Talk:Mexico–United States border/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unsourced material

• Indeed, in mid-2005, increased security at the borders — inhibited the flow of seasonal illegal-immigrant workers to the degree that major agricultural operations in the US Southwest exerted extreme political pressure to have patrols stopped in certain sectors, so that workers could pass.

This sentence makes several factual assertions that we need to source. Until then I'm pulling it from the article. -Willmcw 20:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Most frequently crossed international border in the world

The article says:

It is the most frequently crossed international border in the world.

Can anybody confirm this with a source? How many people cross each hour? Edward 15:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The White House [1] describes it as "the busiest in the world" and gives a total of 300 million people using it to enter the USA a year. The Centers for Disease Control agree [2] and give figures of between 250 & 400 m. The US embassy in Mexico City [3] says 350 million people legally cross from one country to the other every year. A million a day? –Hajor 15:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Dont merge it with the Mexico Border Barrier article

IMHO, such as move would be a mistake. There is a clear difference between a border and a barrier used to enforce that border. --Wump 03:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we include physical barrier as another section of the border? To me, that makes sense. --MPD01605 00:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't merge the articles until when the barrier becomes a reality (if it does), or just have a mini-article about it like it does now. 69.109.188.59 02:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The barrier is a reality. The barrier is PART of the border. --MPD01605 03:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Feb' 06 vote

The article says

In December, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives voted for to build a separation barrier along parts of the border. A companion vote is scheduled for February, 2006, in the Senate. Proponents hope that the barrier will stem the flood of illegal immigration into the United States.

What happened in the vote? Thanks, Pcb21 Pete 12:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There can't be a seperate article, because people looking for the barrier will see the "border" title, and immediately be discouraged that there is not specific "barrier" information...they are two seperate things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.174.171 (talk • contribs)

But the barrier is part of the border.--MPD01605 16:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent bills/acts

Why aren't acts currently on the floor of the house and senate as I type (namely H.R. 4830, H.R. 6095, and H.R. 6094 in the House and the secure fence act in the senate) talked about anywhere in this article!! They are quite important, as the three house bills have just passed, and monday the SFA could pass the senate! Could someone get to doing this, or atleast make/find an appropriate article to put them in. Thanks. → JARED ^(t)  20:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Name of Article?

Why is this article named the United States-Mexico border? Why that order, shouldn't it be Mexico-United States border on principal of alphabetically order? Why is it this order? The article for Canada-US is, just that order, Canada first. Why not the same here? -Swarve 08:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. -Will Beback · † · 10:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok guess so, seeing as the US is the most important country in the world, why not. -Swarve 13:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd do it myself but the cleanup of the resulting double-redirects is going to be a big job. -Will Beback · † · 18:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

First comment on talk page, previously not contained in its own section

I deleted the part about "80% of americans" beeing hostile to immigration. No source for statistics means no credibility, and besides that is biaised.

Abivingston, 8 october 05

Could someone please fix the article, its rather messed up right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.198.11 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Border protection vs. Economic activity

I am appaled to see that the sections regarding ways that the border could be protected against the neighbour are huge, but the sections that talk about how the border economy works is so small... At the very least, I'd say that this is a content bias. 12.9.138.10 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

American incursions into Mexico

Have there be any American government incursions into Mexico? This isn't mentioned Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

see List of United States military history events -- Boracay Bill (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Related to the last of them, see the Cabalgata Binacional Villista on Cavalcade. --Una Smith (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Procedures for crossing the border

I'd like to hear more about how citizens cross the border legally. Are all people driving across the border stopped, or only some people? Do I need a passport to go from the US to Mexico? -- Creidieki 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are a US Citizen crossing the US-Mexico border you do not need a passport. Citizens legally cross by going through one of the declared points of entry, in Texas this is usually a bridge of some sort. . Upon arriving at the US side costoms inquires as to your nationality. You may be asked to show or declare anything you are bringing across the border. If you are coming across in a car you may be required to pull over for random inspections, and dogs are frequently used to check for illegal goods (like certain fruits, drugs, etc). Once you clear the check point thats it, your on US soil. TomStar81 03:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As a Mexican, I have legally crossed the border thousands of times to go shopping in Laredo, Texas and return to Mexico. The most current procedure for Mexicans is as follows:

