Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States and crime/Archive 1

Archive 1

GAO data

Editors are edit-warring text sourced to an NPR story about a 2011 GAO estimate into the article: "that 25,000 homicides, 42,000 robberies and about 70,000 sex offenses had committed by illegal immigrants". This text does not belong for several reasons:

• (1) The GAO estimate is for both legal and illegal immigrants: "the term "criminal alien" is distinct from the term "illegal alien," the phrase used both times the statistic was cited to Trump. The GAO report defines criminal aliens as "noncitizens who are residing in the United States legally or illegally and are convicted of a crime.""[1]
• (2) This random data does not belong in this article, because the numbers have no meaning or context. The data does not cover any time period, which makes them useless in the way that the editors are using them. As far as I can tell, the sole value of the GAO study is in estimating what criminal aliens are in prison for (e.g. what are the most common crimes?). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree (user uses this ref). This is is citation out of context. The publication cites D.Trump (the included text) and tells something opposite, i.e. " February 2018 study by the Cato Institute using 2015 crime statistics from Texas found immigrants in the country illegally were 25 percent less likely to be convicted of homicide than native-born Americans", "immigrants in the country illegally were also 11.5 percent less likely than native-born Americans to be convicted of sexual assault and 79 percent less likely to be convicted of larceny", "March 2018 study in the journal Criminology looked at whether violent crime increases as the number of immigrants living illegally in a community goes up. Researchers found it does not. If anything, the opposite is true: Violent crime appears to fall when more immigrants are living in a community illegally", etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

However, this NPR article goes on to not that the study found 4 categories of crime that were more likely to be committed by illegal than by legal residents of the U.S. living in Texas That info, sourced to both the NPR article and the original study should be added to page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably can be included, but exactly as in the cited source, i.e. "Legal immigrants were 87 percent less likely [than citizens]". My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to wonder if reporting skew was looked for— would those communities with illegals simply not report crime. Markbassett (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• NPR corrected the language after I let them know: "Clarification Feb. 19, 2019 An earlier version of this story failed to note that a Government Accountability Office study about immigrants who commit crime included data about immigrants living in the country both legally and illegally."[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to any Wikipedia editors who took the extraordinary step of getting the WP:RS to amend its story seven months later, making some of the material no longer germane to this article. I've consequently removed the no-longer-germane portion from the article. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Insert crime section from Illegal immigration to the United States

The state of this article is extremely poor. If this is to be a standalone article, then the content from the crime section in Illegal immigration to the United States should simply be copy-pasted into this article, because that content actually summarizes pretty much all the research on the subject.[3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, good suggestion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree, this would be an excellent addtion. The section on that page would then need to be summarized, with a hatnote to this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)(see below)

and we have to make certain that every citation included refers to "illegal immigrants" and not "immigrants" as Snoogans says: "the term 'criminal alien' is distinct from the term 'illegal alien'."Patapsco913 (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm prohibited from copy-pasting content from one page to another. My very best wishes, Patapsco913, E.M.Gregory or some other user would have to do it. There seems to be a consensus that this should be done. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I copied this and rearranged things around a little bit. Welcome to improve. My very best wishes (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

many of the sources do not even mention illegal immigration and need to be removed. This article is about illegal immigration. My very best wishes. Did you review the citations or just blindly put them in?Patapsco913 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is about illegal immigration and crime. But to mention legal immigrants for comparison (if that is what cited sources do) is fine. Why not? My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with not mentioning legal immigrants. There seems to be a common misconception that illegal immigrants are particularly crime-prone, so it might even be better to make as clear as possible that we are strictly talking about illegal immigrants. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Saying that illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate than legal immigrants (that is what sources do) is perfectly legit and should be included. Of course, if a source does not mention illegal immigration at all, then we should not use it - agree with that. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with all comparisons of illegal immigrants to legal immigrants and native-borns. But removing or rephrasing something like "Immigrants, including illegal immigrants, have lower crime rates" could reduce some of the confusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

So, the removed text was as follows (can it be partly recycled?) My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

For immigration in general, a majority of studies in the U.S. have found lower crime rates among immigrants than among non-immigrants, and that higher concentrations of immigrants are associated with lower crime rates. Some research even suggests that increases in immigration may partially explain the reduction in the U.S. crime rate. A 2013 study found that children of immigrants were more likely to commit crimes than their parents.

