Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Bad Sources

Sources 66 and 67 do not say what they are being used as support for.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.145.136.218 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Terminology should be removed

For one thing, there is a consensus that the article is far too long. For another, this section is about the people, not illegal immigration itself. Finally, this section is a mess. It is unbalanced (to balance it would make it even longer when the article should be shorter).-65.189.247.6 (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

bad sources

Source 39 isn't a source since there's no way possible to verify it says what is claimed.65.189.247.6 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the claim that "The Pew Hispanic Center describes that the recent dramatic increase in the population of illegal immigrants has sparked more illegal immigrants to cross borders. Once the extended families of illegal immigrants cross national borders, they create a “network effect” by building large communities."? - Schrandit (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, once the terminology section was removed, the source numbers were all changed. I mean, "Accordingto the World Bank, Mexico is classified as a middle-income country."[28] -65.189.247.6 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

1 says that Mexico is a middle income country. This page on the World Bank's website puts Mexico in 3 different categories. I'm not really sure what that means for the veracity of the statement in question. - Schrandit (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

bad. Source

Source 41 doesn't say what it is claimed to say (that inefficiences in the CIS cause illegal immigration)-65.189.247.6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

True, the statement itself is probably true to an extent and verifiable, might want to tag it and allow some time for a different source to be found. - Schrandit (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

another bad source

Source 108 does not say what is claimed. It actually says the opposite! -65.189.247.6 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

108 is a dead link for me, can you link me to another source with that information? - Schrandit (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I confused 108 with 109 earlier. The thing is, as you pointed out, 108 is a dead link, but 109 says the opposite of what is claimed for 108. 109 is verifiable. 109 is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.247.6 (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

108 Both sources are working for me now and back up what they claim, did some things get moved around? - Schrandit (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

More bad sources

I can't find the first two claims for source 110 in the source article -65.189.247.6 (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, after reading the source I couldn't find anything to back up the claim that "A paper in the peer reviewed Tax Lawyer journal from the American Bar Association asserts that undocumented immigrants contribute more in taxes than they cost in social services." One of us should tag it as having failed verification and give folks some time to look for a different source.

More bad sources 2

Source 43 looks like a blog running out of somebody's basement. Is that a reliable source for Wikipedia?-65.189.247.6 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it is published by the Giannini Foundation at the University of California. I have no idea who the guy is, he doesn't give any information about himself and the fact that he messed up leaving his e-mail address at the top of the page doesn't help anything. At the same time I assume that the UofC doesn't put things on their website willynilly and he does seemed to have cited legitimate references. I'd be inclined to let it stay unless you see something suspicious in the work itself. - Schrandit (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

another bad source

source 122 is an op-edit. Op-eds aren't allowable as sources.-65.189.247.6 (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

1 It looks like Salant is a legitimate source and did make such statements we just need to find a better resource. Tag is as needing a better/more sources and give it a month or two. - Schrandit (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

note to Schradit

I posted these bad sources posts over a period of time. When I identified a bad source and didn't get a response on it for awhile, I'd delete it from the article. When I deleted it from the article, other source numbers would get out of sync. So you need to see what a source number was at a specific date. It may well not be the same as at a later date.-65.189.247.6 (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For just that reason, when identifying bad sources in the future it would probably be better to identify the statement in question or the URL/book reference itself like you did in the posts below, rather than giving the number. - Schrandit (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

sources

I'm cleaning up some of the source discussion here - to take into account that certain sources are not numbered in the current document as they were in the original document when they were first identified as bad sources. I typically use an IPhone and check the sources as I have a spare moment. Doing the kind of updating that I'm doing now isn't practical for most cases due to the technical limitations of an IPhone. So I won't be doing this often. I consider this an act of good faith. Okay, the statement "Seperate research by both George Borjas..had a small effect.." The ssource identified as "www.ailf.org" is a dead link. Further, the statement directly contradicts the statement that comes right after it and which is sourced and verifiable. The statement "The IRS estimates...illegal immigrants file.." is sourced with the Congressional Budget Office. I have been unable to find support for this statement in that source. The statement "Cities with large immigrant populations showed.." is sourced with an op-edit. I don't know if op-eds are legit sources. The Harry Binswanger quote - is Capitalism Magazine a legit source? It looks like a blog running out of someone's basement.-65.189.247.6 (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Per the George Borjas statement. There are a few places that reference it, the first to come up on a google search was this one. I'll replace the old link with this new one for now. Regarding whether or not the statement is legitimate - which statement directly contradicts it?
• Per the IRS claim. I briefly looked over that source and I too could not find that information. The tag you put there seems good. The way our tax system is set up some illegal immigrants undoubtedly pay taxes but I have no idea what the number would be and that claim should be viewed with suspicion.
• Per the claim about cities. One can kindof find something to that effect on the Public Policy Institution of California's website here but it concedes that it is very hard to measure for such a statistic. I would be in favor of including the statement with some sort of a preceding warning like "some data suggests that cities with larger immigrant populations may have lower crime rates"
• Per Capitalism Magazine. They do appear to be a legitimate publication. When is doubt it is always good to check Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That being said I don't know if Mr. Binswanger's opinion meets Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue weight - Schrandit (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Borjas quote, the article states, "research by ..George Borjas..has shown that illegal immigration had a small effect on reduciing the economic status". The new source you provided says that new evidence indicates that the effect isn't small at all. The next statement in the article states, "Research by George Borjas.." and pooints to a source which uses words like "precipitous" and "strong correlation". The issue I have is with the word "small" which is contradicted by the sources used.-65.189.247.6 (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats a damn good point, you should change that wording to be more in-line with the new source. - Schrandit (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

more bad sources 3

• The statement, "a study by the public policy institute..we cannot focus on the undocumented population explicitly" is using a source which makes clear that it's data is coming from things like incarceration rates-things which clearly do not reflect the illegal immigrant population. Illegal immigrants get deported, not incarcerated. The PPI's article isn't applicable to illegal immigrants.
• The statement, "numerous evidence and reports detailing cruel.." should be changed to "Amnesty International reported credible evidence of.." This is more in line with the source article.
• The section under "death" is highly redundant with the first paragraph under "Harm to Illegal immigrants". These two sections should be consolidated.-65.189.247.6 (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• To be fair, if you do something especially nasty the United States government will imprison you for a period of time before deporting you but I do agree that that item does not belong in this article.
• I agree that the term numerous should not be used if there is just one source, I would also be reluctant to describe AI as "Renowned", they are not without controversy.
• If you will re-incorporate all the information from the section currently labeled "death" into the section currently labeled as "harm to illegal immigrants" I think that would be fine. The important this is that all the sourced information stays in the article. - Schrandit (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

More bad sources 4

The statement, "The Lesbian and Gay Rights Task Force.." has a source which does not claim that, "the marriage rates of binational same sex couples may increase the prospect of becomming undocumented rather than decreasing it" The statement, "About 31,000 people who are not American citizens" says "including children", but the source does not make that claim. The statement, "The United States government held more than 300,000 people" is not supported by it's source.-65.189.247.6 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Source needed here for US citizenship of US-born children of illegals??

The "Mass Deportation" section says that the US-born children of illegal immigrants are citizens according to US law (with a link to Birthright citizenship in the United States of America). An IP editor put a {{fact}} tag on this statement, saying in his/her edit summary that "According to Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for a Wikipedia claim." I question the appropriateness of this {{fact}} tag and would like to know what others think. Taken to an extreme, it seems to me that such an interpretation of WP policy could require all the sources cited in the "birthright citizenship" article — and possibly a significant amount of text from that article — to be duplicated here. Richwales (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The citation given at the end of this sentence already supports this parenthetical comment contained in the sentence (it says "illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born children, who were by law U.S. citizens"). As such the fact tag is inappropriate. To avoid any confusion or dispute I have removed the fact tag and replaced with a duplicate reference to the first of the citations at the end of the sentence.[1] - Wikidemon (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Too many sources?

