Wikipedia

Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 8

< Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Volunteer Marek in topic Multiple problems with recent edits (31 August 2017)
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 13

Requested move 23 September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago39 comments13 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus is that the current title is both the most common name and the term that most accurately describes the scope of the article. Jenks24 (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


Illegal immigration to the United States → Undocumented immigration to the United States – "Illegal" is an inaccurate and defamatory term according to many major news sources and writing guides (see Illegal_immigration#terminology). No person can be illegal. However, they can be undocumented. Using "illegal" in this title is a violation of Wikipedia's "do no harm" and neutral point of view policies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm). Anon523 (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The term "illegal immigration" is most widely used. While the term "illegal immigrant" may have fallen out of common usage in favor of "undocumented," the same can not be said about the term "illegal immigration," which is the title of the article. The Wikipedia article you linked to even noted that. Calidum 03:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Illegal immigration" is the most widely used term. The term is certainly accurate, which is more than I can say for the various euphemisms proposed to replace it. The "no person can be illegal" line is a straw man argument. I have never known anyone to say that a person is illegal per se, by his very existence. However, people are certainly capable of illegal acts, including illegal immigration. But thank you for taking this to the Talk Page. Plazak (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Your rational is not grammatically correct. The term attached to "illegal" is "immigration", not "immigrant". The act of immigration certainly can be illegal, just as any act can be illegal, if the laws say so. Even people have been legally defined as illegal, if you recall the Trail of Tears and what happened to the Native Americans, so the supposition that people cannot be illegal is also wrong. Further, undocumented immigration is not equivalent to illegal immigration. Many instances of immigration to the US throughout history have been undocumented, as laws and controls needed to document immigrants in the open frontier did not exist. "Undocumented" would therefore be split to a separate article. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongest Support. Wikipedia's guidelines specifically caution against using terms that may "introduce bias" (see WP:NPOV and WP:WORDS). At the very least, we should create an encyclopedia that avoids language that stigmatizes a vulnerable population. WIth regard to the word "illegal" in the context of topics relating to immigrants and immigration, "there does seem to be a consensus against the use of the term by the people most affected by it". CNN agrees that the term "illegal immigrant" is a harmful slur. To say that "illegal immigrants" and "illegal immigration" are separate from each other is simply a distinction without a difference. Both terms imply that a population is unworthy of equal treatment in our society. If we want to create an encyclopedia that values justice and equality, then this title MUST change. Furthermore, the title incorrectly implies that all people who enter the country without pursuing proper legal procedures will remain "lawbreakers" indefinitely. In fact, as the article explains, many individuals are later eligible for asylum, refugee status, or naturalization. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    • You are conflating two separate cases, those cases called "illegal immigration" and those cases of "undocumented immigration". They are NOT the same thing. WP:RECENTISM please remember that the history of the country does not end in 1940, immigration existed prior to that date, going back to 1776. Documenting immigration did not occur across the U.S. until the modern age. Undocumented immigration was legal for while. The class of immigration which are documented and still illegal is also different from that which is not documented and considered contravention of the laws. There are 4 cases here (1) documented and legal (2) documented and illegal (3) undocumented and legal (4) undocumented and illegal immigration. These are all different and separate. Splitting the article about the four different cases would be the plan to go forward. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think splitting the article is certainly a worthwhile endeavor (as long as we avoid the term "illegal immigration"), though I understand this is an incredible complex topic here. The essence of my argument is that using the term "illegal immigration" in the title of the article implies that there are people who are "illegal immigrants", which is an incredibly problematic and stigmatizing term. If you think there is a more appropriate title for the article than "Undocumented Immigration in the United States," then please let me know. However, I think we should avoid using the term "illegal immigration" at all costs, per WP:WORDS. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Notecardforfree, re the portion of your comment above which begins "In fact, as the article explains, ...": I'm not following this discussion but I saw your comment on my watchlist, and searched for asylum, refugee and naturalization in the article. I didn't find that in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, although the article does not use those terms specifically, the article discusses various attempts to grant "legal status" to immigrants. Legal status is often attained through asylum, refugee status, or naturalization. My point was simply that the term "illegal immigration" paints an incomplete picture of facts on the ground; it ignores the fact that a large portion of people who enter the country without pursuing proper legal channels are still eligible to receive "legal status." The article does not make this clear (and that certainly needs to be fixed) but the current title should change as well to reflect Wikipedia's policy of not using words that perpetuate biases and stereotypes (per WP:NPOV and WP:WORDS). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Notecardforfree above, quotes an opinion piece writing there is a consensus against the term "illegal immigrant". In fact, there is no such consensus, as a quick internet search of mainstream news organizations will easily and abundantly confirm. The term is used by the BBC, CBC, Australian, and New York Times. Even some of the politically correct sources which shy away from "illegal immigrant" have no problem with "illegal immigration". In using the terms "illegal immigration", Wikipedia puts itself squarely in the mainstream of current usage. Plazak (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Plazak, I am not sure about British or Canadian usage of the term "illegal," but in the United States, there is widespread agreement that the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal immigration" "dehumanizes and marginalizes the people it seeks to describe". Indeed, statistics of usage are irrelevant in the discussion, because we must follow Wikipedia policy and avoid terms that perpetuate biases and stereotypes (per WP:NPOV and WP:WORDS). In any event, the term "illegal immigration" is an inaccurate description of the legal issue here. Federal law describes the issue as "improper entry". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Once more you are asserting facts not in evidence. What evidence is there for your so-called "widespread agreement"? The demonstrable fact that so many mainstream news organizations use the term "illegal immigration" is strong evidence that there is no such "widespread agreement": The Washington Post (uses both terms “illegal immigrant” and “illegal immigration”), Time Magazine (“illegal immigration), New York Times (“illegal immigration”), Christian Science Monitor (“illegal immigration”), CNN (“illegal immigration”), San Francisco Chronicle (“illegal immigration”). Apparently these organizations didn't get the memo about your widespread agreement. But I'm willing to be persuaded by the facts. Please lay out your evidence for this widespread agreement. As for the charge that the terms "dehumanize" people, that is one more straw man argument. "Improper entry", as you should know, is only one of the means of illegal immigration; another means is visa overstay. Plazak (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The use of the term in the media sources you provided does not negate the fact that experts in the field, immigration activists, and jurists all describe the term as problematic. If you want proof of this, please see the sources listed in my response to Khajidha below. Assuming, arguendo, that most sources do use the term "illegal immigration," the title of this article is still (at the very least) inaccurate and misleading because the process of removing individuals from the United States is civil, rather than criminal in nature. The United States Supreme Court even said in Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984), that "[a] deportation proceeding is a purely civil action". Furthermore, many individuals are eligible for "legal status" upon entering the United States even if they do not prior approval to enter the country. We should therefore follow Wikipedia policy, which states that "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" (see WP:COMMONNAME). If you can cite Wikipedia policies that suggest maintaining the existing title, I would very interested to hear them, but so far all I have heard is the common appeal to "what is widely used." Unfortunately, even terms that are commonly used may still not be appropriate for an article title per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV if they are inaccurate, misleading, or biased. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing "illegal" with "criminal". No one here has suggested changing the title to "Criminal immigration to the United States". Of course I can cite Wikipedia policy to justify the name. It is the same one you cite: WP:COMMONNAME. Your quoted exception to the general rule to use the common name applies only if the name is inaccurate. You are obviously familiar with the US Code, as you quote it above. Then you are no doubt also familiar with the repeated use in the US Code of the term "illegal immigration", that thing, which, according to some editors, does not exist (most such citations in USC are references to the "Illegal Immigration Reform Act", but there are some that reference "illegal immigration" itself). It also uses the term "illegal immigrant" (another supposedly nonexistent category). If you are unable to find the citations in US Code, I can provide more specific info. I have not, however, been able to find any references in the US Code to "undocumented immigration" or "undocumented immigrant". To your unsubstantiated contention that "illegal immigrant" and "illegal immigration" are inaccurate, I would point out that these are the very terms used in the federal code. Plazak (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