the problem is that the sources refer to overall immigration and not specifically illegal immigration. If they have something to say on illegal immigration then we could work them in. The into provides enough evidence that immigrants overall do not commit more crime than native born citizens which is good. Which ones do you suggest be added?Patapsco913 (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing. This page is under AfD. If it will be kept, I would suggest moving it to a more general title, Immigration and crime in the United States and dealing with this accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes, You are, of course, free to start a page on immigration and crime. This page, however, is about Illegal immigration to the U.S. and crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• User:Patapsco913 point is well taken. The section should not be copy-pasted because most of the data/research is about immigrants and crime, not illegal immigrants and crime. There is very little research on illegal immigrants and crime, in part because state and local governments do not keep data on which criminals are in the country illegally.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, My very best wishes. Most of this section[4] (paragraphs 1-5 to be precise), which I wrote, can be added to this article, as well. It basically summarizes all the existing research on the impact of enforcement of immigration laws (e.g. deporting illegal immigrants) on crime. There is a "sanctuary cities" section in this article already which is in poor shape (and of course contains anecdotes about the horrors of illegal immigrants) [5]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Role of the lead

The lead section is supposed to summarize the contents of the article in a fashion that reflects the contents of the article. The current lead does no such thing

The relationship between crime and illegal immigration to the United States is a subject of significant political controversy. All scientific studies show that immigrants (including illegal immigrants) are significantly less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens in the United States. Thus, crimes committed by illegal immigrants increase the absolute number of crimes, but not the number of crimes per capita.

This isn't a summary, it's the opening statement of an essay. The first sentence fails to succinctly say what the topic is. The second sentence does, kinda. The third sentence is pure SYNTH, from the use of "thus" to the conclusion that isn't supported anywhere in the article. In addition, the lead does nothing to address the latter sections of the article.

I'm going to restore my version, not because I think it's perfect, but because it's the only one that makes any effrot to summarise the article. Guettarda (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been imploring editors to simply import relevant content from Illegal immigration to the United States. There's one paragraph in the lede to that article that should be imported here, as well as several paragraphs from the body that summarize the academic research on various aspects of the relationship between illegal immigration and crime. We don't need to reinvent the wheel - there is already an article that contains detailed high-quality RS text on this topic, and it just needs to be imported. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

At the very least that info needs to be in the relevant sections of the body of the article. I didn't realise how misleading an impression those sections gave. Guettarda (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to expand the lead. I fixed it a little and also text related to one of refs. Here is an important point. Possibly, there is a connection between Illegal immigration to the United States and crime (i.e. human trafficing, etc.). However, the specific "theory" by Trump is a political falsehood and must be described as such in the lead - similar to that on pages like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

What the lede to this article should say

This is what the lede to the Illegal immigration to the United States says:

• There is scholarly consensus that illegal immigrants commit less crime than natives. Sanctuary cities—which adopt policies designed to avoid prosecuting people solely for being in the country illegally—have no statistically meaningful impact on crime, and may reduce the crime rate. Research suggests that immigration enforcement has no impact on crime rates.

References

We should add the same text to the lede in this article. Then we can certainly add additional text on the political discourse surrounding the topic (e.g. "Despite this, Republican political campaigns and immigration hard-liners frequently link illegal immigrants to crime, and argue that this purported link necessitates stricter immigration enforcement.") Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Tosh. Blindly pasting text not based on the article fails LEAD, NPOV and V. Transplanting a lead that is not based on the article, pasting only one POV in without attention to proportion (making over half the lead into this, with no fair representation of other views or other subtopics), and not having the cites in this article ... Anyway, should reject out of hand anything which has not at least made the effort to propose something based on this article. Markbassett (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The relevant text from the body of Illegal immigration to the United States should also be copy-pasted into this article. The state of this absurd FORK is awful, and the simplest way to fix it is to copy-paste the relevant parts of Illegal immigration to the United States, as these parts contain summaries of all the existing research on this topic. I'm prohibited from copy-pasting material between more than two articles, so my ability to contribute to this FORK is highly limited. My very best wishes, Patapsco913, E.M.Gregory or some other user would have to copy-paste the relevant sections. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't see a fork since they are two completely different topics. We do not need a citation bomb in the lede; the relevant citations should be placed in the body with the page number referenced. The heading should be something like, although direct data on the subject is not readily available, using statistical methods, the general consensus is that illegal immigrants less crime than natives although we also would need to include reasons why that might be so (which is in a lot of the citations). Sanctuary cities and deportations do not need to be mentioned in the lede. By the way, the statement "Sanctuary Cities which adopt policies designed to avoid prosecuting people solely for being in the country illegally" is incorrect as Sanctuary Cities protect non-citizens, not solely illegal immigrants. Patapsco913 (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. I think this is the first time I'm agreeing with Snoog on a content issue. All language can be improved but this is a solid lead. Leviv ich 20:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, the proposed text is not suitable. It is not semantically possible to have the same lead text on two articles on two different things. One article is "Illegal immigration to the United States". The other article is "Illegal immigration to the United States and crime." Whereas a modest part of the content may or may not overlap, the lead para cannot possibly be the same, for, if it were, it should highlight to competent editors that at least one of the two articles is leading-in the reader. By the nose. XavierItzm (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That text appears more appropriate here than on the general illegal immigration article, though. And there's no particular policy stating that we can't have the same (or similar) leads on multiple similar articles; if that text is true, well-cited, relevant to both topics, reflective of their content, and of sufficient proportionality to belong in the lead, then it goes in both. That's a pretty high bar (hence why it rarely happens), but it does seem to be the case here. The argument that it is "leading-in" the reader seems strange to me - we want readers to come away with an accurate understanding of the sources on the topic; a lead, by definition, should be leading-in the reader (towards an accurate understanding of what the sources say, of course.) If the proposed text is accurate to the sources on one, it is accurate on both; and if it is not accurate, then it should be fixed on both. --Aquillion (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The absence of a policy does not negate semantics, nor logic. I think that it is modest to think that having two articles with the same lead should meet a "high bar", as I am not sure this "bar" has been met on Wikipedia previously, and that therefore it cannot be justified here, for it would mark a singularity of one, and again, this is not tenable. XavierItzm (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Logically, that every article should have whatever lead best covers the topic; if two happen to require the same things, then it should be the same on both. Your argument that we cannot use an otherwise-ideal lead here simply because similar things are stated elsewhere seems to be groundless both in terms of policy and logic - if you have some specific reason why this wouldn't make a good lead-in here, you can present it, but so far you haven't done so. --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the suggested info is fine, but the wording could be improved. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