Hello there everyone! I was reading through this article, and it occurs to me that when I look at the sources list, that is almost 25% of the article. This says to me that there probably could be a little more discerning an eye applied to some of the sources in the article.

To help, here's a couple things I'd keep in mind: A: Does the source come from a reputable location? Remember that something like the NY Times is going to be more notable and arguably generally more reputable than a small time paper, for example (though that's just an example) B: Can you use one source to back up multiple claims? In an article with a lot of sources, you can cut down the list quite a bit, if you can use one source to back up a series claims, as opposed to many ones.

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Facilitation by foreign governments Section is not NPOV

There are several problems with this section.

1. It implies the intention of Mexico is to "facilitate illegal immigration". There is no support for this claim in the references provided and there are many other possible explanations; the desire to save lives, or to provide services for nationals for example. This accusation shows a clear point of view about these actions.

2. It uses the word "collaboration". This is not only grammatically incorrect (who is collaborating with whom), it is also far from neutral. Rather the word invokes the image of an invading force.

3. The title says "foreign governments" but the section talks exclusively of Mexico.

4. This section is a subsection of a larger section entitled "Causes". The implication is that this alleged "facilitation" is causing people to cross the border illegally. Yet, there is no evidence offered for any of these charges that this is actually the case.

Agreed. I would suggest putting "fact" and "citation needed" tags on as appropriate, and if no significant citations can be found to major neutral reliable sources I would delete much of the material. Advocates on one side or the other are likely to make all kinds of claims in partisan outlets, speeches, editorials, etc., but question whether significant reputable groups publicly accuse Mexico of encouraging it. Wikidemon (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that any sources which do not meet Wikipedia standards should be removed and any unsourced claims should be marked with tags. As for pov, I thought "facillitation" was neutral. It means 'to make something easier' which the sources prove the Mexican government has done. Even the Mexican officials agree that that is their goal. The only dispute is over -why- they are doing it and, to maintain npov, the article already presents two conflicting sides of that dispute-70.21.115.172 (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The edits haven't fixed the problem with NPOV

The claim that this "is making illegal immigration to the US easier" is an opinion with no factual support. For this phrase to be valid (and unbiased) there needs to be a citation that each of these charges make it easier to cross the border.

There is still no support for the idea that this is a "cause". I think it is important to remove this from the causes section unless it can be supported.

6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.160.10 (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"There is a more than sufficient amount of evidence to verify the statement that "The Mexican government has made and is making illegal immigration to the United States easier". I can buy the argument that this is not a cause of illegal immigration but it surely is a facilitating factor. As per POV, so far as I can see, the efforts of the Mexican government have been stated in a neutrally worded manner and I don't believe the word "Facilitate" violated neutrality. - Schrandit (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OK then, if there is a more than sufficient evidence you simply need to provide citations. You are making a statement that these maps, DVDs and comic books are actually having an effect on peoples migration. This type of statement needs support. There is nothing in the citations currently provided that people are having an easier time crossing because of maps, DVDs, comic books or IDs.

The [Citation needed] tag is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.160.10 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Can't we let logic tell us that folks have an easier time wandering through the desert if they have a map? Do I really need to find a citation showing what maps are for and how they facilitate transportation? - Schrandit (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Logic (not having a point of view) is based on evidence. In order for these consular Ids or maps to make the trip "easier" they would have to have useful information (presumably other than location of water) that is not readily available. They would have to be up-to-date and be easily accessible to people wanting to cross the border. Do you have any evidence that the trip has gotten easier since these maps were written?

You can't pass off your opinion as "logic". The difference between opinion and logic is evidence; hence my insistence on a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.160.10 (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the sources in the section? "A Mexican government agency is to issue some 70,000 maps marking main roads and water tanks for people wanting to cross illegally into the US." says the BBC and "The state of Yucatan (search) has issued a new 87-page handbook that tells people how to get across the U.S. border illegally.", "The newest guide also tells immigrants where to find health care, how to get their kids into U.S. schools and how to send money home" says Fox News. The statement "The Mexican government has made and is making illegal immigration to the United States easier" can't really be contested. Since you seem to be particularly adamant about it I will re-post the links from the body to the lead. - Schrandit (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's try this; we state the opinion about what is "easier" as an opinion. I also put these items in past tense as they are dated: the maps were definitely dropped and the others are unclear; I added some links to Yucatan and the National Human Rights Commission. Finally I separated the issue of Consular ID which has nothing to do with the act of crossing the border... but still angers some people as helping people living here illegally. If there is no objection to this rework, I don't mind removing the NPOV tag.Physteacher (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I must strongly disagree with the effects of these actions being categorized as an opinion. In no uncertain terms the government of Mexico has taken steps to make it easier to illegally immigrate into the United States. To deny this or classify it as disputable is a distortion. The consular ID cards have much to do with the topic and were broadly covered in the media. - Schrandit (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You continue to state this as an indisputable fact, yet there is no evidence that Mexico;1) is doing anything with the purpose of making illegal immigration easier; 2) is doing anything that has the effect of making it easier. Evidence that these maps and comic books increase the amount of immigration, or increase the rate of success of people crossing the border or even lower the death rate would make a case. I fail to see evidence that these maps or comic books were even used (the news accounts on the comic books suggest they were treated by all as a big joke). And quotes from politicians and activists don't count as evidence. Physteacher (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Now there is a claim that the "US government" was upset (this would imply something like an official statement from the Executive branch or an Act of Congress). Again there is no citation given for this claim. I did find a reference to Republican congressmen being upset, but this is hardly "the US government". 98.216.111.94 (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, there was an strong objection to the maps raised by the DHS under Michael Chertoff. It would be factually correct to mention this objection in the context of this map (and there is such a mention). I don't see evidence that this objection was raised to the guidebook, the comic book or to consular IDs. We have also had a change of administrations since then which should be noted. At first I was going to suggest changing "US government" to Director of the DHS Michael Chertoff... but this is only correct for one incident (the map). Again my point is that any assertion made should be backed with evidence. 98.216.111.94 (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