• You get to the line of cars waiting to be passed through the border. (Could be 15 minutes, could be 5 hours, depending on whats going on in the day. 2 hours is the average time I have waited in the Nuevo Laredo bridge).
• After the wait, you go into one of the inspection booths. In the aforementioned Laredo bridge, there are up to 15 booths, but usually only two or three are operational. There, an inspection officer will ask to see your passport and visa. If you are only going to the border, he'll stamp your passport and let you in. He may also ask to inspect your vehicle, declare anything bringing across the border, or deny you entry at his discretion and without explaining to you why he is doing such things.
• If you are not staying in the border, but are going more deeply into the US, (like San Antonio), then you have to park your car, get off, and into the immigration office.
• More often than not, the line to immigration will be enormous, at least an hour wait. The office is equipped with one or two officers that look like they could need a break. They again inspect your visa, your passport, and ask you the same questions that the guy in the booth has already asked you. Here, you are required to pay a fee (I think it is $8 USD) for a stamp in your passport. The officer can also deny you entry and return you to Mexico.
• After 6 hours of wait, two of them standing in line in the heat, and paying a fee, you are now free to enter the USA to do some shopping and benefit the American economy.

I mean, I understand why Americans are harsh on illegal immigrants, but I could never understand why they had to make it so uncomfortable for foreign consumers to go and spend money in the border...

12.9.138.10 21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

These details are great! But, they belong on Wikitravel, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a guide. --Una Smith (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Name of Article - round 2

A few sections up there was a brief discussion about changing the name of this article to "Mexico-United States border". That was back in November 2006. Does anybody know if the name was ever actually changed, and if so, when & why it was changed back? Cgingold (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Can this be one of those articles that people can not edit

Reason being is even though this is part of the GNU Organization...trolls really are just changing words "illegal to legal" border crossings. It's silly. They get a good laugh out of it. This article has been targeted for vandalism, because Europeans are against our little wall, but this is our border and we get to do what we want here. The same thing is happening to the United States article where people are saying that Gridiron isn't our national sport (baseball is), and that soccer is as popular as ever. Come on. Can't we have boundaries that can't be crossed? Renegadeviking (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Mexico and us border

ok i dont have time right now but will return because it is kind of late right now. this article will be based on the fence being built in the area and also what exactly is the defining line of the border because whos records count or should i say is more important than the other. to be continued.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.8.129 (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing Sources

Arizona and New Mexico have currently declared the counties that border Mexico to be a threat, thereby enabling goveners to deploy National Guardsmen to the international border; Arizona has exercised this option but New Mexico has not.

I understand the reson that the cite tag was placed on this sentence, but I am taking this information from local TV news reports. I do not known where I would find that information in a print form. For what its worth this information is based on an KVIA ABC 7 news report that aired at 10:00pm 17 March 2006. TomStar81 03:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I put it there. I just hadn't heard about anything like that. It's fine, I don't mind leaving it, just curious what the source was. You can remove it if you'd wish, or maybe someone will come along with another source. It's up to you. But thank you for the info. --MPD01605 (T / C) 03:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ever since June 2006, New Mexico also dispatched National Guardsmen on their border counties, then Texas and finally California done so. The US-Mexican border is now the most defended international boundary except for the Israeli-Palestinian one. The Mexican government has shown displeasure on the thought the U.S. wants to build 10 to 20 foot walls, and heavily secure the border after a long previous history of an "open border". But at these times with threats of terrorism, drug cartel violence, weapons smuggling, illegal immigration and recently the swine flu epidemic, we can't have an "open border" the US-Mexican governments once supported. The USA blamed Mexico for the lost jobs of millions of their citizens, factories relocating into Mexico due to the country's cheap costs and American businesses hired millions of Mexican nationals to work legally and even more came illegally to perform jobs that "US citizens will not do". Mexicans are perceived a threat to white/Anglo-saxon hegemony and the thought of Mexico "reclaiming" the Southwest US, along with the rise of the overall Hispanic population has further made the US fear Mexico or Latin America, with the porous border and drug cartel violence included, to whether or not the US should treat Mexico a potential "enemy #1" and we should send US troops (invasion?) into Mexican territory, the first time in 80 years. We have the far right wing in America suggesting we have internment camps for "illegal aliens", a "Mexican exclusion act" alike the Chinese exclusion acts to make it difficult for Mexican illegal aliens to have jobs, use public services and acquire property, outlaw the Spanish language in order to endorse "assimilation" as well to make English the official language of the USA, and even to restore racial segregation of Mexicans apart from the white Anglos like the time (1870's to 1960's) when small shop/store front signs in Texas, Arizona or California read "No Dogs and Mexicans allowed". The craziness associated with fears and panic of Mexico is destroying the USA, therefore "seal the border" and "stop associating with Mexico", because the neighboring country is theoritically "destroying the USA" has build up to a boiling point by a small minority of the general American public, as long it's unstable, not prosperous, violent (esp. at this time) and dependent on the US dollar.+ 71.102.2.206 (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