List of notable crimes

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

---

This article contains a list of bluelinked crimes, each of which became notable largely because of the illegal status of the perpetrator. Each incited public and political conversation about Illegal immigration to the United States and crime. This is COMMON as per WP:EMBED. Longstanding pages with similar lists include: Stabbing as a terrorist tactic, Islamic terrorism in Europe. If, God forbid, the list embedded on this page grown unwieldy, or if page becomes too long, the list can be hatnoted on this page and a free standing List of crimes created by illegal immigrants to the United States created, as with Lynching in the United States and List of lynching victims in the United States. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

No, this "illegal immigrant crime porn"-style content does not belong here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with S. The list should be removed. Here is the difference. Simply providing a list of terrorist attacks (in other pages) is a non-controversial info and OK. However, providing that list misleadingly implies that majority or crimes was committed by immigrants. For the same reason, it would be wrong including lists of crimes committed by people depending on their race into page Race and crime...My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

How did "race" come into this discussion of a category defined by legal status?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

As an example of an equally misleading list. Yes, lists, graphs and other materials can be highly misleading.My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

If there is an article covering the incident and the undocumented status of the perpetrator is certain, the list should be included just like we have listings of List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2018Patapsco913 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

No, as DreamLinker said, placing an anecdotal "evidence" does not improve pages. As a side note, the Lists of killings by law enforcement officers should be deleted, in my opinion. Yes, they killed a lot of people. For example, "Police responded to a call that Pollard was stabbing himself. But when they arrived, they ended up shooting Pollard when he approached officers with a knife after repeated instruction to drop the weapon." So what? Is that an encyclopedic content? This is NOT. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should include the list as it asserts that the "perpetrator is an illegal immigrant". I believe this is a BLP violation as I checked a few and it seems the allegations have not been proved in court. Instead of a list which is anecdotal evidence, I would suggest citing research papers which summarise the topic itself.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• In fact, only one of the accused in the list is still awaiting official confirmation of legal status, Wilbur Ernesto Martinez-Guzman is on an immigration hold while the D.A. prepares an indictment. I fail to see a privacy argument for removing names of accused, it is COMMON and routine to name name notorious accused criminals like El Chapo once they are sufficiently notorious to pass WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

As a note, it is absolutely not common policy to include such lists. See Immigration and crime in Germany, Immigration_to_Norway#Crime, and Race and crime in the United States, Crime in the United States, Crime and violence in Latin America, Crime in the United Kingdom, Crime in India, ... essentially all "crime and topic area" articles. These are higher-profile, higher-quality articles that are much closer to this topic than the ones you linked; whereas the ones you liked are mostly about terrorism and international conflicts, which is a very different subject area. @E.M.Gregory: - I feel that this is clear-cut enough that I'd like you to strikethrough or edit to tone down your assertions that this is common practice, since you've repeated that patiently mistaken assertion several times in this discussion and it appears some people have accepted it under the mistaken belief that this actually is common practice. It absolutely is not, and now that that fact has been called to your attention I think it's unreasonable to continue discussions that began under your mistaken impression that it was. (Since I feel it's extremely clear-cut that your argument here isn't based in policy, I'd also like to ask the RFC's closer to disregard any comments exclusively premised on your error.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I will start an RFC, below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• I suggest that the list be put back in article, since consensus had not been reached in a discussion that had only run for a few hours when the list was arbitrarily removed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC on including an embedded list of crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the U.S.