deletion of factual material

close unproductive discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is no policy regarding the deletion of factual content some arbitrary editor regards as provacative - if there were, a substantial amount of Wikipedia content from evolution to the singularity to stem cell research to green economics would have to be removed.-166.196.217.71 (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC) You're making too much of my edit summary. Actually, there are two policies at play regarding my comment that the provocative statement had been objected to before: WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. NPOV means that the statement that the government of Mexico was "teaching people how to illegally cross the border" was provocative, not that the underlying facts were. The phrasing of the statement is clearly opinionated. Whatever the Mexican government was doing, it was not operating free clinics on "how to illegally cross the American border". That is almost certainly a biased editorial comment about the effect of something Mexico did, not a neutral description of the thing. The second, equally important part is consensus. It had been removed before. That is a shorthand way to say that the community has considered this very thing, and decided not to say that in the article. So, per WP:BRD the proposed change is rejected and has been rejected before, so it should be discussed rather than inserted. The last, and perhaps more important, issue that I did not have room to state is WP:V and WP:RS. There is no citation for the claim that Mexico teaches people how to cross the border. Without that nothing can be established: the truth, accuracy, relevance, WP:WEIGHT, and everything else about the statement is unsupported. Finally, I am retitling this. Please do not use section headings, or the talk page at all, to impugn other editors by accusing them of acting out of personal politics. The policy on that is WP:NPA and WP:AGF. You don't know what my politics are, I need not tell you, and that is not relevant to editing this article. We operate here on things like sourcing and encyclopedic style, not impugning each other. Wikidemon (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC) I looked into it and, as I suspected, the sources do not support anything close to the claim that the Mexican government was teaching people how to immigrate illegally. The whole section was written in a partisan tone - I've rewritten it to stick to the facts. It cites four examples: consular identification cards, an "illegal immigration for dummies" comic book, a state-level handbook, and a dropped plan to distribute border maps. Those four things are what the sources support, so those things are what we can report without an overarching editorial comment. Wikidemon (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC) The article says nothing about "free clinics", further, the current version -is- the work of consensus. When you are prepared to discuss the facts of the content, we can continue this discussion.-32.165.73.42 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC) The personal attack on me was a behavioral policy violation, as is your reversion of my edits on a claim of "vandalism". The whole article is full of unsourced and biased claims. The claim that the Mexican government is teaching illegal immigration, in particular, is a new edit made without consensus and violates content policies on NPOV and sourcing. However, looking into the section I see that the whole thing contained biased opinions not supported by the sources. I am giving this warning here because your IP address is not constant. Do not scold me and do not try to provoke conflict here on the talk page. Please do not edit war, or the article may have to be edit protected to avoid tendentious IP edits. Also, if you do wish to contribute hold a productive ongoing discussion here you should consider registering an account.Wikidemon (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC) First and most importantly, your "warning" means exactly squat. You aren't qualified to give warnings which have any kind of merit to them and to assume you do is boldly arrogant. If you have a problem with my behaviour, there are places to take it. An article talk page isn't one of them. Secondly, the fact that you would presume to warn another editor because their edits conflict with your politics stinks of article ownership - a behaviour which is severely frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. I encourage you to adjust your attitude here and, where you find that difficult to do, I encourage you to use the available resources. A Wikipedia article talk page is no place for your personal conflicts with other editors.-166.199.234.190 (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC) To keep you from directing the article's talk page off of discussion about the -article-, I'm focusing it back on the article. You take issue with the article saying that Mexico teaches illegal immigration. But the article does not say that Mexico teaches illegal immigration. The article says that Mexico publishes educational materials which are helpful to people looking to illegally cross the border and remain in the US illegally (forex. The Guide to the Mexican migrant). You are making false claims about the article so that you have something to disagree about.-166.196.121.14 (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Don't try to lecture me. I am the legitimate good faith editor here and as far as I can tell one or more IP editors are disrupting. Given that you are edit warring while making accusations, and have not registered an account, this article page is the place to issue a warning to a tendentious IP-hopping editor. If the warning "means squat" to you then you are beyond behavioral cautions and basically have to stop editing here. It's your choice - either stop the accusations, attacks, and edit warring, or stop editing here. If you do not, I will seek semi protection of this page to prevent further disruption. On the substance the addition I originally reverted[2] says that Mexico's programs are "teaching people how to illegally cross the border", which is not reliably sourced. On further review I see that a fair amount of the POV repitition of partisan claims that Mexico is encouraging illegal immigration is poorly sourced, SYNTH, etc. I am reverting again - I believe I am at 1RR here so this is a 2RR, although the reversions of my change have not been proper. Do not re-introduce this poorly sourced disputed material. You have given no justification for it other than attacking my motives. If you do I will take this to the next step in dispute resolution. Wikidemon (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC) At this point, it would be a good idea to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. I have no experience and don't even know where to begin to resolve a dispute with an editor who takes issue with content which isn't even in the article.-166.196.231.254 (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC) No, dispute resolution with a tendentious IP editor is not called for. Edit summaries like this one[3] are pointless. If you have any specific sourcing, or claims, for why any of these things should be in the article propose them here on the talk page. Otherwise they are just unsourced opinion. I gave a direct quote, from the content you are trying to edit war into the article, of the content you claim is not in the article. Please stop editing this page now unless and until you are ready to stop edit warring and stop the personal attacks. It would also be a good idea to sign in under a registered account. Wikidemon (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC) You've complained so much and so vehemently about content which isn't even in the article, that I don't know what it is you even want. You seem to now be arguing that unless I can find a source which explicitly and specifically states that Mexico runs free clinics on how to cross the border illegally, then the article should not state, "Mexico runs free clinics on how to cross the border". Um, okay? -166.196.211.111 (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Nothing vehement and nothing wrong - this is getting really stupid. I have made an edit that significantly cleans junk out of a poorly written and poorly supported WP:COATRACK against the Mexican government. Most of the content you are trying to edit war into the article is either not sourced, contradicts the sources, or is a POV opinion about it.Does your browser have a search function? Regarding your nonsense claim that I say there is something in the article that is not there, search this talk page for the sentence beginning "on the substance" and try to understand it. Wikidemon (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC) If you actually followed Wikipedia guidelines and identified content you felt was unsourced with (and other content appropriately) instead of making complaints about content that isn't in the article, engaging in article ownership, and, on the whole, fighting against consensus building, we might be able to accomplish more productive than edit warring.-166.196.143.248 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC) There is nothing to be accomplished here. You have made up a series of accusations and untruths about my editing and you keep repeating them despite my setting the record straight. That is not good faith editing. We are therefore done. If you wish to edit, cut it out and please sign up for an account. This conversation is likely done. Wikidemon (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC) With all possible respect, I don't agree with unilateral closing of an ongoing discussion in this way, so I'm going to delete the "hidden archive" tags. In my view, the current version of this article (current as of the time I'm writing this talk page comment) is more balanced than the earlier version which it replaced. I read the sources cited for this topic, and I believe it's reasonable to conclude from these sources that there is a legitimate, serious controversy over what the true intentions of the various Mexican government entities involved here really are. Obviously, anti-immigration groups are going to see these actions as purposefully encouraging illegal immigration — while Mexican officials are just as likely to say they are only trying to preserve the lives and well-being of people who are bound and determined to try to sneak into the US no matter what. It is crucial that the overall tone of this article should report both views while not showing a slant in favour of either view. Both of the principals in this current argument should, I think, seriously consider calming down somewhat. (Note that I'm not an admin and I'm not on ArbCom, so this is just a well-intentioned observation from a peer, not any sort of authoritative demand.) And although there is no requirement on WP for people to use accounts, I've seen many examples of arguably tendentious, disruptive editors who have insisted on using multiple dynamic IP addresses — often, apparently, to make some sort of point — and I would strongly suggest to the IP editor here (I assume it is just one?) that he/she should seriously consider creating and using an account in order to help lower the overall stress level and help demonstrate his/her good faith. In any event, I could easily see an admin deciding to put this article on semi-protected status, which would block IP editors and (for better or for worse) tip the editing balance in favour of the person already using an account. Richwales (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC) This section above was nothing about discussing the article, it was a venue for the IP to make personal attacks and accusations. Now, if you wish to address the POV of the article, I feel that it should be done in a new section, with this firestorm left closed. Grsz11 01:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Looking over the two versions, it is clear that the only objective difference between the two versions is that Wukidemon's version stripped out several factual statements - such as reaction by homeland security, comment on what all information the Yucatan was providing, etc. NPOV is suppossed to be achieved by adding content, not removing content. The only thing that is achieved by removing content is white washing. But then, you all already know that.-166.198.151.80 (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I must concede that the anon is right here. The newer introductory paragraph for the section lacked sourced, neutrally worded content that was present in the first. As such, I have (crudely, perhaps) conbined the two paragraphs. To the anon: being able to edit semi-protected pages like this one is one of the benefits of creating an account - you may want to consider it. - Schrandit (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I would have appreciated some discussion first - the material re-added was still unsourced opinion, and POV in several ways. It accused the "Mexican government", which is not true - there were a few federal agencies and state agencies. Calling states the "Mexican government" is inaccurate, and claiming the government as a whole supports illegal immigration is a sweeping generalization. Further, the Mexican government and others have denied that the purpose or effect is primarily to encourage illegal immigration, but rather to provide assistance - to legals and illegals in some cases, e.g. the consular identification cards. It's okay to note that the critics blame the programs, but not for Wikipedia to seem to endorse their opinion in that it's disputed and the reliable sources themselves only report the criticism without endorsing it. I've fixed it though. Also, let's please leave pointless discussions closed and not encourage incivility and disruption. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I'm unsure as to why it would be unfair to characterize the actions of federal agencies of the Mexican Government as being the actions of the Mexican Government. - Schrandit (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Wait, so Wikidemon is arguing that branches of the Mexican government aren't actually representative of the Mexican government? Who then empowers them? Mfaintains them? Appoints administrators for them? Are branches of the Mexican government actually not working for the Mexican government? Are they working for Kenya? Are actions taken by branches of the Mexican government actually actions taken by Kenya? As for "accusations against the Mexican government", no, the article does not state that Mexico is holding free clinics. More to the point, if describing programs ran by a sovereign nation automatically means "attacking" that sovereign nation, there are some very serious issues here concerning neutrality. Removing facts is not the same as neutrality.-166.198.43.30 (talk) 22 51, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Apparently, the US government hasn't put people in Gitmo. Rather, -branches- of the US Government were responsible for that. The Mexican government doesn't engage in social welfare. Rather, those programs are ran by branches of the Mexican government. I'm going to need a Wikidemon to Common English translation dictionary.-166.197.95.72 (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC) an admin locked down this article so that we'd be forced to discuss our differences on the talk page. Now Wikidemon is removing the comments of editors who disagree with his edits from view on the talk page.-32.165.42.232 (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The IP keeps deleting my comments and re-opening personal attacks. Can't respond. We should just declare it persona non grata, probably semi this page. Wikidemon (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Wikidemon (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC) This is unreal! Check the edit history. All I've been doing is restoring my edits which you keep screwing with.-166.197.73.72 (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I have looked at the edit history and you have been deleting comments by other users - and by the way WP:3RR and WP:NPA does apply on talk pages, and moving comments by others around (but not altering them) is acceptable. You are welcome to contribute productively once the page protections have expired, until then please read through some of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines more thoroughly. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Note - the above conversation was refactored by the IP in question and does not fully reflect the comments made by all participants. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church