That is correct, and perhaps I should have explained this point with a little more precision. What I meant to express is that using the term "illegal" in the title perpetuates the criminalization of undocumented migration and connotes an "unworthiness" of undocumented immigrants. One one hand, I am concerned about the biases implicit in this term; Wikipedia policy expressly forbids perpetuating biases (see WP:NPOV). On the other hand, "illegal" is an inapt term because this article discusses (at length) individuals who are eligible for "legal status" upon entering the country, even if they do so without permission. The answer may ultimately be to split this article, but as it stands, the term "illegal" is an imprecise and inaccurate descriptor for the subject of this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I should also mention that criminalization of immigration in the United States has led to immigration policies that do, indeed, function as criminal enforcement mechanisms in practice. Nevertheless, we must recognize that the terms we use shape "the perceptions and expectations" of immigrants "in this country who seek the full protection of its laws". Indeed, using the word "illegal" in the title perpetuates the harmful "social construction of immigrants as 'criminal aliens'". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Request - can someone actually present some evidence on the usage of "illegal immigrants" vs "undocumented migrants" in the sources rather than using Wikipedia as a forum for their personal opinions? I don't care what you think or feel. I want to know how the phenomenon is described in recent reliable sources, so that we can follow Wikipedia policy. My sense of it is that the term "illegal immigrants" used to be predominant but in recent years "undocumented migrants" has become much more widely used. I don't know if the extent of that switch has been substantial enough to warrant moving this page. But I want to see evidence about it, not opinions. Volunteer Marek  12:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, the argument for renaming this article has nothing to do with how frequently the terms are used. It is well established that the term "illegal" (in the context of immigration) is a a stigmatizing phrase that perpetuates biases (see this source, this source and this source). We must follow Wikipedia policies that specifically state articles should not use "loaded words" (quoting WP:NPOV; see also WP:WORDS). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • They are not equivalents though. There are cases of immigration that is documented and then later found to be in contravention of various immigration statutes and laws, which is not the same as being undocumented in the first case. If you permanently overstay your visa, your entry is documented. Other cases involve lying in the immigration process, which results in a documented immigration, but still in contravention. And this article covers those cases as well. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - an immigrant (ie a person who has migrated into a country) who has done so illegally is an "illegal immigrant", it makes no claim as to their being an illegal person. Also, I fail to see how describing an illegal action as illegal does harm. --Khajidha (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you please provide evidence of how sources use the terms, not your own personal opinions. WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek  14:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not an opinion, it's a definition. And the second point was in response to the original poster's uncited contention that referring to "illegal immigrants" does harm. Finally, is there some reason you are singling me out as opposed to others in this discussion that have made similar statements? --Khajidha (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Khajidha, to answer your question about the harm caused by the term, see this source, this source and this source. The phrase "illegal immigration" implies there are "illegal immigrants," and the latter of those terms is a loaded phrase that perpetuates biases and stigmatizes the population it seeks to describe. Therefore, we should follow Wikipedia policy and avoid such language, per WP:NPOV and WP:WORDS. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
First source has nothing about the harm done by the description. The second source repeats the irrelevant "no human being is illegal" objection. No one has claimed that the people are illegal, only that their entry into and/or continuing residence in a country is illegal. It also confuses the statement that there are illegal immigrants with the allegation that a particular person is an illegal immigrant. The third source has the same problems as the second. Again, how is it harmful to state that a person who has done something against the law has done something against the law?--Khajidha (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
My apologies about the first source, I meant to link this piece from the New Yorker in which Jeffrey Toobin describes the term "illegal" as "pejorative," "toxic," and a term that has been consistently rejected by the "people most affected by it, who happen to be a vulnerable minority seeking a better life." The CNN article explains that the term "illegal" is an inaccurate, biased, and racially charged term because "[m]igrant workers residing unlawfully in the U.S. are not -- and never have been -- criminals. They are subject to deportation, through a civil administrative procedure that differs from criminal prosecution, and where judges have wide discretion to allow certain foreign nationals to remain here." The article from Time Magazine article explains that the term "illegal" is harmful because is "dehumanizes and marginalizes the people it seeks to describe." The article further explains that "[t]he term illegal is also imprecise. For many undocumented people — there are 11 million in the U.S. and most have immediate family members who are American citizens, either by birth or naturalization — their immigration status is fluid and, depending on individual circumstances, can be adjusted."Lawrences Downes' editorial in the New York Times also explains the harm caused by the word "illegal:" "America has a big problem with illegal immigration, but a big part of it stems from the word “illegal.” It pollutes the debate. It blocks solutions. Used dispassionately and technically, there is nothing wrong with it. Used as an irreducible modifier for a large and largely decent group of people, it is badly damaging. And as a code word for racial and ethnic hatred, it is detestable." If this doesn't convince you that the term "illegal" is harmful and inaccurate, then I'm not sure what will.
At the very least, you should understand that the movement of people to America is a complex geo-political phenomenon and it is simply incorrect to conflate the legal status of all people entering the country without authorization as "illegal." Upon entering the country, many individuals are eligible for "legal status" even if they do not prior approval to enter the country. Furthermore, the process of removing individuals from the United States is civil, rather than criminal in nature. The United States Supreme Court even said in Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984), that "[a] deportation proceeding is a purely civil action". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
1) Uh, what does it matter if the people described by it reject it? If the people are engaged in illegal activity, how is it harmful to say so?
As the Downes editorial explains, it is a "code word for racial and ethnic hatred." Consequently, even if the term is widely used, Wikipedia policy still mandates using a different title (see WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
2) Residing unlawfully is not criminal? Did not say it was criminal, said it was illegal. Civil offenses are still against the law.
That is correct, and perhaps I should have explained this point with a little more precision. What I meant to express is that using the term "illegal" in the title perpetuates the criminalization of undocumented migration and connotes an "unworthiness" of undocumented immigrants. One one hand, I am concerned about the biases implicit in this term; Wikipedia policy expressly forbids perpetuating biases (see WP:NPOV). On the other hand, "illegal" is an inapt term because this article discusses (at length) individuals who are eligible for "legal status" upon entering the country, even if they do so without permission. The answer may ultimately be to split this article, but as it stands, the term "illegal" is an imprecise and inaccurate descriptor for the subject of this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
3) Again, there is confusion here between the existence of illegal immigration and the immigration status of particular individuals.
That may be true, but you cannot deny that the word "illegal" is a loaded phrase, and we must follow Wikipedia policies that specifically state articles should not use "loaded words" (quoting WP:NPOV). In any event, this article describes undocumented entry into the United States generally, rather than naturalization laws specifically. Therefore, "undocumented" would be a more accurate descriptor for this article's title. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
As your own source states "Used dispassionately and technically, there is nothing wrong with it." An encyclopedia is supposed to be dispassionate and technical. --Khajidha (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your aspirations regarding passions in writing an encyclopedia. However, we must follow Wikipedia policy when reaching our result. WP:NPOV forbids biased and racially charged language, and WP:COMMONNAME forbids the use of "inaccurate names" for articles, even if those names are commonly used by reliable sources. If you can tell my why Wikipedia policy supports your argument, then I am willing to be persuaded. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Whether it is an "opinion" or a "definition" is not up to you to decide. It is up to reliable sources. So what we need is evidence which shows how the phenomenon is described in reliable sources, not somebody coming here and saying "well, I think that blah blah blah". And I'm only singling you out because you were the most recent person to make this mistake. It does apply to other comments in this discussion as well. Volunteer Marek  16:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Definition of "illegal immigrant" from Cambridge Dictionaries online: "someone who ​lives or ​works in another ​country when they do not have the ​legal ​right to do this". --Khajidha (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the renaming, on pretty much the same grounds described by others in opposition. I don't propose an alternative renaming, but I'll mention that I've seen the terms "Unlawful immigrant" and "Unauthorized immigrant" used. Here's some sourced info I posted at Talk:Anchor baby#"Illegal immigrant" changed to "undocumented immigrant" re those alternative descriptive terms a month or so ago:
  • Unauthorized
  • [1] Pew Research Center has used it.
  • [2] notes, "Per the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 'Unauthorized immigrant' is defined as a foreign-born non-citizen who is not a legal resident." See also [3].
  • [4] the Daily Kos has used it.
  • Unlawful
  • [5] says, "Black’s law dictionary supports the conclusion that 'Unlawful Immigrant' is more appropriate [than 'Illegal immigrant']."
  • [6] Heritage Foundation has used it.
  • [7] Cato Institute has used it.
  • [http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/news-media-use-unauthorized] (blacklisted) MoveOn.org has urged its use.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the term "undocumented immigration" is favored among legal scholars who write on the subject. See, for example, this article from the UC Davis Law Review, this article from the UC Irvine Law Review by Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, this article from the WIlliam & Mary Law Review, and this article from the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. I think the words "unlawful" and "unauthorized" present many of the same problems as the term "illegal," though I think the rhetorical effect is different. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Illegal immigration to the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Taxes and Illegal Immigrants