Should this page include a list of notable crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the United States? E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. E.M.Gregory tells about section "Notable crimes" of the page. Please also check discussion in a section above. My very best wishes (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. Use statistical data please, not an anecdotal "evidence". Consider page Race and crime in the United States, which is a lot better developed. Would it be appropriate to include a list of offenders into that page based on their ethnicity? I do not think so. Same is here, except that the profiling is conducted on the basis of the country of origin, not ethnicity. Providing such list of anecdotal "evidence" creates a misleading impression of guilt by the immigrants, while scholarly studies (cited on the page) tell precisely the opposite: the rate of crime among emigrants is actually lower. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• D.Trump used such examples to mislead the public, as RS explain [6]. We should not do it here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include' per COMMON practice of including embedded lists crimes and other violent actions in articles on politically sensitive topics. See Terrorism in Australia, Vietnamese border raids in Thailand, India–Pakistan relations#List of some insurgent attacks. Articles about crime handle lists of notable crime in two ways. Either they 1.) embed a list of notable crimes in the article (cf. School shooting, Terrorism in Canada,) Or, 2.) they hatnote subheads to freestanding lists (cf. Bank robbery hatnotes link to List of bank robbers and robberies, Weather Underground , hatnotes link to List of Weatherman actions. Because the list of notable crimes committed in the U.S. by illegal aliens is so very short, I support having it embedded it in the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Those are largely more specific articles about terrorism, war, and international conflicts. The vast majority of crime articles do not contain lists. See eg. Immigration and crime in Germany, Crime in the United States, Crime and violence in Latin America, Crime in the United Kingdom, Crime in India, ... essentially all "crime and topic area" articles. Immigration and crime in Germany mentions only a tiny number of the very highest-profile incidents. Immigration_to_Norway#Crime mentions no specific examples. Race and crime in the United States has few or no specific examples. I strongly urge this RFC's closer to disregard this comment and any others arguing on the mistaken belief that this is common practice - it clearly is not, and that fact is clear-cut enough to make any arguments premised on that incorrect assumption ungrounded in policy. --Aquillion (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• No - Seems pretty obvious really. If you imagine any "List of Crimes Committed by X people", virtually all of them would raise serious POV concerns. Imagine a "List of Crime Committed by Bankers", a "List of Crimes Committed by African Americans", or a "List of Crimes Committed by French People". Would any of those really be appropriate? Why would it be appropriate in this case? NickCT (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Er.... Category:French criminals. Category:American businesspeople convicted of crimes, [[: United States war crimes with hatnotes to lists such as Rape during the occupation of Japan. Similar pages on crimes by ethnicity - OF WHICH THIS PAGE IS NOT ONE.