The charge is often made that the American bishops support clandestine immigration to help fill their pews ; this could maybe be discussed within the boundaries of the article. ADM (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Often made" by whom? Where are these charges made? Are the charges made by people who are notable experts on the issue? Are the charges discussed in high-quality, reliable sources? If so, please provide some sources that discuss this issue - preferably independent sources - and we can have a look at them and discuss them. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Among others, CNN host Lou Dobbs has made the charge that the Church is seriously harming American sovereignty over its own territory. He tends to conflate Illegal immigration with Catholic immigration. [4] ADM (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the Mexican government teaching people how to cross the border?

In line with the suggestions that this topic should be discussed in a fresh thread, I'm starting one here. If anyone has comments about the section on Mexican federal and state government assistance, let's discuss it here — keeping in mind all the relevant Wikipedia policies on conveying a neutral point of view, assuming good faith, avoiding personal attacks, etc.

Regarding the IP editor(s), I'm going to assume that all edits in this section from IP addresses are coming from a single individual, who is not trying to deceive or confuse anyone through his/her use of multiple, dynamically assigned addresses. I would still prefer to see this person create an account, in order to respect mainstream WP culture and demonstrate his/her good faith, but — at least for now — I'm going to make every effort to respect his/her apparent choice (for whatever reasons, or even for no reasons at all) not to do so.

It seems to me that there are at least two open questions on this topic:

• What do reliable sources say as to whether actions by Mexican state government agencies are or are not reflective of, or controlled by, the central government of Mexico?

• What do reliable sources say as to whether giving out information or offering services to illegal immigrants (or would-be illegal immigrants) constitutes official encouragement of illegal immigration, or whether it is simply an attempt by Mexican officials (at whatever level) to protect their citizens in a dangerous activity which they are apparently determined to do no matter what?

Again, I would hope we can all try to stick to the issues, get a balanced view of what reliable sources say on these and other points, and not try to suggest that there is nothing more to say or that editors on either side are hopelessly biased. Richwales (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Say word on the account creation.

• Per the accountability of the central government of Mexico - according to wikipedia the National Human Rights Commission (Mexico) claims organizational and functional autonomy from the federal government. This BBC article describes the comic books (not the maps) as having had been made by "the Mexican government" and the ID cards were definitely the work of the Federal Government, the CBS article confirms.

• The second point is somewhat more nuanced. Illegal Immigration is inherently dangerous. To make it less dangerous is to make it easier, if one wanted to make it easier one would make it less dangerous. To stop it would be to end the danger. I think the ID cards are a pretty clear attempt to make Illegal Immigration easier but it is probably impossible to absolutely prove one way or another what the dominant intent is. - Schrandit (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We know specifically which agencies are doing it and it is always better to be more precise than less precise. The question becomes whether to add an overarching summary / characterization of these as actions of the government of Mexico (in addition to a single state). I say no for three reasons. First, it detracts rather than adds to the clarity of the material. Second it is not very accurate. If there were a widespread national policy of taking an action, such as America's war on drugs, or a national priority to improve the economy, it would be fair to characterize it as a national government effort. If it is the sporadic action of an agency here or there it is misleading to imply without qualification that it is the national government. Third, there is a strong suggestion of partisanship implied in accusing the Mexican government of promoting illegal immigration based on three isolated examples. If we had reliable sources concluding that the Mexican government overall was doing this we could mention that, but the sources do not add up to this. The ID cards have plenty of legitimate explanations, and there is criticism and dispute from some quarters in the US. There has probably been enough dispute to note that immigration control groups have questioned the cards, but not to report straight out that the cards are an action by the Mexican government with the purpose or effect is to encourage illegal immigration. All of this put together does not really pass the straight face test. There is no sourcing and probably no evidence for the proposition that a cartoon book, a pamphlet, an aborted attempt to distribute 70,000 maps, and consular ID cards, have between them had a significant effect on the number of illegals living in the US. That just isn't plausible. Rather, the more reasonable claim is that some actions performed here and there by various government groups in Mexico tend to encourage rather than discourage it... one could make the same claim about US government actions, and just about everything else, that programs are not all aligned to discourage illegal immigration. But we just don't have the sources to put them all together into a claim about the government as a whole. A few partisan groups say that, but we don't have the sourcing here to do so. Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

First, these aren't incidences, they are programs. Programs take organized effort over an extended period of time. 'No child left behind' is a program. We don't refer to it as 'the US Department of Education's No Child Left Behind Program'. We refer to it as 'The Federal Government's No Child Left Behind' program. The 'War on Drugs' is a program. We don't refer to the "FBI's War on Drugs Program". Medicaid is a program. We don't refer to the "Department of Social Services' Medicaid Program". Programs ran by branches of the Federal Government are identified as programs ran by the Federal government. And as for claims that the article said that Mexico was encouraging illegal emigration to the US, those claims are as accurate as claims that have also been made that the article said that Mexico was holding free clinics on how to cross the border illegally - not accurate at all. -166.196.228.75 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No Child Left Behind Act is a law passed by congress, signed by the President, and implemented by a variety of federal agencies. As such the best way to describe it is as a US government program, but such things are occasionally referred to as being a creature of Congress, or the President. By contrast, programs and acts that originate within a specific department and do not reflect broader statutory (or even regulatory) requirements are generally attributed to the department, agency, or specific group that enacted them, e.g. IRS audit guidelines, a USGS topo map, OSHA inspections, etc. Wikidemon (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, as Schrandit pointed out, sources say the programs are/have been run by the Mexican government. That's sufficient. If reliable sources can be provided which say that the Mexican government was not involved in these programs, those reliable sources can be in the article too (all sources being properly identified in the arrticle of course).-166.198.30.157 (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't prove a negative. As I said, we should stick as faithfully as possible to the sources and not generalize to impugn an entire nation's government when the issue is several disparate agency actions that some consider to be a problem. Wikidemon (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding specificity, I agree that we should be specific but I don't think that necessitates stepping away from describing these actions as being those of the Mexican government. I feel that such an action serves to minimize the responsibility of the Mexican government.