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How can illegal immigrants pay taxes withouth a valid social security card. There are plenty of social programs that assist in many ways, housing, food and clothes. This section of the article needs to be changed.Bea2157025 (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Illegal immigration to the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

About the largest supplier of deportation flights

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

User:Khajidha: You removed referenced info about the largest supplier of deportation flights, on the assumption that it's "politically motivated." It's not. It's factual. Would you please restore it?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The "politically motivated" part was the asides about his connection to Donald Trump. Unless you have a source that puts Meh's connection to Trump into perspective with his providing deportation flights and the larger issue of illegal immigration, this should not be restored. --Khajidha (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, you could restore the info about the company but trim the parts about Trump if you want?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The company info was still in the lede and the source has been restored there. I guess it should also be in the body. --Khajidha (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Can you please restore it in both places and possibly trim the Trump connection if that's the issue?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

recent edits

Latest comment: 7 years ago27 comments7 people in discussion

Re revert by Natureium

First, I didn't call your edits "vandalism", so I don't know what you are going on about. I said you were "removing reliably sourced material from the article". Which you are.

Second, "partisan bias" is in the eyes of the beholder. What matters is whether the material is reliably sourced. And it is.

Third, some of your removals... just don't make sense. For example why are you removing the paragraph which starts with "In 2016, Arizona reached a settlement with a number of immigrants rights organizations..." That's just updating the article from 2006 to 2016. It's not in any way "partisan bias". That claim is ridiculous. And of course LA Times is a reliable source.

You're also removing the paragraph beginning with "A study by economist Giovanni Peri concluded that between 1990 and 2004...". That's a scholarly paper published in a peer reviewed journal. Why in the world are you removing it?

And then you replaced the text:

"A paper in the peer reviewed Tax Lawyer journal from the American Bar Association asserts that illegal immigrants contribute more in taxes than they cost in social services.[1]"

Which is neutral and accurately represents the source. With

"Partisan organizations have published estimates claiming that illegal immigrants contribute more in taxes than they cost in social services.[1] Illegal immigrants are estimated to pay in about $7 billion per year into Social Security.[2]"

Which is complete bullshit POV, with your own "partisan bias" ORIGINAL RESEARCH inserted into it with the whoel 'partisan organizations" crap.