• There is no ethnic or citizenship group involved. "illegal immigrant" is a legal status similar to the status of being a police officer (Cf. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States,) or to Propaganda of the deed with its embedded List Propaganda of the deed#Notable actions. Individuals knowingly choose to become illegal immigrants, police officers, or anarchists. These are Achieved status. Ethnicity is an ascribed status.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• So, 1) for all practical intents and purposes, "Illegal Immigrant in the United States" is an ethnic designation. 2) Categories are not lists. 3) Categories like French Criminals involve French people committing crime in france (not French people committing crimes in America). NickCT (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• 1.) Wrong. "illegal immigrant" is a legal, not an ethnic, designation. 2.) You ignored the non-list I listed. I could list many more non-lists with embedded lists, but brevity is a virtue. 3.) Wrong. Dudes listed in Category:French criminals have committed crimes all over the world. You really should read The French Connection. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• 1)When >70% of people in a given category belong to an Ethnic Group, the category may as well be a byword for the ethnic group. You're basically arguing that "People who may be found in a synagogue" doesn't mean Jewish. I guess technically speaking you may be right. But it's a little obtuse to think people read it that way. 2) Which list? Law enforcement officers? That's clearly different b/c police shootings are an independently notable subject. 3) I think you get my point. Category:French criminals may be a thing. Category:French people who committed crimes in the US is not. NickCT (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• In fact, we have an enormous List of gangs in the United States categorized by ethnicity: some gangs have ethnic names: Irish Mob, Yiddish Black Hand, Marielitos and so forth. However, the list under discussion on this page is NOT ETHNIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Your opinion notwithstanding, "Illegal immigrant" is not a ethnic category. 2. "Propaganda of the deed with its embedded List Propaganda of the deed#Notable actions." 3. Some of the listed crime articles stipulate the citizenship of the illegal immigrant who committed a crime, others do not. But bluelinked crimes committed by illegal immigrants from whatever corner of the world should be added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• 1) Dodging the point, eh? Look, regardless of the outcome of this RfC, we're not going to use WP to do Trumpian, crypto-racist soapboxing. 2) I guess if a bunch of illegals got together and conscientiously decided to commit crimes (as Anarchists did in Propaganda of the deed), that might become an independently notable thing, 3) the basic point is that you're combining two subjects (i.e. illegal immigrants and crime) which aren't linked. The best policy we have against this topic is non-notable intersections (though admittedly, that deals with categories, not lists). NickCT (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• The intersection may be a political football, but it’s definitely publicly stated and covered which is WP:NOTABLE. I’d also point out that the topic is not racial by definition, the racial topics are elsewhere. — there is a separate one for Race and Crime, another for Immigration and Crime, various specific ones for criminal organizations which if stated as related would be mentionable — Mexican Mafia, Tijuana cartel, MS-13, Drug cartels, etcetera. You’d likely find names in right-leaning sites like Dailywire, Judicialwatch, Breitbart, etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Include If we have specific wikipedia articles that are on crimes committed by illegal aliens it makes sense to include links in the article especially since crime committed by illegal immigrants is in the daily news cycle both with all the major news channels and with President Trump. People can read the full article and see that the general consensus is that illegals commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think this article is more about the political propaganda. It's like Uncle Sam. It's an article about a character, not a person. NickCT (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• No (1). The article explores the correlation between crime and a characteristic of the perpetrator. If we look at articles of a similar nature such as Race and crime, Race and crime in the United Kingdom, Race and crime in the United States, Sex differences in crime, Immigration and crime (and perhaps the somewhat similar Drug-related crime), we notice that they cite research papers which analyse data. They do not cite individual anecdotal instances and add them to a synthesised list. This is in the spirit of Wikipedia:No original research.
  (2) Another issue is with a scientifically neutral point of view. This Wikipedia article is about the correlation of illegal immigration and crime (although to be precise, the examples seem to be about illegal immigrants and crime). Note, that correlation includes both positive and negative correlation. If this article gives a few cherry picked examples of positive correlation, it should also give examples of negative correlation, from the point of balance. It is for this reason, that articles like these are supposed to cite existing research and not provide individual examples.
  (3) When including items in lists, we should be careful of Correlation does not imply causation. If a characteristic was proven to be the causal factor of the incident, I might be OK with including it in a list. Otherwise, including it is meaningless. For example, a hypothetical list in Crime and Wikipedia Editing could include any convicted criminal who had edited Wikipedia, despite Wikipedia editing not being a causal factor of the crime. (Another issue with such lists is BLP considerations and I think that unless convicted in a court, we should err on the side of caution before stating someone is an illegal immigrant).--DreamLinker (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• But only if activity of said editors was bluelinked ;-) Straw man.
• Correction. Illegal immigration to the United States#Relationship between illegal immigration and crime is a narrowly defined subhead on a different page. This page is about Illegal immigration to the United States and crime. The narrowness of coverage on the other page is an excellent reason for having this page, which deals with political impact, legislative impact, and properly includes a list of notable crimes committed by illegal immigrants. It will limit the list to individuals defined by legal authorities as illegal immigrants, and who have been convicted of criminal acts in addition to the act of being in the U.S. illegally.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• This page is about "Relationship between illegal immigration and crime", including research, statistics and how this supposed relationship is being used in politics. That much is OK, because it is summarised information. A list if not OK. This is consistent with Race and crime in the United States, which includes similar research and statistics. It contains statistics by race, but it does not however include a list of crimes by X race, list of crimes by Y race.--DreamLinker (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