I don't think the previously language makes a statement one way or another as to if this is a widespread national policy, it merely states that these are the actions of the Mexican government and that some folks (and the US government) are upset about it.

There are conceivable explanations for the ID cards but there is no explanation for the comic books. It doesn't particularly matter how effective they have been, the Mexican government has attempted to aid its citizens in circumventing American law and it is fair to say so, just as the sources do. - Schrandit (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

History

This is an incredibly long article that doesn't even cover an important aspect of illegal immigration to the United States: the history of it. This is an encyclopedia, and should cover more than just the past few years and current events. 24.210.223.205 (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Article improvements

I'm getting started expanding the Visa fraud section - however, we have an entire article devoted to that subject, so maybe the bulk of material should go there. That article is global in scope, and woefully brief... so someday if we ever get full treatment of the subject it would make sense to have a [[Visa Fraud in the United States]] article. I've created green card marriages, which is the most common form of visa fraud in the US per some sources. Other countries sometimes use the term and most have some equivalent, even though green card is a U.S. term. Other types of visa fraud might involve falsifying or lying to obtain a document. The ones I read about are fake credentials, an immigrant saying they intend to work at a job or that the job is there when it is not (sources mention H-1C, registered nurse visas). Presumably a person could lie, forge documents, offer bribes, etc., about their qualifications for most any class of visa. One thing I'm not clear about is when the illegal immigration is said to occur. If one commits fraud to obtain a visa it is a crime (usually a felony) as of the act of fraud. However, is the person a legitimate resident until caught? Until the visa is denied or revoked? Or do they become illegal retroactively because the visa was never valid?

I removed an example that did not seem to fit, a notorious green card marriage that seemed to be more about espionage than a normal kind of green card. I wonder if spies on false documents or false pretenses might be considered a kind of illegal immigrant.

Another issue, which the heading used to describe (but the section did not), is violating visa terms. Presumably that is a visa that is valid at the time granted, but the immigrant subsequently violates its terms. I would assume that just means they have to leave, and if they remain it is just a visa overstay. Anyway, those are some issues... we could improve this a lot by filling the sections out with good cites. A few examples, opinions, and political positions might be useful if we can show they're noteworthy but they shouldn't substitute for directly sourcing the main issues. Wikidemon (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

US government inefficiencies

I just tried to untangle this now-short section. The sole point here seems to be that because the legal immigration process is slow, inefficient, costly, and difficult -- add your adjective, depending on the source -- more people are immigrating illegally. The assumption seems to be that some people will immigrate one way or another, so they will be illegals if the legal system is broken. The argument sounds rational but I have a few concerns. First and foremost it's weakly sourced, to one or two asides in long articles, where policy researchers / institutes state that unnamed analysts are claiming this is so. I did a cursory 5-minute google search and couldn't find any better sources. If the article is going to proclaim that this is a significant factor in illegal immigration, I think we should have a much stronger showing. I was tempted to delete the whole section, but it seemed better to give it some time. The whole field of illegal immigration isn't very google-friendly. If anybody could find some better sources for this claim it would be great. My second concern is that it's sort of a truism about almost any government permit, or most any effort in life - the harder it is to do things right, the more common it is that people do it wrong. You could make the same comment about smuggling (the harder it is to import legally, the more people smuggle), accounting licenses (the harder it is to be certified, the more people operate without a license), vacuum cleaners (the harder it is to empty the bag the right way, the more people do it wrong), etc. I'm wondering if that's so obvious it doesn't need saying. For this to be considered a real issue I think we would have to see that it significantly affects the numbers, beyond the usual give-and-take. That goes back to sourcing - it would be good to find some hard information, not just one analyst saying as an aside that other analysts have noted the phenomenon. I hope that's clear. Wikidemon (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

District Attorney's press release

In October 2008, the Maricopa County, Arizona District Attorney's office released crime statistics that showed that, while illegals represent only 9% of the population in Maricopa County (which includes Phoenix) they were responsible for approximately 22% of the crimes committed in 2007. According to the report, illegal immigrants accounted for 33.5% of those sentenced for manufacture, sale or transport of drugs, 35.8% of those sentenced for kidnapping, 20.3% of those sentenced for felony DUI, 16.5% of those sentenced for violent crimes, 18.5% of those sentenced for property crimes, 44% of those sentenced for forgery and fraud, 85.3% of those convicted of criminal impersonation or false ID and 96% of those convicted of human smuggling. It is estimated that each violent crime cost citizens approximately $20,000 and each property crime cost citizens $4,363 per offense.

— "Landmark Research Shows Relationship between Crime, Illegal Immigrants" (PDF) (Press release). Maricopa County Attorney. October 2, 2008. Retrieved May 6, 2009.

I've removed this assertion because it is a contentious statement with a primary source. The source itself notes that it was made in rebuttal to a statement by a judge that illegal immgrants account for 11% of crimes, so we are not even properly summarizing the views expressed in the source. However what we really need here is a secondary source, such as a newspaper, magazine, or book, that has commented on or cited this press release.   Will Beback  talk  19:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if sourced, scattered data points like that are not very helpful in building a summary article like this one. We need to move this article away from being a compendium of isolated incidents, facts, polls, and opinions, and concentrate on only the most notable examples and cases in point. What would be very useful are broader nationwide or regional surveys, neutral nonpolitical articles and analysis, etc., about the relationship between illegal immigration, legal immigration, border crossing, drug and gun trade, money laundering, and other crimes. Court cases and claims of law enforcement officials are of questionable reliability in the first place, and they are just data points. We would need a good expert - a government agency, professor, analyst, etc., who has read all the court cases and reports, and writes a good summary that we can describe. No doubt those sources are out there. Wikidemon (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad Source

Source # 90 is taken from a FOX opinion piece, this is not a valid source!!! # ^ U.S. Cities Provide Sanctuary to Illegals July 25, 2003. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92966,00.html. Can someone please fix this!!!!!? im getting messages that i am vandalizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citoyendumonde (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence documented by the reference begins "Opponents say ...", indicating that the statement is an opinion. That the reference for an opinion is an opinion piece is perfectly valid. And please stop your vandalizing. Plazak (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sanctuary cities, section needs to be removed, both cited sources are bad!

source 91 # ^ Cities Provide Sanctuary to Illegals U.S. Last updated: 12-5-07 Is an Anti-Immigrant hate group website, not a legitimate source! http://www.ojjpac.org/default.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citoyendumonde (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad Source

Source #118, supposed to support the claim that "illegal immigrants are responsible for drug farms throughout the national park system." Article in source 118 is about police and marijuana farms in national parks, and mentions that there have been more of these pot farms rising in correlation with the rise of Mexican Drug cartels. Does not mention illegal immigrants once and, without any sort of explanation, does not support the statement used in the wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.74.248 (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