Your edits are highly disruptive, never mind the edit warring. Please stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

And oh yeah, in your zeal to edit war, you also removed a number of minor article improvements such as grammar fixes and such. This suggests that you care more about ensuring that a particular POV is presented in the article than about the actual quality of the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This is hilarious for you to say, because you did the same thing to me twice. You disagreed with one thing I changed so you reverted all of it. Natureium (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I quickly checked it [8]. That's a lot of changes, but looking at the first of them it appears that version by Natureium is clearly inferior. First, the reference to US Constitution is very much relevant here. Why it has been replaced by the reference to Mexican Constitution? I do not see how that's relevant. And so it goes. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: I did a partial revert. I removed Public Policy Institute of California study which had no secondary coverage. Preserved the Tax Lawyer journal, which was cited in 3 papers. Fixed link for Dallas Fed study and relocated. Removed the ACLU position paper – no secondary coverage and our text stated their position as fact. I attributed Wadsworth's study. I'm concerned to see you jump into a revert war on the side of VM as your first edit to this article or talk page. Please review WP:TAGTEAM James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Lambden, this is yet another article that you have never edited that you follow me to to edit war and create disputes. Stop stalking my edits. This is pure WP:HARASSMENT at this point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
This is another unsupported aspersion. If you feel your complaints are justified take them to the appropriate noticeboard. This is not the appropriate forum. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The freakin' history of this article supports this "assertion". You've never edited it. But you show up the minute I find myself in a disagreement with someone to revert me. As you have done on several other articles. Quit. Stalking. My. Edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Addressing this repeated dishonesty is becoming tedious. As I said: either post your complaint to the appropriate noticeboard or drop it. This page is for article improvement. Any editor is welcome to collapse this off-topic discussion. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I think this is an acceptable compromise, with valid reasons for the changes made. Natureium (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Please do not make any edits based on personal accusations. This is WP:POINT on your part. No, my edit has nothing to do WP:TAGTEAM, sorry. I have no editing restrictions and can edit any page I want. Are you telling I can not? My very best wishes (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Now, let's discuss content. You removed the following well sourced phrase: "Anyone who is on American soil, whether they are a visitor, or a resident with or without documents, is protected by the United States Constitution. This means anyone who is an undocumented immigrant living or staying in the United States has the right to remain silent, a right to trial by jury and a right to legal representation". Why did you do it? Is it incorrect statement? This is obviously important for the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I made a number of changes with corresponding arguments in the post above. You have addressed one, please address the rest. Contrary to your edit summary my "reason for revert" was not misbehavior but the arguments presented. 19:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It's irrelevant. That is a position paper from a political organization. PuppySquid (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
How come it is irrelevant to the subject of illegal immigration? It tells that every person on US territory, including illegal immigrants is a subject of US laws and Constitution, and tells they have certain rights. Are you telling this is not the case? Based on what sources? My very best wishes (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
By that logic, this is relevant to every person in the United States, so we should put a section about how they have the right to remain silent on pages about every group in the United States. Maybe even every person. After all, everyone has the right to remain silent. Based on what "sources" is this irrelevant? I don't know, common sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuppySquid (talk • contribs) 05:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this. Why do you need to talk about something that always applies to everyone? That's not relevant to the topic of the article. Natureium (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
When I looked at the edit I thought it made sense, but My very best wishes makes a good argument--which is compounded by the questionable status of "everyone" in "something that always applies to everyone". That it always applies to everyone isn't all that clear to our readership or, for that matter, to many people in the United States, including undocumented people, police officers, lawmakers, and Joe Sixpacks. However, My very best wishes (I'm picking on you since you commented on the sourcing), I'd like to see a different source than the ACLU. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of American Law supports the statement on the page [9], however this is not so simple. Although they have the same constitutional rights, they are obviously not equal in terms of the administrative law, and possibly even criminal law, as also explained in some other, possibly less reliable sources [10], [11]. In any case, this is something complicated and very important, which must be explained on this page, rather than removed. My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I think all these sources qualify as RS (we have WP pages about two of them), so this can be easily fixed if anyone cares. I personally do not enjoy editing pages frequented by active "disruption only" accounts [12] or by people who come to pages they never edited before, only to revert and accuse other contributors (edit summary) [13]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The right to remain silent is particularly relevant to illegal immigrants as opposed to "every group" because their statements may lead to their arrest/prosecution/deportation. For non-illegal immigrants, it is not an issue, because they cannot usually be arrested etc. for being in the U.S. illegally. Similarly we might mention that a person charged with an offense has a right to trial by jury, while it is less relevant to a story about a person not facing any possible charges. TFD (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
If I interpret TFD's sarcasm correctly I agree these various position papers are undue and should be removed. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not sarcasm. If it sounds like that it is because I am stating something extremely obvious. However, one editor did not. I don't see where you get the implication that I said position papers should be removed, nor what it has to do with due. TFD (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Then I have misunderstood. Can you explain by what criteria you believe the three sources in that paragraph should be included?
My objection is the lack of secondary coverage ("due".) James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
How about you explain how you came to edit edit war on this article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Could you please re-phrase your question as it is not clear to me. What does secondary coverage have to do with due? Or are you referring to something else? TFD (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Weight, relevance, call it what you like, is established by references: citations in the case of academic works and coverage in RS in others. My question to you was two parts:
  1. Are these sources covered by or cited in other sources?
  2. If not, on what basis do you believe they should be included?
James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Why this discussion? Do you guys object to three other sources I suggested above ("Encyclopedia of American Law", Slate (magazine), and PolitiFact.com) instead of ACLU? If not, I can fix it. End of story. My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Content from Secure Communities

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the following content from Secure Communities article as off-topic. Please review it for merging into the present article or another more suitable location. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Policy change announced

The Obama administration, criticized by Hispanic organizations for having "underdelivered" on immigration and other issues of concern to Latino voters, announced on August 18, 2011 a partial change in its deportation policy.[3][4] The decision, criticized by Republicans as an effort by Obama to ignore immigration laws passed by Congress and grant amnesty without Congressional approval, was expected to help President Obama overcome his troubled relationship with Latino voters, as he headed for the 2012 presidential election. The new policy helped the intended beneficiaries of the DREAM Act, which has been "stalled in Congress" for a decade, and was expected to stop deportation of those illegal immigrants who would have qualified for relief under the DREAM Act.

According to Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security Secretary, about 300,000 deportation subjects will have their cases reviewed, with the intention of concentrating on individuals who have committed "flagrant violations" and suspending many low priority deportation cases (immigrants who pose no threat to public safety or national security). The "prosecutorial discretion" reviews will be done on case-by-case bases and possible relief for the accused will be provided by Secretary Napolitano. Individuals who qualify for relief can also be granted work permits. The new policy should also make it less likely that the government will initiate new deportation cases involving people with no significant criminal record.[3][4] Napolitano said that the administration's policy "will not alleviate the need for passage of the DREAM Act or for larger reforms to our immigration laws".[3][4]

By summer 2011, the Obama administration had deported about one million "illegal aliens", mostly indigent Mexican nationals.[5]

Courses for immigration enforcement supervisors on the administration's immigration policy are continuing into 2012. The resentment of many of the immigration officers is represented by Chris Crane, President of the National ICE Council union (a local of the American Federation of Government Employees), which is blocking the Department's attempts to have all agents participate in the training course. Crane testified before Congress and accused the government of ordering the agents not to enforce the law in order to comply with the President's reelection campaign priorities.[6][7]