May I ask why this article's title is called Mexico – United States border and not United States – Mexico border? Mgillfr (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is names so due to the alphabetical order of said nations woes border we're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RightCowLeftCoast (talk • contribs) 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

POV Check Security Issues

The Security Issues section appears to have more opposing opinions rather than being a collection of referenced facts. Thus I am nominating for this section to be checked for POV so that it reads neutrally regarding this very contentious subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

all about crossing the bored and more it's a way to refer to this if you have done it already —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.173.81 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 November 2009

Border town pairs

The order was inconsistent. All of the American towns will now be first.---Clpalmore, 2 Jan. 2006

• Isn't the town of Jacumba, CA a port of entry to the border? I think Mexico has a twin city there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.87.214 (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed this list so that it is only a list of twinned border towns. I got rid of the ports of entry and put them in the Ports of Entry list, which I completed and added photos. Also, I have no record of Jacumba ever being a port of entry (with a Customs station). However, nearby Campo CA was a port of entry until WWII.--Wbaron01 (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed Content

I removed "Prior to U.S. welfare reform in 1996, immigrants were more likely than natives to receive public assistance. New laws restrict immigrant access to many benefits, one important exception being costly public education. For some types of public assistance, individual U.S. states have the discretion to offer benefits after an individual has been in the country for at least five years. Excluding immigrants from public assistance has been subject to numerous judicial challenges. With immigrant use of public assistance, the net fiscal transfer from taxpaying U.S. Citizens to immigrants is extremely substantial. It is even more so in a few specific states with both generous welfare benefits and large immigrant populations and is a large contributing factor to the states fiscal problems. ", as it's simply a bulk quote of the source, and appears to be editorial in nature, entirely void of concrete information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.183.76 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Exit Controls Section?

I am bouncing around some ideas about a section on US exit controls, or rather the lack thereof (as opposed to extensive US entry controls), at the US-Mexico border. Specifically, "making a run for the border" has been a euphemism for escaping US justice and jurisdiction for well over a century (in spite of a brief period of border incursions to recover escaped American slaves.)

Some relevant sources and articles are:

http://www.escapingjustice.com/extrafpo.htm

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Dec-15-Sun-2002/news/20283915.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wM1lqFJHvdoJ:www.abqjournal.com/upfront/03227486825upfront09-03-10.htm+%22Jennifer+Aguilera-Hurtado%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I have also worked extensively on the article International child abduction in Mexico which has some coverage of the way the large Mexican immigrant population and lack of exit controls allows for Mexico to be the destination country for the majority of all international child abductions from the US -- a problem grossly compounded by ineffective extradition procedures and an entirely broken implementation of the Hague Abduction Convention.--Cybermud (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Groups challenging border wall construction - allegation without citation

"Attempts to complete the construction of the United States–Mexico barrier have been challenged by the Mexican government, illegal immigrants living in the United States, and various U.S.-based Chicano organizations."

The statement that "illegal immigrants living in the United States" have challenged the construction of border walls is not sourced, and is likely untrue. Unless citation is provided, this statement should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.238.43 (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