From http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0906/16/acd.01.html - "We are heading to the camp, where the growers live during the harvest months. The growers, we're told, are illegal immigrants from Mexico who repay debt to the drug cartels by tending their marijuana gardens. " - Schrandit (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be a better summary of the source to say something like, "throughout the national park system drug farms operatged by Mexican drug cartels are tended by illegal immigrants". The source seems to depict the illegal aliens as laborers rather than the responsible parties. (The drug cartels may be composed of illegal aliens too, but the source doesn't say that.)   Will Beback  talk  22:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Something fishy about this sentence

"Illegal immigrants have also used many parks inside the United States to grow and then distribute illegal narcotics, turning previously protected nature areas into "heavily armed drug compounds".[116][117] and [118]." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.174.112 (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, "Illegal immigrants have also taken to the widespread growing of illegal narcotics inside of American parks.[116][117] and [118]" Is it widespread? Is that what any of the sources say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.174.112 (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The references state that it is being grown in the Los Padre National Forest in California. That is hardly "widespread growing of illegal narcotics inside of American parks." Also, ref #117 is not even related. I feel this should be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The wording is certainly bad, because the pot is being grown not in parks, but national forests. The problem does appear, to be widespread, however, as a cursory google search shows that it has been reported in California, Arizona, and Colorado. I'll add some refs. Plazak (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverse migration

An unregistered editor has removed this material repeatedly on th egrounds that it concerns emigration rather than immigration:

• The expense for illegal immigrants has also increased, encouraging them to stay longer to recoup the cost. Tens of thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants head each year in the direction of Mexico. While no statistics are kept on this reverse migration, researchers in both countries suggest that the numbers have declined as border controls have tightened.

I've restored it as relevant. The same illegal immigrants are the ones who are coming and going. In the days of very loose border controls many of them apparently worked as migratory farm labor and returned home regularly rather than settling in the U.S. Stricter border controls and higher costs for crossing the border illegally have chnaged that behavior, encouraging more of them to stay in the U.S. permanently. That's a clear component of net migration, and has been mentioned in many discussions of illegal immigration.   Will Beback  talk  17:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Still not relevant. This article is about immigration. I'll support the content being added to an article on Emmigration from the United States or on Net Migration in the United States, but -this- article is about immigration - 18:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

I don't understand your objection to this. It's the same people who entered (immigrated) and would otherwise be leaving again. "Emigration" refers to people who are settled and then leave. When tourists leave the country we don't say they are emigrating. But if they overstay their visas and settle here then we say they've immigrated. As for outside views, all of the sources that discuss this phenomenon put it in the context of the immigration issue. Just because an anonymous editor has an ideosyncratic view isn't a sufficient reason to distort the encyclopedia. Can you find a source that calls this "emigration"?   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Can you find a source that calls this "emigration"? SInce the article is about immigration, not migration, it is discussing people who have been in this country for a while. So, when they leave, they are emigrating.-19:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the article does not describe it as an immigration issue. It uses the term "migrant" profusely through the article. The only time it uses "Immigrant" is when it is referring to people immigrating to Mexico.-19:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

(edit conflict)Further, IP, this is not how consensus works. You don't get your way before you have achieved it. In order for your edit to remain, you must achieve it, not us. That aside, however, I oppose removal of the material just because you think different, on the grounds already clearly explained to you above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

According to which sources? The sources you deleted are talking about immigration and never used the term "emigration".   Will Beback  talk  20:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"The sources you deleted are talking about immigration" That's not true. The New York Time article discusses "immigration" only with regards to people immigrating to Mexico. Elsewise, it uses either the term "migrant" or "sojourner". -20:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

Will Beback is right. The item is clearly relevant to the topic, and should be included in the article. Plazak (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The comic

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/illegal_alien_comic_book/GuiaDelMigranteMexicano.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Note that it does not have the statement in it that the article attributes to it about Mexico not approving of illegal immigration to the US -19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

The text you deleted said:

• However, on the last page of the comic book, it is clearly stated the Mexican government doesn't promote illegal crossing at all and only encourages visits to the U.S. with all required documentation.

The source says:

• A comic-book-style "Guide for the Mexican Migrant" being distributed by the government bears a bright-yellow disclaimer at the end of its 36 pages. It reads, in part: "This consular protection guide does not promote the crossing of Mexicans without the legal documentation required by the United States; its objective is to inform about the risks involved."

If you can find a better wording then do so, but it's close enough that there was no need to delete it outright.   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the comic book (which I linked to above), this statement does not exist.-20:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

Look at the comic book again. The statement is indeed printed (in Spanish) on the back cover (facing the front cover in the linked PDF). The translation above is accurate. Plazak (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Might be useful for the article

Snopes [5] has shown the stats and list various news sources where they come from, and how the information is gathered. Which things common said are true or not, and which ones have sources. Dream Focus 05:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Mex-Am point-of-view

Well, I will go ahead and make a few points here on the talk page, since none of the edit warring parties seem inclined to do so.

1. Cityside Seraph, without getting into the question of whether "Mexican-American.org" is a WP:RS, you would help your cause and reduce controversy if you could find a little bit more mainstream publication to source your points from. Given the controversiality of the subject, I wouldn't think that would be too difficult. If I were a betting man, I'd say you could probably find something in the San Francisco Chronicle for example. You might even be able to find same in a major metropolitan daily within Arizona, which I would think of as a especially good source given the context. ::*Despite having the largest population of illegal immigrants in the U.S., the city of Los Angeles has experienced the same dropping crime rates as other major U.S. cities during the 1990s and 2000s.

—Rnickel (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this thread, Rnickel. I agree with your points.   Will Beback  talk  22:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple that popped up off google, I can do a more refined search if there is a need. - Schrandit (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• U.S. crime falls despite prolonged recession
• Crime Rates Shown to Be Falling
• New research reveals historic 1990s US crime decline

I just restored that material before I noticed that this discussion was ongoing. This is why edit warring is bad. Fortunately, I've found this LA Times article that indicates that "both sides, whether for or against increased immigration, agree that immigrants tend to commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans."--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's use the L.A. Times then. "Mexican-American.org" really doesn't look like a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  13:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's more even-handed, too, describing what each side says about regarding the crime statistics.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Even-handedness" isn't one of the main criteria for sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. I can't find anything about that website. It's not clear if there's even another page besides that article. Can you find out anything about it?   Will Beback  talk  15:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the LA Times article as being more evenhanded. The LA Times is certainly a reliable source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Great, then let's use it instead of the mysterious "Mexican-American.org" website.   Will Beback  talk  15:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like the sentence to be rephrased to reflect the ambiguity of the causation, as well as stale nature of the data. - Schrandit (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that summation is overly rosy and far from uncontested.