A study by Pew Hispanic Center shows that Mexico to the US immigration has come, after several decades of growth, to a halt. Record numbers of illegal immigrants have been deported for three consecutive years from 2009, but other factors, including economic and demographic, also contributed to the reversal of the trend.[8][9]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Taxing Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal and Without Representation was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c Robert Pear, Fewer Youths to Be Deported in New Policy, The New York Times, August 18, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/us/19immig.html?_r=1&ref=us
  4. ^ a b c US will review 300,000 immigration deportation cases, BBC News, August 18, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14585238
  5. ^ Dino Grandoni, Obama Administration Nears Its Millionth Deportation, The Atlantic Wire, September 9, 2011 http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/09/obama-administration-nears-its-millionth-deportation/42302/
  6. ^ Julia Preston, Agents' Union Stalls Training on Deportation Rules, The New York Times, January 7, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/us/illegal-immigrants-who-commit-crimes-focus-of-deportation.html?pagewanted=all
  7. ^ Stephen Steinlight, National ICE Council Freezes the Obama Blitz, Center for Immigration Studies, January 11, 2012 http://cis.org/steinlight/national-ICE-council-freezes-the-obama-blitz
  8. ^ Mexico-US migration slips after 40 years of growth, BBC News, 23 April 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17821781
  9. ^ Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero — and Perhaps Less, Pew Hispanic Center http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/04/PHC-04-23a-Mexican-Migration.pdf

Terminology

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Most of this article uses the proper term "illegal immigrant" (213 times), while "undocumented immigrant" is only used in a couple places (5 times). Why do you object to me changing the few instances to match the rest of the article, and the rest of the wikipedia articles on related topics?

This term has been discussed on other pages as well (Talk:Illegal_immigration/Archive_2#Requested_move_23_September_2015)

Natureium (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Illegal immigration =/= illegal immigrant. Reliable sources are moving away from describing persons as illegal, and are using undocumented instead. Wikipedia should follow suit. See for instance the AP manual of style. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
If "illegal immigrant" describes a person as illegal and is therefore not good, then please explain how that is any different from "illegal alien", which is the official U.S. government term. (Does the official U.S. term find disapproval in reliable sources?! Does the word "alien" not mean person whereas "immigrant" does?!) --IHTS (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
"Illegal alien" is never used by any reliable news sources, so shouldnt be used on Wikipedia. The term is single-handedly used by Breitbart, FrontPage Mag and other rubbish websites. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Does it matter what term news sources use, which seems to be constantly changing, when there is an official, reputable, source that makes policy on illegal immigration, and has used the term consistently? Natureium (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It is policy to use the terms normally used in reliable sources, rather than in U.S. legal terminology or that of other countries. I don't think anyway that legislation uses the term. No mention in 8 U.S. Code § 1227 - Deportable aliens.[14] It is used in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, but only to refer to aliens who have committed felonies. TFD (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, Illegal immigration =/= illegal immigrant. I made the related change. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
If that is correct, then how do you explain WP article title standing the test of time: Illegal immigrant population of the United States? p.s. Typical bullying edit-war invitation to make changes to the current article after posting your OPINION on Talk. Good one. Acts like yours is one reason WP sucks. --IHTS (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Two seconds of research finds US Gov't definition for "illegal alien": [15]. --IHTS (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
After four seconds of research: [16] --IHTS (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
DHS press release: [17] --IHTS (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I said, "I don't think anyway that legislation uses the term." In any case, we are guided by what terms reliable secondary sources use, not government usage. TFD (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Leaving the US Comment

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where would something about people leaving the US for Canada due to their fears of deportation go, in this article. Montreal Canada has had to use their Olympic stadium to house the great number of people fleeing the U.S. in 2017. See: http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/olympic-stadium-houses-asylum-seekers-1.4231808 the eloquent peasant (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I believe the lead section (as least the first sentences) are more clear as they are, because it states what the violation of the immigration policy "is", rather than describing what it "involves". If the tense is the issue, that could probably be reworked while still formatting it as a definition rather than a description. Natureium (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see more inputs before I take a stance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The version by Snoogans^2 was far better and articulate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"Open borders until 1924"

Latest comment: 7 years ago41 comments8 people in discussion

A recent edit was made to the lede including the statement that the US had arguably "open borders" until 1924. The source applied does not appear to be sufficient to me and to my knowledge there were already multiple restrictions in prior years. --Joobo (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The statement comes from Mae Ngai, a full professor of history at Columbia University, and it's in the The Philadelphia Inquirer, a reliable multiple-Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper. Mae Ngai is an expert on migration to the United States, specially illegal immigration. Her 2004 Princeton University Press book Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America [18] has been cited more than 2250 times (per Google Scholar) and won her multiple prestigious awards by relevant academic organizations:
  • Winner of the 2005 Lora Romero First Book Publication Prize, American Studies Association
  • Winner of the 2005 Frederick Jackson Turner Award, Organization of American Historians
  • Honorable Mention for the 2005 Gustavus Myers Outstanding Book Award, Gustavus Myers Center for the Study of Bigotry and Human Rights
  • Co-Winner of the 2004 History Book Award, Association for Asian American Studies
  • Co-Winner of the 2004 First Book Prize, Berkshire Conference of Women Historians
  • Winner of the 2004 Littleton-Griswold Prize, American Historical Association
  • One of Choice's Outstanding Academic Titles for 2004
  • Winner of the 2004 Theodore Saloutos Book Award, Immigration and Ethnic History Society
Her other works include a widely cited examination of the Immigration Act of 1924 in the The Journal of American History [19] and Immigration Restriction and Deportation Policy in the United States, 1921–1965 in the Law and History Review [20]. Her word on this subject is sufficient, and does not merit a [dubious] tag because it doesn't mesh with Wikipedia editor Joobo's expertise on the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The article is more nuanced and mentions that some people were refused entry. Note also the Chinese exclusion acts that prevented Chinese immigration in the 19th century and the article mentions restrictions on Irish immigration. TFD (talk)
I do not actually have doubts about Ngai, but rather about the statement put in the lede. I am no expert in this field, however I am aware of Immigration restrictions that were in place many years before 1924. Just take the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 as an example. Also Immigrants to Ellis Island had to be checked and first deemed as genuine and adequate migrants before being allowed to enter the United States. A so-called "open border" policy was never existing, perhaps sometime in the very early years of the American frontier - albeit that would be a different story. --Joobo (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Open borders doesn't necessarily have to be about no restrictions on movement, only limited restrictions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Restrictions of persons with various diseases existed well before 1924 (Quarantine), and still exist today. I need more research before citing sources.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that there were no restrictions on movement before 1924. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The article asserts, "all immigrants to the United States [prior to 1924] were legal.", citing this source in support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Browsing around a bit in Ngai, Mae M. (2014), Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-1-4008-5023-5, I see on pages 3, 17 and 18 as an era of open immigration from Europe (emphasis mine). In several places, the book also mentions the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess it was open in the sense that there was no restriction to immigration except on people deemed undesirable. But those people would not even be allowed to visit the U.S. So anyone who was acceptable enough to enter the country was allowed to remain. TFD (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2017 UTC)