biased in favor of border

The article totally takes the US at its word that the militarization of the border is a good and necessary thing, when in fact the US has come under fire from numerous human rights groups for its allegedly inhumane and heavily militarized border policies. Just a few examples: -http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/06/11/usmexico-investigate-border-killings -http://www.amnesty.ca/usa/border.php -the very existence of groups such as No More Deaths and the Border Network for Human Rights (http://www.bnhr.org/) Also not mentioned is the widely criticized separation of the Tonho O'Odham tribe (whose communities predate the border itself by quite some time) by the border. Also it has been documented that the border itself was not nearly as militarized before NAFTA, which has prompted some academics such as Noam Chomsky and journalists such as Charles Bowden to suggest that high-level planners on both sides of the border were prepared for the mass-unemployment caused by NAFTA, and wanted to prepare to block of the border militarily so as to contain the migrating population to be absorbed by the sweatshop-grade/foreign-owned "Maquiladora" factories that NAFTA spawned. Whether or not this was a "plan" (and I don't think we should speculate as to that in the article), it is, needless to say, the way events proceeded, and I can easily dig up citations (from Chomsky for instance) that point skeptically to the border militarization's coinciding with NAFTA (which should be included on the page). I admit that I might be a little opinionated and I invite a full critical inquiry as to these elements, but they have all been widely documented and yet don't show up on this page. And like I said, the page operates under assumptions and largely takes the US government at its word on many issues: that the border is vital to US national security, that the drug war is a just cause, that US methods of fighting the drug war and militarizing the border are justified, etc. 12.170.248.36 (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#FORUM. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand it's not a forum, as I'm not just trying to spark a discussion. I'm pointing out issues with the page (some of them glaring issues) and suggesting changes.12.170.248.36 (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps additions along the lines which it appears the references and previously unedited comment would go would be in articles such as North American Free Trade Agreement#Criticism and controversies and/or U.S. Customs and Border Protection#Criticism. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that some elements are more relevant to those articles... but many of the issues haven't been laid solely at the feet of the likes of US customs or US immigration policy -- the bilateral planning between the US and Mexico, on a high level, has been faulted as well, and many of these problems are seen as something systematic surrounding the border itself (and its uniqueness as one of the most highly militarized borders in the world diving two "allied" countries at peace). As such, I think the issues relating to the Tonho O'Odham should be mentioned here, and issues relating to Border Patrol and Customs should be detailed in those articles but at least mentioned here. 12.170.248.36 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The concerns regarding NAFTA may have already been addressed here, and regarding the Tohono O'odham there already appears to be a subsection in that article regarding the concerns of the IP editor. Perhaps also the IP editor should look at the article Mexico – United States relations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Length of border

The article gives the length of the border as 3,141 km. However, much of the US-Mexican border runs along the course of the Rio Grande, and as Lewis Fry Richardson and Benoit Mandelbrot noted (the latter in the paper How Long Is the Coast of Britain?) natural features like coastlines, rivers, and watersheds, may not have well-defined lengths: their measured lengths can depend on the lengths of the rulers used to measure them. So this quoted length needs to qualified with either a source, for example "the US Geographical Survey give the length as ...", or else a description of how it was determined, for example, "using a 1 cm ruler on a 1:500,000 scale map, the length is approximately ...". Gdr 17:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Under the treaties, the border follows the deepest channel in the river. But, yeah, the figures could do with sourcing. –Hajor 18:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Above it says, "The article gives the length of the border as 3,141 km." No, it doesn't. In the summary at the start, it gives a length of 3,169 km (1,969 miles). Then, in the Geography section of the article, it gives a length of 3,138 km (1,950 miles). I realize that there are difference factors noted within this discussion, but I would think that the article itself should be internally consistent and only mention one number, not two different numbers.Nsxtasy (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

[2] is a dead link anyway. Use this: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21729.pdf This says 1,934 miles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.10.24 (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Title: spaces or no?

Why is the title not "Mexico–United States border"? --danhash (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason for the spaces around the en dash. I believe, however, there is an ongoing discussion about that. But for consistency's sake the section titles should follow the conventions used in the title of the article, unless there isn't a good reason for them–in which case the title should be changed. There is currently a section titled "U.S.–Mexico border enforcement"; either it should be changed to match the title, preferably including the ordering of the countries, or else the title should be changed. —danhash (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for the spacing, other than the fact that en dashes should be spaced when used in ranges with internal spaces; e.g.: "January 1 – January 2". However, I haven't seen any rule that recommends having a spaced en dash when having a relationship with internally spaced words. That seems to be the style on Wikipedia though; see Cuba – United States relations for example. "U.S.–Mexico border enforcement" would not be a contradiction since "U.S." does not have a space. InverseHypercube 19:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

direction

So in the first three paragraphs, the implied direction of the description changes from west-to-east to east-to-west five times ! Is this obfuscation intentional ?Eregli bob (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to be bold and change it, while keeping the verified content; one can do so under WP:COPYEDIT. This article existed, well before I started watching edits on this article, and dates back to days where the MOS was far more loose.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move/Discussion about title

The following discussion is an archived 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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Mexico–United States border → United States–Mexico border – I want to start a discussion on what name this article should receive. The current title may fit with the MOS guidelines. However, the readers may be familiar to "United States–Mexico border" instead. I have no opinion; discuss. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose until there is a compelling reason, and supporting evidence, offered, to change this one article. The current naming convention for all border by country articles and all its sub-categories (including Category:Mexico–United States border) is to list the countries alphabetically (The titles of the Bilateral relations articles generally also list the countries alphabetically, and I believe there is a general rule for this somewhere, but I cannot remember where it is at the moment). Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't imagine anyone who doesn't understand the current title would understand the proposed one. Alphabetical order is the best objective way to deal with such articles. --BDD (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• Nominator's notes I did not want to actually do an RM. I just questioned the title, and I thought it'd be nice to discuss about it. The listing at WP:RM is just to generate input. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, for simplicity's sake, let's keep it alphabetic. This will save us many unnecessary discussions about which country should be named first, also on other border articles. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Evil IP address said it all. mgeo talk 19:26, 6 September 2012 (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.