DreamLinker, I am increasingly puzzled by your insistence that this is somehow about race. You are, I hope, aware that even a short list of illegal immigrants to the United States who have committed notable (bluelinked) crimes will inevitably include individuals of many "races"? E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I guess the "common denominator" here is xenophobia. Look, if there are good, preferably scholarly sources on the subject, and they cite specific notable cases of crime, such cases can be noted on the page as a prose, not a list, with appropriate attribution. Otherwise, this should be statistical data like here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• E.M.Gregory, I am pointing out the analogy. Race and crime in the United States and Illegal immigration to the United States and crime are analogous articles, in that they both deal with a statistical correlate of crime. Does the Race and crime in the United States include any list of crimes? No, it doesn't because such a list would be WP:SYNTH and against WP:NPOV.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• No - This is not where we list crimes by individual illegal immigrants, just as we don't list individual illegal immigrants who are law-abiding. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• INCLUDE, but try and keep it to cases that are headlines famous enough that it would seem prominent in the topic and absurd to leave out. Such as either notable enough to have WP article, or part of the political footballs poster-cases mentioned by name by more than one politician, particularly if there was an impact. Don’t ignore overall view nor important anecdotal headlines, show both kinds of info. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include: It is WP:COMMONSENSE to include a list of notable instances of crimes committed by illegal immigrants -- as long as these instances have their own WP articles, and I know some do. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• On the contrary, for articles about a statistical correlate of crime, it is WP:NOTCOMMON to have lists, precisely because of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV issues. Race and crime in the United States, another article about a statistical correlate of crime, does not have any lists. Only including positive correlations (which is what the list does) goes against NPOV.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• I refer you to E.M.Gregory's comment below. The examples that I think are appropriate to mention are those with WP articles where the reliable sources clearly document the fact the crimes were committed by illegal immigrants, and this doesn't violate SYNTH or NPOV (the latter claim is utterly ridiculous). We're talking about this article, not "Race and crime in the United States," which is irrelevant in to this discussion. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Race and crime in the United States IS relevant because it is another article about a statistical correlate of crime. It does not mention individual incidents. Neither should this article because it is on a similar topic. As for NPOV and balance, the problem with the list is that you are only cherry picking examples of positive correlation (where illegal immigrants committed a crime). Leaving out examples of negative correlation (where the crime was not committed by an illegal immigrant)violates NPOV.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• The association made and debated about illegal immigrants has actual prominence, so it should be covered in DUE proportion. (Identifying the ones significantly present, called out in speeches and which are said to have affected the course of opinion & events, not the whole list.) That is not as much the case for race and crime - the statistics are simply accepted there. Although there are poster cases such as Central Park jogger case or Murder of Timothy Caughman or famous for interracial nature, or Dylan Roof, and things like List of lynching victims in the United States. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I never proposed or advocated for leaving out examples of negative correlation -- I support including both examples of notable crimes committed by illegal immigrants and evidence that such crimes are not exceptionally widespread. I never advocated for one to the exclusion of the other. Articles such as List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States and Terrorism in Australia include notable (and even some less notable) examples. I don't see why we can't also include some notable examples (even in a different format). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Pages you are talking about are standalone lists. Yes, this could be easier to justify as a separate list. But even then it would be problematic, because it has been deleted as a category [[7]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment How one can include something to the list if he can not categorize it? My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Crimes like Tulare County spree shooting, 2019 Queens subway shooting, and Shooting of Kate Steinle are categorized. And the fact that they were committed by illegal immigrants is well-documented. The desperate search for some reason to disallow a list merits a reminder that WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, they are categorized because you did it [8]. They should not. This is not about a fact, but about incorrectly assuming that two facts (someone was an immigrant and he also was a murderer) are casually related. Consider this well-known example: "Cucumbers will kill you! 98% people who died from cancer eat cucumbers". My very best wishes (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