As I understand it, the purpose of the Chinese Exclusion Act was to prohibit immigration, specifically, of Chinese laborers, Chinese laborers being defined as "both skilled and unskilled [Chinese] laborers and Chinese employed in mining (see [21]). I'm not sure what practical impact it might have had on Chinese persons not fitting that definition. Focus on that act and its impact, however, seems to be a divergence from the original focus of this discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's another source that describes the US as having an "era of open borders" until the 1920s[22]. The study is forthcoming in the quality journal Journal of Economic Literature and authored by legitimate economists of immigration Ran Abramitsky and Leah Boustan. The same scholars describe the period as "open borders" here also[23]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The thing with the Chinese Exclusion Act is that it was the exception which proved the rule. Ie., a special law had to be passed which said "our open borders do not apply to the Chinese". Of course it was a very racist law but its existence actually illustrates the fact that generally borders were open.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The claim is a bit dubious, I feel. For one, citing the credentials and awards of a single author is hardly sufficient. There's no "scholarly superheroes" whose opinion overrides that of everyone else's---we're looking for a coherent claim back by scholarly consensus. Moreover, even if the source is reliable, if there's other sources which contradict the claims made by the source, or if the claim is unclear in some sense, we have problems. What is meant by "essentially open borders"? There were clear moves towards a more Nativist immigration policy pre-1924. Consider, for example, the Immigration Act of 1917, or the Immigration Act of 1903. The Chinese Exclusion Act has already been mentioned. Moreover, there's little reason to believe that anyone from anywhere around the world would have been free to immigrate to the United States and become a naturalized citizen. Consider cases such as Bhagat Singh Thind. Or does it simply mean that immigrants would not have been subject to prosecution or deportation by authorities? That would seem more likely. In any case, a claim as simplistic as "essentially open borders" fails to take into account the significant role ethnic and racial origin played in how immigrants were treated. CompactSpacez (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That's all great but if you're gonna complain about a single scholar and say things like "whose opinion (does not) override everyone else's" then you have to show that this scholar's opinion is actually different from everyone else's. Basically, you need to bring sources to the table.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

So that we're all on the same page:

James J. Lambden (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

So that we're all on the same page:

User:James J. Lambden has been following my edits for the past several months, making "revenge-reverts" and inserting himself into any kind of disagreement I find myself a part of. This is the case here as well. Lambden has made TWO edits on this article, each time jumping in to edit war on behalf of whoever I was in an argument with. And both times he's done this right after I disagreed with him on some other issue somewhere else on Wikipedia.

His presence here is not conducive to collaborative consensus building, since he's clearly here to pour gasoline on any fires he comes across. As long as they're in my vicinity.

This has happened repeatedly over multiple article discussions, each one of which became a shit show in no small part thanks to Lambden's appearance (not to mention drama board discussions).

I'm requesting that he politely leave off.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

VM: Address the content argument or go away. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm done feeding your trolling Lambden.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Also want to add that if the only objection is to the "open borders" part, then why is everything being reverted? It seems like that's just an excuse to make a massive POV edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The "B" in WP:BRD were the edits beginning July 17 linked above. They will continue to be reverted until consensus is established to include them. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
So you are threatening to edit war until you get your way? Look. You had no problem with that version... hell, you hadn't even paid attention to this article, until you saw that I made an edit here. Then you rushed in to revenge-revert me. And are now making threats. You haven't even bothered to address the content issues in any way. The above comment, the "so that we're all on the same page" stuff, is ALL your contribution to your discussion.
And of course, as can be seen from this discussion this is EXACTLY what you did in May. You jumped in a middle of a disagreement and poured gasoline on the fire. BTW, whatever happened to User:PuppySquid? You guys no longer buds? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

So one more time. Is the only objection the "had open borders" stuff, or does anyone actually care to explain why the consensus version is being reverted? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There are several problems with your bold edit (which you oddly refer to as "the consensus version" despite no evidence of consensus on this talk page) beyond the open borders claim. Here are some:
  • Unexplained relocation of Identity theft and Gang violence from Crime to Public Health Preparedness and Emergency Management
  • Unexplained removal of Drug trafficking, previously under Crime
  • Unexplained relocation of Crime to Public opinion and controversy
The way to resolve these changes, which multiple editors have objected to, is to gain consensus on the talk page. Edit-warring is not a substitute for discussion and consensus. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
No, "multiple editors have" not "objected to" that version. One other editor expressed their preference for a different version. Which isn't even mine. Then you noticed that I disagreed and jumped in to stoke the edit war as you always do with your stalking of my edits. That's the nature of the dispute here.
As to the objections. The only objection articulated prior to last comment WAS in fact ONLY the "open borders" stuff. Yet, you insisted on edit warring without bothering to explain exactly what was suppose to be wrong with the version you were blind-revenge-reverting. I guess you came up with something now. So let's see.
Relocation of Identity theft and Gang Violence - don't care... except for that the stuff on gang violence is ALREADY in the Crime section. The problem is that the same info is in twice which makes it redundant (gee, wonder why).
While we're on the subject there's way too much UNDUE weight given to Arizona SB1070. Especially since most of that law never went into effect.
The stuff on Drug Trafficking barely mentions illegal immigration. It's WP:COATRACK and POV. All the pertinent info is already elsehwere.
Unexplained relocation of crime - this one's debatable. A lot of this is indeed controversy and public opinion. And putting "Crime" under "Impacts" is clearly POV as it implies that one of the impacts is crime, whereas in fact most studies don't find an impact on crime at all.
Honestly, the whole article needs a good scrubbing as its chuck full of POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Drug trafficking is one of the main justifications given by the administration for increased border security; it is not COATRACK or POV. You really have to discuss these changes. On top of your reversion to the non-consensus version (once again) you've made further contentious edits. This for example which was easily sourceable you removed with the edit-summary: "A friend once told me..."/find a better source. This section you claimed you would "move for better flow", never found its way back. Unless we can edit by the policy and collaboratively this process will not likely result in an improved article. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Then find sources which actually discuss illegal immigration. Right now what we had was "there's drug trafficking. there's illegal immigration." That's classic coatrack and POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
And you're again employing the disruptive tactic of "find one minor thing to complain about and use that as an excuse to do a whole sale revert". Please stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
You made dozens of changes and it's your responsibility to justify them. If you remove sourced content without justification or discussion don't complain when editors object. Make incremental changes, discuss content, get consensus, avoid petty snipes and your changes are much less likely to be reverted. I shouldn't have to explain that. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
They were indeed justified. Did you bother even looking at the edit summaries or just hit the undo button the moment the change popped on your watchlist? It is your responsibility to explain what exactly you object to or why you are reverting, rather than making blind reverts especially since you followed me to this page as part of your WP:STALK and WP:HARASSMENT. These aren't "petty snipes", this is me being sick and tired of your obnoxious, creepy, disruptive behavior. Find someone else to bully please.
And don't gimme this phony "much less likely to be reverted" nonsense - your edit history and past actions clearly indicate that you revert my edits without ANY regard as to their content, just to piss me off.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
VM: Address the content arguments or edit elsewhere. I will not facilitate tantrums. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but disliking being stalked and harassed and bullied is not a "tantrum". It's a perfectly natural and rational response when dealing with a creep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"Although no official definition of "sanctuary city" exists, sanctuary policies which benefit illegal immigrants or limit cooperation with federal immigration officials exist in at least 633 counties." - first part is true, but second part is a very loose interpretation of the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

