced statement immediately preceding: "Incarceration rates do not necessarily reflect differences in current crime rates." If you do want to add it back could you please include a connector, something like "..for several reasons:"Wikidemo (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Too many insignificant details. We are supposed to summarize the source.

I'll add in a connector and slim the size down but I do feel stongly that this information ought to be included. - Schrandit (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) so you're right, no real disputes there in these issues, just some minor points. Let's finish up on these then get to the others. My assignment here is to find a source for the preemption doctrine by which the federal judges have overruled local immigration enforcement laws. Wikidemo (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And now for some more controversial bits:

1 - Re-inclusion of the quote "That works out to a city the size of Baton Rouge, La., living in the park without a sewage system, without garbage collection, without a grid of dedicated roads or sidewalks. They move where they want in four-wheel-drive cars, ATVs, motorcycles, bicycles and their own feet.". I think the quote gives an important sense of scale and at 1 sentence (thought a long sentence) I don't think it runs for too long.

2 - As per http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig31-2008jul31,0,5003860.story adjustment of the 12 million figure to 11 million.- Schrandit (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to use the quote in (1). The language is not encyclopedic and would need to be paraphrased, for starters. The estimate illegal immigrant population in (2) is just one new datapoint and is disputed according to the article. I suggest confining it to the Illegal immigrant population of the United States entry, at least for now. Terjen (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Extensive quoting

The numerous extensive quotes in the article should generally be paraphrased and integrated into the text (or removed). Some also appears to have been copied and pasted from a source, possibly in violation of a copyright. Terjen (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

typo (?) in right-most column heading of table

In the section "Profile and demographics",
(in the sub-section "Present-day countries of origin"),
there are 3 tables, and the right-most column heading seems wrong on one of them. The middle table (the second one in this sub-section), has a lead-in saying << "For 2005" >>, and the last table (the third one in this sub-section), has a lead-in saying << "For 2006:" >>. OK, so far that sounds fine. But then, the right-most column heading in both of those tables, is "Percent Change 2000 to 2005"!
Shouldn't the last one be "Percent Change 2000 to 2006"?
I was going to be bold and change this, but I have not read the whole article, and I have not spent any time at all on this, so I would just like to check first, to see whether it is me, or whether this is indeed a glaring typo. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Checking the cited source revealed that it was indeed a typo. I have fixed it. Terjen (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

There is a revert war afoot between two editors regarding the wording of the lead. One or both seems to have violated WP:3RR on this - I strongly suggest both cool it for now. I'm not going to file a report, but others might, and I suggest that to avoid a block and/or the article being protected from editing that they discuss the issue here and indicate that they do not plan to make further reversions. I can't tell which is the original / stable / consensus version, and which is the change, or frankly, what the difference is and why it matters. So, for anyone reading this, what is the reason for this change (or the reverse)?[22] What is the best wording for the paragraph?

The dispute appears to be over the added content, "

• A source says "civil violation". Terjen keeps changing it to "civil infraction" and it's not at all clear if "civil violation" is the same thing as "civil infraction" - it's safer to stick to the original wording of the source.
• "this civil offense should not be construed to diminish or qualify any other penalties to which an illegal alien may be subject" was added with a reference to the Immigration and Naturalization Act section 274D where residing in the US is identified as a civil offense, it also adds, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to diminish or qualify any penalties to which an alien may be subject for activities proscribed by section 243(a) or any other section of this Act". Terjen appears to believe that the way I summarized that statement constitutes original research. I have posted a question in the Wiki Law project to get outsider opinions on whether I properly summarized it or not.
• Terjen continues to put the statement that residing in the US is a civil offense at the top of the paragraph. Considering that most illegal immigrants are sojourners, not residents, this edit makes no sense and I've put the paragraph's subject sentence, "Various unlawful immigration-related acts, depending on the circumstances, may be criminal and/or civil offenses", at the beginning.
• Terjen edited the word "crime" to "misdemeaner", but provided no source for doing so. I reverted it.-66.194.62.5 (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The dispute over legalese in the entry goes back to the spring, when the same "anonymous" editor (using various IP addresses) repeatedly insisted on adding personal interpretations of the immigration law to the lead. See for example the revision from April 9. The language created the misimpression that illegal immigration is a crime.

Inserting personal interpretation of the US code saying "this civil offense should not be construed to diminish or qualify any other penalties to which an illegal alien may be subject" after the fact that "Residing in the United States in violation of immigration law is not a crime but a civil infraction" is a synthesis that may mislead our readers. Wikipedia editors should refrain from interpreting, quoting or referencing the immigration law, as the INA has highly technical language that may not mean the same thing to the average lay reader as to a lawyer.

The Profile and demographics section of the entry quotes a reliable source saying "A high proportion of illegal immigrants are sojourners: they come to the United States for several years but eventually return to their home country." Hence, these sojourners do reside in the country. Residency is a distinguishing characteristics of the key concept of the entry, unlike the listed "unlawful immigration-related acts" such as identity document forgery. The latter have less relevancy and should have less prominence or perhaps even be removed from the lead. The lead should not insinuate that illegal immigration is a crime, like we again are drifting towards with the recent edits.

Terjen (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The term 'illegal' should be a tip-off ;) Illegal immigration is a Federal crime; a misdemeanor. You needn't interpret the code -- just read US Code Title 8 Section 1325.^Law _shoot! 02:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This issue is discussed extensively in earlier parts of this page. Section 1325 is about illegal entry, which is not the same as illegal immigration. These are separate concepts: Somebody can enter illegally yet not be an illegal immigrant, as well as be an illegal immigrant without having entered the country illegally. Labeling something illegal does not make it a crime. We have secondary sources supporting this, for example, a prominent former U.S. attorney widely reported on national news last year stating that illegal immigration is not a crime.[23] Hence we cannot rely on our own interpretation of the law to claim, suggest or insinuate that illegal immigration is a crime. Terjen (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is about immigration, not entry. A "civil infraction" and "civil violation" are the same thing - no need to cite sources to take notice of common meanings of terms. I don't know what a "sojourner" is, but logically, if someone means to make the US their home for a while they're a resident, and hence fall under the scope of this article. It's a very interesting and relevant point that many do not intend to stay in the US forever. There may be a fine legal point about residency and intent, but this article is not about fine legal points like that. If someone lives in the US for 2-3 years, with a vague intent to return some day, then they logically fit here. Wikidemon (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

American Patrol, Michael Savage, Mark Levine (conservative), Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs, others of this ilk

Where can this be placed? It depicts what these are stating about "undocumented personnel"(Glenn Spencer calls them criminals, invaders). Powerzilla (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

-source 65-- Anecdotal evidence isn't valid. It is against Wikipedia policy to include this, let alone have an entire paragraph with no source except "anecdotal evidence". This needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.247.6 (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)