YES, there should be a list!! Because Oscar Obedio Hernandez who was in the United states as an undocumented and illegal alien from Salvador in Central America murdered his wife in Bridgeport in 2017 only two days after Connecticut's Governor signed a law making Connecticut a Sanctuary State. Hernandez had previously been deported from the United States, so that this was the second time that this criminal entered the country illegally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE65000 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the first edit made by this editor in almost nine years. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the first edit made by me in almost five minutes. I don't think PE65000's comment history has any relevance. XavierItzm (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Above, User:My very best wishes and User:1990'sguy make an interesting point, it may make the most sense to start a stand-alone list of notable Crimes committed by illegal aliens in the United States.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Include, it is quite normal and COMMON to include blue-linked instances of examples on articles on Wikipedia. It would be quite strange to omit in this case and one might wonder as to why. XavierItzm (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• In this case, the article is about a statistical correlate of crime (it broadly explores illegal immigration to US and crime, NOT (only) crimes committed by illegal immigrants). The problem with such a list is NPOV and balance. It only gives examples of positive correlation, but leaves out examples of negative correlation (that is, crimes not committed by illegal immigrants).--DreamLinker (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Per the ad-hoc, one-time criterium proposed by DreamLinker, all the millions of WP articles that list blue-linked examples would lack NPOV and balance, because only prominent examples are being listed, to the disadvantage of all other those non-blue linked examples that surely exist! Patently quite an absurd position. XavierItzm (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• You are misrepresenting what I said. I said this article is about a statistical correlate of crime, just like Race and crime in the United States. An article describing the relationship between 2 unrelated points should show both perspectives. So adding a list of (bluelinked) crimes committed by immigrants is NPOV (unless a list of bluelinked crimes not committed by immigrants is also added). The issue is not about "only prominent examples are being listed", it's about examples of only positive correlation being listed.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No, you are advocating an ad-hoc, one-time criterium. By the way, WP:NOTCOMMON WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV do not include any reference to any sort of "statistical correlate of crime". Put up actual policy, please. XavierItzm (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Include and rewrite - per the above comments. As My very best wishes mentioned these could be misleading, I suggest rewriting as prose opposed to list per MOS:USEPROSE. These are controversial and needs to be described explicitly with NPOV. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• No - Of course we shouldn't start adding textbook WP:COATRACKs. If some of the best sources talk about particular cases, then they can be addressed as they come up in the article. Cobbling together a bunch of news stories that aren't about the subject, but about specific examples of one dimension of this subject, is SYNTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• How is a short list of notable crimes committed by illegal immigrants, or a short subhead about notable crimes committed by illegal immigrants, irrelevant to an article about illegal immigrants and crime?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• No per 2nd pillar and WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. Just because individual items on a list are notable doesn't mean the list itself is notable (for a standalone) or proper for inclusion as an embedded list (WP:DUE, etc.). The difference between a list of terrorism crimes and a list of crimes by illegal immigrants is that RSes compile and publish lists of terrorist attacks, but (afaik) they don't publish lists of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. For us to compile such a list would be WP:SYNTH in violation of our core policies and pillars. Leviv ich 05:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Related AfD - After it was removed from this article, the list was forked to a new article, which is now at AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Strong No, lists like this are definitely not established practice (as the relative obscurity of most of the 'examples' dredged up to try and argue otherwise illustrates.) Lists like these are rarely useful, always involve a degree of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH for inclusion, and become a dumping ground for people to drop stuff they personally want to call attention to. Crime in the United States, Crime and violence in Latin America, Crime in the United Kingdom, and so on do not contain such lists; in fact, the vast majority of "crime / topic" articles don't have them. The insistence on trying to wedge one in here is completely against common practice for articles of this nature. See in particular Immigration and crime in Germany, which is the article most similar to this one and which does not include any such list or large-scale collection of specific crimes. --Aquillion (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Aquillion: I don't think it should be completely removed because of SYTH or OR. As long as they are RS, has proper notability with UNDUEWEIGHT, they should be kept. Unfortunately, this discussion has inappropriately turned into a black and white fallacy. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; simply because there's a cite for something does not justify dumping it into every article where it could potentially be mentioned. This article is about the broad, general subject, and the vast majority of comparable articles (eg. Immigration and crime in Germany, Immigration_to_Norway#Crime, or Race and crime in the United States) do not include such lists. I wouldn't be averse to mentioning one or two of the most-important cases, if there is extensive reliable sourcing indicating that they have had significant impact on the debate over illegal immigration and crime (but they would have to be mentioned and cited in a way that emphasizes that impact.) A general dumping-ground list for every immigrant crime that we have coverage for, though, would not be useful to readers, would be full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in terms of inclusion criteria and implications, and would go against longstanding practice on comparable articles. I'm not averse to including specific incidents in prose on a case-by-case basis when the argument can be made that they are absolutely essential to understanding the topic (as with the tiny number mentioned on the relevant article for Germany, which is probably the one closest to this), but in terms of a big list or a general assumption of inclusion for anything we have sources for... the people pushing to include such a list have simply failed to make any policy-backed rationale for inclusion at all. The fact that most of the comments pushing for it above rely on the easily-disproven and plainly incorrect assertion that it has been done elsewhere only illustrates this - if there were actually valid arguments for including a list, people would be making them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: you mostly evaluated what I've just said. However, just because "vast majority of comparable articles" do not include does not mean this should exclude, and "would be full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR" does not mean it shouldn't exist. As I've said, both sides are wrong and it should be in a grey area tbh. Since it is about an article about crime, I would argue that some of the most notable ones should be mentioned in at least prose to maintain DUEWEIGHT. How would a list do any harm when there are things like "Laws and regulations", "Political debates", "Research"? Inclusion will only strengthen NPOV. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we don't disagree that much. I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning the one or two highest-profile ones. My main concern is that any specific incidents included need to have clear secondary sourcing that ties them directly to the larger topic area (ie. scholarly papers discussing the impact they had on public opinion or something of that nature.) Simply being a crime committed by immigrants isn't sufficient for inclusion on a broad topic article like this one - it had to be one that had actual long-term impact on the subject. Again, look at the Germany article for examples - including one or two incidents with clear citations saying "these greatly impacted the debate over immigration" is fine, as long as they're specifically included, in prose, in that context (as an important part of the history of the debate over the subject, with sources showing how they impacted it.) Dropping in every high-profile crime committed by an illegal immigrant, though, is WP:SYNTH in that it's plainly trying to make an argument that isn't present in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: That pretty much sums it up. The RFC question is: Should this page include a list of notable crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the United States?; a simple answer would be (which you might agree): Crimes committed should be mentioned only if it maintain WP:WEIGHT to the article and sources are not WP:SYNTHESIZED. It should be written in prose with clear context. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Mostly, yes, although I'd emphasize that a key point is the weight to the article - it's not sufficient for it to be a high-profile crime; we need reliable sources specifically tying it to the issue of illegal immigration in order to mention it here in order to avoid WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• include it is COMMON to include blue-linked examples directly relevant to an article topic like this.desmay (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• No: not in the list form per WP:WEIGHT & WP:SYNTH. A few notable incidents can be included in prose, provided there's secondary coverage discussing the impact of the crime on the general topic. Routine news reports (arrested; convicted; etc) would be insufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• No, else we might list every Jewish communists onto the page Communism. The fact that the nominator got away with trying to create this page as a list of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, isn't a reason for them to attempt to insert such purely synthetic material again. Such attempts are disruptive and trollish, and the nominator is clearly highly opinionated against both the subject and the scholarly consensus. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I like this comment. Indeed, Jewish Bolshevism is a well known anti-semitic canard. But why some people believed in it? Just because many Bolsheviks in fact were Jews. Same is here. Many crimes were committed by immigrants. Same nonsense. My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I didn't see the AfD for article List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens also created by the nom when I posted my comment. This convinced me that ANI is a better venue. see below. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note - An ANI noticeboard discussion relating to this RfC and its proposer has been filed. Participants of this RfC are invited to join the discussion there. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include - if the connection is discussed in RSes. To clarify - if a random crime by an illegal immigrant (that is notable for some random gory feature) is notable - it should not be included. If however, we have a US president (or some other trigger) discussing said notable crime and as a result RSes discuss the crime in the context of the debate on illegal immigration - then include (in list or in prose form). Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• No. WP:UNDUE. This is an encyclopedia, not a white supremacist propaganda outlet. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• No per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. Such a list suggests that immigration status is a predeterminant of criminal activity, when it has not been shown that such a correlation exists. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Impugning the consensus that illegal immigration does not increase crime