1. Illegal Immigration: Drugs, Gangs and Crime
2. The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave
3. [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39031 Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily]
4. Border States Deal With More Illegal Immigrant Crime Than Most, Data Suggest
5. Illegal Immigrant Crime Numbers Released

I haven't reviewed these sources, they were just google's top hits but the issue is heavily contested and very murky, I am afraid the Mex-Am article is intentionally misleading. I also don't Dupnik's quote is needed. - Schrandit (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Schrandit, your continual deletion of the article written by Tito Rodriguez in the mexican-american.org site appears to be somewhat, well, let's say.. dubious in motive itself. When looking at the "References" listed for this article (which are quite a bit more than the norm) it's very obvious that there's a lack of inclusion of the viewpoints from the Mexican-American community itself - which BTW is heavily and directly affected by the illegal immigration problem more so than any other population minus the immigrants themsleves. When I see a list of nearly "200 references" in an article about illegal immigration in the United States and don't see even one reference to an article from the Mexican American community that's more than a shame, it's completely irresponsible and discriminating. It is an exclusion which in this case is not acceptable. Also, before you or another attempts to label me as a Mexican, a liberal, or a contentious type individual in any way, know that I'm not. I'm just as proud and American as anyone else. I actually still believe in the importance of a diversity in opinion for many matters. Regarding the deletion of the Los Angeles trends in crime, they are highly releveant and also somewhat different than the national norm. What is similar are the declines in property and violent crime rates this decade throughout the nation. What is different is that Los Angeles has been experiencing this type of decline since the early 90's (not the national trend) and also while it's illegal immigrant population had continued to swell. The illegal "Mexican" immigrants moving into other parts of the nation has been more recent and primarily from this millenium on. I would appreciate it if you could find some additional sources for inclusion to these references instead of deleting the only Spanish surnamed individual in all of the references listed in the article. Increasing the public's access to more information and sources can only be good for the national debate irrespective of whatever side one may be on. With all due respect, you just might be doing yourself a favor as well, since your reputation appears to be growing as a party who is biased against only certain types of leanings and/or references alone. Please keep the information included intact. I'd also appreciate it if you care to respond here in this talk as opposed to taking more action in public first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.77.238 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea who, or what you are, nor would it matter. I would appreciate it if your would refrain from generalizations about me. The Mexican-America.org citation is beging excluded because it is not a reliable source and the conclusions it draws are questionable. The assertion that the national origin of the author has anything to do with it is laughable. - Schrandit (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am a 4th generation German/English/Swiss/Dutch/French American married to a Guatemalan also of European descent. For forty years, my father had Texan and Mexican Latino employees work on his farm, and our family's best friends were Texan Latinos. I know undocumented immigrants from numerous countries as well as immigrants from many countries. During this turbulent time when hate groups are polarizing our country for political reasons, I would hope that I could read something unbiased and informative in what is fast becoming a replacement for World Book Encyclopedia. When I opened an encyclopedia prior to "Wiko", I expected it to be factual and unbiased. This coverage, however, is but a hair better than some of the hate rhetoric that I've read from the worst of groups. To be an author of such a charged issue, one would need to be a scholar of diplomacy and extremely knowledgeable on the issues. The person in the above paragraph who very nicely pointed out that this article is biased and lacking, was vicously attacked. This was very immature and uncalled for. This article needs help from people who understand the issues and can enlighten and shed light to the reasons why there is the issue. Nothing has been mentioned about the fact that American policy against Latinos and Mexicans has been extremely racist resulting in racist and unjust immigration laws. I was particularly enlighted by the "chaining" idea. Instead of summarizing that all immigrants miss their families and try to get them to join them (my cousin moved to S.C. and now the entire family of 3 siblings and their mother live there...this is humanness not illegal immigrant chaining), the article took on this attitude that there was some sort of conspiracy by illegals. Nothing was explained from their persective. Nothing of the human plight caused by American corporate and military intervention in Central America causing inhuman and unlivable living conditions....the poverty and starvation. Nothing was mentioned of the huge demand for unskilled labor during the 90s and early 2000. Nothing was mentioned about the insatiable American appitite for drugs putting some Mexican cities at the hands of violent drug cartels. The aguement was made that illegal immigration is greater than legal immigration, but this is untrue. Nothing was mentioned that it is customary for any State Department to help its citizens abroad or preparing to go abroad. The police in my city tell the immigrants to go to their consulates in Chicago and get such identification. Instead of seeing the Mexican informational DVDs as a conspiracy theory that the Mexican gov't is forcing people to migrate to the US, this fact could have been omitted because it is irrelevant to the issue and is only included to incite hate. All countries try to help their citizens to help them abroad. There is such information for Americans going abroad. Nothing was mentioned about how Americans can go to Mexico or Central America on vacations, yet the reverse is untrue. Nothing was mentioned of the true role of the coyote or how horrid the trip is or how many thousands die each year. People ride like cattle in semis for days, walk through blistering desert without water for three or four days. They are so tired and their feet so blistered, no one does this for fun. They know that the trip is very dangerous. The coyotes can't be trusted. They are indentured servants when they arrive and have to work double jobs for years to pay off the $6k fee to the coyote who provides no food, water, or sleep. Their lives are hell. Nothing was said of the discrimination they face, how they live in the shadows, how they can't drive or go anywhere. Most of them are from such innocent beginnings and had no idea what they were getting into when they came here. They leave spouses, parents, and children. They leave their whole world because of the same reason my ancestors arrived. They were starving and were exceptional people who needed an opportunity. They love the United States and only want the best and to be with the best. There was not heart to this article...no humanness. Who are you? And what gives you the authority to write this? BTW, the jux

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.88.195 (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC) 

Demographics by States

This is now the current values in 2010, the old References are outdated and was made in 2000.

http://www.npg.org/CAPS.html Statment; illegal population: a range of 2.47 million to 4.8 million, with a median figure of 2.8 million - up from 1.7 million in 1994. The 4.8 million "high" estimate, based on California's assumed 24% share of the overall illegal population, implies a national illegal population of 20 million.

More References are saying there are more then 30 millon for a high number in the US (Glenn Beck and his guest Allen ..(FBI))Stating it could be higher.

Please go to Table 2; and table 3. here at this website http://www.npg.org/CAPS.html

4. Border Patrol local 2544, covering most of Arizona, stated on its website (www.local2544.org) in July 2005 that by many estimates there were 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in the US, with the number increasing everyday because of insecure borders. See also: Christian Science Monitor, May 16, 2006

5. The full reports appear in "How Many Illegal Aliens are In the US?", The Social Contract, Summer 2007 and at www.thesocialcontract.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.146.202 (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made edits to this article citing credible sources for the information I added. However, all the information I put in has been deleted. CyberEditor (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada-US border

Why no mention of the Canada-US border in the discussion? Multiple notable examples of illegal immigration into the US from Canada exist, with Canadians coming to the US to work illegally historically a common practice. The article reflects the current ethnic bias which accepts illegal immigration of WASPS but not of non-WASPS. Mulp (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. You seem to be the person to add such a section. Plazak (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There are give or take 11 million illegal immigrants who came here via the mexican border. There are maybe, maybe 60,000 here from Canada. Lets keep it all in perspective. - Schrandit (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

agreed. it should be mentioned, but also should be stated its miniscule compared to illegal immegration from mexico. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Only an estimated 60 000 illegal immigrants who arrived from or via Canada? How sure are you of this figure? Given the ease with which many Canadians could blend with the general US population it seems a very low estimate. ping (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Crimes committed by illegal immigrants" section needs rewrite

The citation to Edmonton and Smith "it is difficult to draw any strong conclusions on the association between immigration and crime" refers to immigration in general, not illegal immigration in particular, and is therefore of dubious relevance in this article. Further, assuming arguendo that the statement "Cities with large immigrant populations showed larger reductions in property and violent crime than cities without large immigrant populations" is true, the implied inference -- that immigrants do not commit crimes at a rate greater than non-immigrants -- is valid only if one assumes that the sole and only variable affecting reductions in property and violent crime rates is the proportion of immigrants. This is a patently ridiculous assumption.

And then of course we have the even more dubious tacit assumption that illegal immigrants and legal immigrants have exactly the same patterns of criminal behavior.

Since this article is about illegal immigration, I suggest that this section be redrafted to include only facts and valid causal inferences that bear directly on illegal immigration. I assume there must be someone on the Wikipedia staff who understands causal inferences in non-experimental research.

TwoGunChuck (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to make these changes, along with the sources where you found the information. There is no such thing as a Wikipedia "staff." GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the Pew report a trustworthy source?