In what way is it loose, the "or" ? If you find a source to separate the count (number of cities/counties that limit cooperation with federal immigration officials) I would not object to separating the statements.
The text you added "Most of these ordinances are in place at the state and county, not city, level" is a misrepresentation of the source which states "Policies limiting cooperation with immigration detainers are typically in place at the county and state level." It is those policies which they refer to rather than ordinances refraining from stopping or questioning individuals for the sole purpose of determining their immigration status as your edit implies. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"Scholars have tagged these so-called "don't tell" measures as "obvious targets for express preemption" given the apparent conflict between "don't tell" policies and the restrictions in Sections 434 of the "Welfare Reform Act" and Section 642 of the "Immigration Reform Act" that expressly forbid restraints on communications with federal officials, including the sharing of information relating to people's illegal immigration status." - this part turns out to be a close paraphrasing which gets close to a WP:COPYVIO. Rather than restoring this, please suggest sufficiently reworded version.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Also NYPost is not a reliable source, at least not for anything controversial.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention that the text is clearly UNDUE. This isn't "let's include every crime committed by illegal immigrants" article. Stop it with the POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to decipher what is going on between the two of you. I don't object to the changes regarding the previous open borders policy, but I'm concerned that recent changes have been clearly biased. The most recent edits made by User:Snooganssnoogans are extremely partisan and weighted toward the pro-illegal immigration POV. Information from was cherry picked to prove a point and this is not the place for that. Natureium (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you'll have to be more specific.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Many of these 20 edits involve removing anti-illegal immigration information and adding pro-illegal immigration information. Natureium (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Looking back on my edits today, the only anti-illegal immigration text that I removed was (i) a badly sourced and contextualized piece of text about GAO numbers on undocumented immigrant crime, and (ii) a misrepresentation of a CBO report on the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. Most of the text that I removed were outdated numbers about the size of the illegal immigration population. The text that I added were studies, and my text is completely representative of the most recent assessments in the academic literature (e.g. just read the 2017 report by the National Academy of Sciences). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Titling

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Language evolves and it seems that the terminology used in the title of this work is fast falling out of fashion. Knowing a number of undocumented immigrants to the US myself, I know that the term "illegal" is fraught. Conservative commentators scoff at the changing of language, but we do it all the time and it seems to me this is a place where Wikipedia is actually a bit behind the style guides of most mainstream sources. For a thoughtful essay on the subject which points out the semantic problems with the change but comes to the same conclusion I think is warranted, read this. How would people think about a move request to a new title? jps (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times before. I'm not convinced that, at this time, such a change is necessary. The word "illegal" is not fraught. It's legally accurate. "Illegal" immigrants are "undocumented", sure, but their lack of documentation is, well, illegal. Furthermore, if we do what you propose, then we're applying a double standard to the United States. We would then have to change every article on illegal immigration to "undocumented" immigration. The editorial you link is neither thoughtful (though that's admittedly a matter of opinion) nor particularly relevant to the debate. The New Yorker does not aim to be neutral, but we do. Lastly, the word undocumented, to my knowledge, is not used officially by the United States government. It is used by reputable media sources; however, many of these sources use "undocumented" interchangeably with "illegal" and "unauthorized". JDiala (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Recent changes to this article have been clearly pro-illegal immigration. The title has been discussed more than once in the past and has been determined multiple times to be the most clear title for the topic. Wikipedia is meant to be informative and unbiased, rather than attempting to not offend any particular sensitivities. Natureium (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple problems with recent edits (31 August 2017)

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Summary: This series of edits[24] is deeply problematic for a number of reasons: It does original research and synthesis (see #1, #3), gives undue weight to inappropriate studies (#2), cites bad sources that masquerade as research (#2b, #2d) and misrepresents sources (#3b, #4). The level of misrepresentation and poor sourcing is so bad on occasion that I question the good faith of the editor who did the edits. Below, I go through each added text in chronological order:

  • 1: Population growth: This is a case of egregious original research and synthesis. The text claims that population growth is bad for a number of reasons (citing a World Bank report - this report contains zero mentions of "immigration" or "immigrants"), and then says "oh, hey, illegal immigrants increase the size of the US population" (citing the census), which implies that illegal immigration must be bad. The census citation also goes to a dead link, which suggests that the editor who added it never bothered to read the sources of the text that he/she is citing.
  • 2: Problems with the "Impact on wages of citizens" section

    • 2a: Text summarizing the most recent research on the effects of illegal immigration is displaced by an outdated NPR summary of George Borjas' research and then a Wikivoice summary of Borjas' research. The Borjas report in question conflates both legal and illegal immigration. As such, we have no way of knowing what the precise impact of illegal immigration is. The Borjas report is sourced to the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that frequently publishes rubbish and false reports, and the report is certainly not peer-reviewed.
    • 2b: Priority is also given to a 7-page testimony by a Vernon M. Briggs who cites no research and flimsily notes that the unemployment rate for low-skilled workers is higher than that for high-skilled workers, and asserts out of nowhere and with no analysis done that this is due to illegal immigrants.
    • 2c: After covering an outdated 2006 NPR summary of Borjas' report, a Borjas report on CIS about immigration in general, and a 7-page testimony by someone who cites no research and does no analysis, we finally get to peer-reviewed studies that show that in fact illegal immigration increases the welfare of natives. These should not be at the bottom of the pile, so to speak.
    • 2d: The text then talks about how Alabama's unemployment rate fell after it started to enact tougher immigration laws, implying that the immigration enforcement caused the unemployment rate to fall. This text cites CNSNews.com. The analysis is not based on any study, and it's pretty clear that countless factors could account for shifts in Alabama's unemployment rate.
  • 3: There are three problems with the "Costs of education" section:

    • 3a: I question the practice of just reciting figures for how much it costs to educate unauthorized immigrant children in states XYZ in a random assortment of years. Is it really encyclopedic to cover the precise numbers for what education costs for the children were in Minnesota for the period 2003-2004? Do the illegal immigrants in the state pay more in state taxes than the costs of educating their children? We don't know because the report explicitly does not set out to consider immigrants' effects on tax revenues (just read the disclaimer at the start of the report). This is one of the pitfalls in plucking numbers out of random government reports.
    • 3b: The New Mexico figures are extremely deceptive, and reflect very poorly on the editor who added them, because they suggest that the editor either didn't read the source that he/she cites or that he did and opted to misrepresent the source. Again, the text just mentions a cost figure for New Mexico in a random year. I tried to hunt down the report that the shoddy citation refers to. This is the source[25], and the $67M figure is the upper end whereas $50M is the lower end of the cost (someone who cared about improving the Wikipedia project would use the $50-67M estimate of the report whereas someone who just cared about demonizing illegal immigrants would misleadingly just mention the $67M figure). More importantly, the illegal immigrants paid more in state/local taxes than they obtained through schooling their kids: "In the case of the Pew Hispanic Center estimate, the $69.260 million paid in taxes minus the $67.445 million spent on education means undocumented families paid $1.814 million more in taxes than undocumented children cost in K-12 education". If this report is going to be cited, you better cite the conclusion of the report, rather than pick random numbers from it.
    • 3c: "Illegal immigrants who have attended school in California for three years are eligible for reduced in-state tuition for public colleges." Again, we have no idea on the basis of the text or the citation whether this is a net economic gain or cost.
  • 4: The "Government costs" section: It completely misrepresents the CBO's own summary by only emphasizing costs at the state and local level. This is the first line in the CBO report[26]: "Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use." Also, there is already a "fiscal effects" section where this type of content should go.

Due to these significant flaws, I'm advising the person who added the content to demonstrate good faith by reverting the edits in full. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert the edits in full. I'm willing to compromise, but I'm trying to balance the edits you've made recently.
  • 1. You're right. I didn't go to the source, I took the sentence from another wikipedia article where it's stood without reversion for years, and it's not my claim, as I haven't edited that article. I'm sure now you'll go seek it out to add your own point of view to the article. However, the point is valid. According to the world bank, population growth has negative effects. It's not original research to say that illegal immigration is growing the population. Adding people to a country is, by definition, growing the population.
  • 2. NPR is a reliable source.
  • 3. These numbers were also taken from a wikipedia article. And your math is 3b is completely irrelevant. This would only be possible to count if all taxes went to education, and the only services they received were education. This is not the possible.
3c. It doesn't matter whether it was a net positive or negative. The article is on illegal immigrants. This is a sentence about policies related to illegal immigrants. It's in a section with education because it seemed most relevant to keep it with similar information, but I can move it to another place if you'd like.

This article has been becoming more and more biased with recent edits, mostly by you. I'm trying to find information to find points demonstrating that there is conflicting data available. If you would like, we can remove all claims about whether illegal immigration is beneficial or detrimental, which is impossible to really determine, and just focus on the raw information. Natureium (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Disgraceful response. You basically sabotage this Wikipedia article with poorly sourced and intentionally misleading nonsense that you can't even bother to read, and after all the ridiculous flaws of your edits and poor sourcing have been pointed out to you, you won't even muster a defense for most of it yet still stand by your edits. (1) You don't understand WP:OR (because this is a textbook case of it). (2) Nobody said that NPR wasn't reliable. What I said was that it was a dated summary of Borjas' research on both legal and illegal immigration, and thus shouldn't be prioritized above recent peer-reviewed research on illegal immigration specifically, including a comprehensive National Academy of Sciences 2017 report that reviews the literature on this subject. (3) This is not "my math", it's from the goddamn report that YOU cited. (Concluding rant) You should read up on WP:FALSEBALANCE. The most hilarious part of this is that you're citing a report (3b) that you believe reflects poorly on illegal immigration... then when I point out that the report emphasizes the net benefits of illegal immigration, you start to argue that the conclusion of report is unreliable and that we shouldn't use its conclusions. So your basis for including or excluding something is whether it reflects poorly on illegal immigration, not whether its reliable and due, which is a pathetic approach to WP editing. As for your last sentence: your inability to understand social science research is not a reason for excluding social science research from Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Swearing does not help you make your point. I'm not sabotaging wikipedia, I'm attempting to restore balance. Your idea of "false balance" doesn't mean that anyone disagreeing with you has a fringe viewpoint. When I started editing this article, I didn't have much of an opinion either way about illegal immigration. And the math "69.260 million paid in taxes minus the $67.445 million spent on education means undocumented families paid $1.814 million more in taxes than undocumented children cost in K-12 education" is taken out of context, while the numbers may be correct. While you don't seem to understand that other people may possibly have other views than you, it doesn't mean they're a disgrace. These are not my reports. These are sources I found elsewhere on wikipedia, and are from reliable sources. The "hilarious part" is that you're trying to portray my edits as biased, when yours have been for a long period of time. I think the best course of action would be to take any supposition out of this article. It is impossible to prove whether illegal immigration is beneficial or detrimental. It simply is, and should be described without bias. I simply came here looking for facts, but if we are going to include a lot of support for immigration, it's necessary to include information in opposition to it as well. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
This is where we are: I've read and added dozens of studies, including a 650-page NAS state-of-the-art report, to this article while you have copy-pasted text and sources that you didn't even bother to read from another Wikipedia article for the sole reason that the text reflected poorly on illegal immigration (you even admit as much). I even bothered to read the horror show of sources that you brought to the table, the same sources that you couldn't be bothered to read, explaining in detail to you why they are unacceptable. I'd wager everything that you still haven't bothered to read the sources that you added, even though you're now defending them here on the talk page. 19:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I never said I added them "for the sole reason that the text reflected poorly on illegal immigration". I said added them because I found them in other wikipedia articles, and because they show that sources differ on matters of opinion on illegal immigration. And not all of the information I added was negative. You said that yourself. My goal was not to add negative information, it was to provide a full picture of the subjective nature of whether illegal immigration has positive or negative effects. And I have read the sources I added that I could access, although I haven't read the 650-page NAS report, and I probably will not. Natureium (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
"And not all of the information I added was negative. You said that yourself." No, I didn't. I said that you plucked numbers on the costs of illegal immigration from an obscure report to emphasize the negatives of illegal immigration when the report emphasized that the illegal immigrants were net benefits - i.e. you misrepresented the source just so that you could attack illegal immigration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I think Snooganssnoogans covers this well. Not much to add. These edits violate numerous Wikipedia policies and some of them... are just strange (like explaining how water reservoirs work).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States/Archive_8&oldid=1136813992"