The editor XavierItzm has edit-warred an attributed quote by a criminologist saying that "good data" on illegal immigrants is "scarce" immediately after a sentence noting that the body of research unanimously agrees that illegal immigrants have lower crime rates.[9] "Good data" is scarce on countless issues and subjects of scientific endeavor. It's a trivial observation that seems solely intended to impugn the first sentence. It's a violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, this is not the first time that the editor edit-warred bad content like this into the article without following WP:BRD. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I checked the source and agree: this is misrepresenting the source by selective quotation out of context. Here is it. It tells (main point):

"According to analysis of the 2010 census and the American Communities Survey done by the non-profit American Immigration Council, immigrants to the United States are significantly less likely than native-born citizens to be incarcerated. The authors found that 1.6 percent of immigrant males age 18-39 are incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born... The divide was even sharper when the authors examined the incarceration rate among immigrant men the authors believe likely to be undocumented — specifically less-educated men from El Salvador and Guatemala between age 18-29. ... According to the analysis, these likely undocumented immigrants had an incarceration rate of 1.7 percent, compared with 10.7 percent for native-born men without a high school diploma.

That can be included. My very best wishes (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• We can certainly cite a notable criminologist pointing out that very little data about illegal immigrants and crime exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It tells about negative correlation between the immigration and crime, whatever legal or illegal. Instead, citing someone that "data are scarce" [10] is a misleading summary of the publication. My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

this article is about illegal immigrants specifically so all citations need to refer to "illegal immigration" and not "immigration". Snooggans said it best "the term 'criminal alien' is distinct from the term 'illegal alien'" so this article needs to refer to illegal aliens and crime and not criminal aliens (both legal and illegal) and crime.Patapsco913 (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

For those unwilling or unable to read the actual citation, I quote it in its entirety:

Florida State University Professor of Criminology Daniel Mears says that “good data” focused on immigrant criminality - specifically undocumented immigrant criminality - is scarce. Determining definitively whether someone who has been arrested is in the country legally can take significant effort, and the result might not be noted in all law enforcement records.

Patapsco913, please note the citation is quite specifically about «undocumented immigrant criminality,» i.e., illegal aliens. XavierItzm (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if it was more a case of illegal aliens being unwilling (for obvious reasons) to go to the police and report crimes, or if illegal aliens are inherently harder to track down, or if those from outside the country are less connected or what... I’m reading a statistic but no reason for it to be true is given, so was there anything on that line? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, the possibilities you lay out fall all within the realm of possibility. However, the WP:RS does not explain the reasons for the lack of good data. All the source says is that a major criminology expert, actually ranked #1 in his field, Professor Daniel Mears, says that no good data exists. In the absence of other sources, that is all we can say, and Talk Pages cannot be used for speculation. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

User:XavierItzm Thanks. It just seemed that any difference on results or issues with data collection might have had some further explanation or speculation from the source for further effort. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, unless Markbassett or Patapsco913 have any other objections, the ref. will be added back, considering that E.M.Gregory addressed the concerns Snooganssnoogans and My very best wishes had. XavierItzm (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no objections.Patapsco913 (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans ignored this TP discussion and [deleted] the CBS News entry:

Criminologist Daniel Mears has said "good data" on illegal immigrants is scarce.

I have left a warning regarding edit warring. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Should stay removed as undue. BTW, the edit warring notice is bogus as two of the diffs are from February. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A WP:RS (CBS) from a national eminence on the subject matter cannot be undue. XavierItzm (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

References