Please forgive the intrusion, I am not an expert, but the numbers given in the Pew report cited in footnote 17 do not add up (they are claiming 11.5 to 12 million illegal immigrants in 2006, but cite 4-5.5 million visa overstayers, 250-500K border card violators, and 6-7 million illegal entry, which adds to a range of 10.4 to 13 million.) The math seems wrong. 76.252.28.32 (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to add such information, along with the sources where you found it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Military Section

Why no mention of the impending deployment of National Guard troops to the southern border?

You are welcome to add such a section, along with the sources where you found the information. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Present Day Country of Origin Table Too Weird to be Included.

With no headings to the columns, the able is nonsense. Yes, I understand the first column is the country of origin, and I suppose the second column is the population, but this seems very low. The third column and fourth column have no meaning whatever without a heading. The fourth is particularly misleading, as one might think that the percentages refer to the percentage of the illegal population, which it does not, as is evidenced by the Honduras row. Either the table should be repaired or removed. If removed, the section will have no real content. Perhaps the first two columns could be converted to prose, as was done with data from Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.165.246.6 (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most all of what you said. Just for information, the table /section used to make more sense around this time. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Impact: Cultural and political subsection

An interested editor out there with the time should create a subsection that mentions the changes in America as a result of illegal immigration. That seems to be a huge part of the controversy. There are Mexican-American leaders who openly want to take over the country or to reclaim the territory that was once part of Mexico using illegal immigrants as a de facto foreign civilian invasion. Here is one source quote. The parenthetical phrase appears in the article. 5Q5 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Arturo Rodriguez, the president of the (very Hispanic) United Farm Workers union and son-in-law of César Chávez, the founder of that union and the equivalent of Martin Luther King [sic] to Chicanos, recognizes that Latinos are probably changing America more visibly than the Italians, Irish, Chinese or Germans did. This, he said, will cause some Anglos anxiety. But, he adds, a backlash against immigrants who are among the most downtrodden in the world is the wrong answer, and one that his movement will fight. "In the long run we'll win," he says. "Why? Because we have the numbers."

— The Economist magazine, Sept 11-17, 2010, pp 35-36, "The Hispanicisation of America: The Law of Large Numbers," London, the Economist Newspaper Ltd.

The sources doesn't contain the assertions in your comment.   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Historical Perspective

It seems most of this article is concentrating on the situation now, which is sensible, but for encylopedic value and staying power I think more historical perspective needs to be added. Perhaps not overkill since there are other articles on the topic, but I think this article could use more, just a suggestion Jztinfinity (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to add such a section, along with the sources where you found the information.GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.252.146 (talk)

Abuse

This article seems quite incomplete without discussing abuse the illegal immigrants suffer (both on their way and in their destination). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This would be pretty much like the abuse a drug user takes to obtain his fix? At least the immigrants aren't addicted to illegality! Nothing wrong with recording it. But let's be clear on their dedication to committing an illegal act and the abuse they have heard about that they might encounter. The danger is all known to them before they get here. Student7 (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Not all illegal immigrants make a dedicated effort to enter the country and stay there illegally, many enter legally and end up overstaying their visas, etc., and not always for preconceived nefarious reasons. People in this situation are under no threat when they enter, but when their visas expire they may be reluctant to seek recourse for wrongs out of fear of being found out. --Cúchullain ^t/c 19:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This comes well after the discussion above was concluded, but only a small percentage of aliens have overstayed their visas. That number, at least, is well-known. The rest, presumably, are illegal. In at least one other article, they were trying to refer to them as "undocumented immigrants" or somesuch. This seems like a euphemism which Wikipedia tries to avoid. Student7 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get that number from? 45% of illegal immigrants in the U.S. are people who overstayed their visas. Another small percentage came in legally under documents like the Border Crossing Card. In all, about half of illegal immigrants entered the country legally. That number is well known.[6][7][8]--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree with the statistic that has (taking the larger figure because it's easier to work with) 12 million illegals? You are saying that about 5 million of these are folks who just, whoops!, "overstayed their visa". Darn. Should have looked at that date more closely!

Would the language that these people speak, largely be what? Possibly Spanish? So we allow, what 3, 4 million Mexicans in (total) and they "overstayed their visa?" That is quite interesting. And what was their reason for entering the country? Did they all enter from Tijuana and tell the immigration official they were all heading for Anaheim and Disneyland? Curiouser and curiouser.

When do we get to the "abuse" part? People entering on visas headed for Disney hardly need to employ a coyote to see them through, would you think? Student7 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The numbers are clearly cited in the article and in the links I just gave. Yes, there are an estimated 4-5.5 million visa overstayers in the U.S., representing between 33 and 50% of the total number of illegal aliens. There are also a smaller number of people who had a Border Crossing Card and who violated the terms of the card. And no, not all of them had nefarious, preconceived "dedication to committing an illegal act" when they were applying for their visas, so the idea that "the danger is all known to them before they get here" is silly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose this is another topic now.

Let's take the nastiest country for overstaying a visa. Let's say, somehow, a person got a visa to enter North Korea and "overstayed." Would you be surprised to later read that the person was jailed? I'll grant that the US is blase about that sort of thing, perhaps a remnant of the fact that states used to handle immigration prior to 1890 or so. And so the federals apparently never got into the enforcement effort except maybe in times of war. In many other Western Countries, visitors are "tracked" and the people with whom they deal (hotels, for example) are well aware that the person has overstayed and may have some responsibility for reporting them. Overstayers are as illegal as anybody. Do I need to find a US statute on this? Student7 (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What's your point? No one is arguing whether they are "illegal". The point is, (1) illegal immigrants may be subject to abuse, and (2) uninformed notions to the contrary, nearly half the population entered the country legally. Unless you're arguing that all visa overstayers must have had sinister plans to "become illegal" when they came (which would need a source), it is not safe to assume that they "knew what they were in for" should they become the subject of abuse.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

General Feedback / Critical Analysis of Article

Overall, this article was good at providing a snap shot at many different subjects linked to contemporary illegal immigration issues. The article spanned topics on everything from the breakdown of illegal immigrants to current laws to regulate immigration and public sentiment over immigration. But because of the wide range of issues covered, the article lacks depth of coverage regarding the many issues presented here. For instance, we are told in the first portion (Profile and Demographics) that illegal immigrants are progressively settling in larger numbers away from the main hispanic populations in the United States. But we are not told what these new areas are. We also are told in what significance are immigrants settling in these populations that are not of the popular hispanic hubs of the country. There are several other examples where things are not explained further when they could be. And though this article spans several different topics relating to illegal immigration, there is no information presented from the eyes of an illegal immigrant. We don't hear about the working conditions illegal immigrants sometimes suffer in, but we read in this article that an immigrants were suspected in an Arizona rancher killing. This article could be much better if it had sections giving a glimpse of illegal immigration from the other perspective.

Another main problem in this article is the use of random polls that aren't really supported Using one poll to describe how the public may feel about a certain issue is never enough. For that one poll, I'm sure another could be found refuting what the poll used asserts. In the final portion of the article, the author uses several stand alone polls to show the public's sentiments toward deportation, illegal immigrants impacts on the economy, and the toughness of immigration laws. These polls can not stand on their own and makes the article weaker.

Also, the polling and sources the author uses seem to be a little dated. It would be interesting to see if any content is changed once the article is updated with some newer information.

To improve this article, the author should stray away from the use of solitary polls. Since there is nothing there to complement the polls, it only leads to readers questioning the article. Also, the author should add more depth to certain topics instead of leaving readers hanging. Finally, the author should add more perspectives to the issues and use more current information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awomb (talk • contribs) 07:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)