File:Border USA Mexico.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Border USA Mexico.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 15, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-04-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Part of the Mexico–United States border, showing a small fence which separates densely populated Tijuana, Mexico, right, from the United States in the Border Patrol's San Diego Sector. The San Diego–Tijuana crossing is the busiest border crossing in the world.Photo: Gordon Hyde

New section

A new section, Disagreements over need for more resources, singularly sourced to content by the Washington Office on Latin America has recently been created. This content appears to fall under WP:NOTESSAY or WP:NOTSOAPBOX. The source that is has been tagged as not reliable is a refute of pro-border security advocates, and the second source continues with this thread and advocates for a return to a "humane" policy on the border. Unless this content can be sourced better I propose that this content be deleted as it would give the source WP:UNDUE weight within the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless the section can find additional reliable sources, and can be written in a more balanced manor I move that the section be removed per WP:UNDUE. If no objections are heard or the section isn't removed, I shall remove the section in 2 weeks (15SEP12).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have sourced the section from InSight Crime and removed the primary sources of WOLA. I have removed the POV template. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 09:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Peer review and responses during the educational assignment in Winter 2015

“==Topic Peer Review 1==”

I notice you are citing after each sentence, it would probably be better to make the citation after the whole paragraph.

First sentence - immigration should be immigrants

“The Department of Homeland Security has expanded between 2002 and 2006, expedited removal for” - this wording is confusing

Additional links to other wiki pages as well as outside pages may be helpful. Ex: Secure Border Initiative

More information could be useful in the first paragraph on “high consequence enforcement”. I think the next paragraph goes on to explain it in more detail, but the connection is a little unclear.

the organization and wording are all very clear, good job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdefe (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Cdefe (talk)cdefe Cdefe (talk)deduck

Thank you for your input. There have been changes made to cite sources at the end of short paragraphs instead of every sentence. The change in the first sentence has also been made. We have also revised the sentence pointed out for confused wording.

We added additional links to other wiki pages and outside pages. Secure Border Initiative has no outside link, this may point to a need.

There has been a more clear connection made in the first paragraph on "high consequence enforcement".

Thank you again for your review.

Carvejt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Informal militia

Is there any coverage of the growing loosely-knit volunteer militia working with the border patrol? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Mexico-United States border

Hi there fellow Wikipedians! I have noticed the following things in the article and just wanted to share it with you guys for improvements to this article.

At the beginning of the article, it states that, "The total length of the continental border is 3,201 kilometers (1,989 mi)", I checked the source for this information and it looks credible and reliable but the border length "1,989 mi" provided in the article does not match the number provided in the source. This shows contradiction and needs to be changed to represent accurate information. Also, one of the reference I checked (cited as 3) refers to a completely irrelevant topic and is not related to this article. This online reference is an article in www.cnsnews.com on smoking marijuana. Also, because Wikipedia gives editors the opportunity to edit/change and update information at any time but this article does not seem to have been updated with new information. Fahmad007 (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

There are many issues with this article and it will take time and joint work to improve this article. I hope more people try to join in and work on improving this article. I have read and tried to improve the first few sections of the article but there is a lot to do to improve it. Fahmad007 (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Trump

interesting that trumps wall proposal has not yet been mentioned here. seems like a really big deal for the border. maybe this article is not updated much.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Very acute observation. I came here wondering what Wikipedia would say about Trump's wall now that he's in fact the president-elect. More does need to be said on this, because this is a proposed structure that has been one of the focuses of Trump's campaign. I would consider a new page, in fact, as this is hardly a small matter. (We're talking billions of dollars here)--Tuxipedia (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with what you have mentioned here and since Wikipedia is open to everyone for the general information about a topic, I believe that it is crucial that the information is up to date. I have noticed that this section was lacking more current information and therefore, I have added new information on the newly proposed wall by the Trump administration. I did some research and added information the section to provide an understanding and idea of how much the estimated cost of building the new wall along the United States and Mexico wall would. The information I have added is from credible sources. In addition to this, I contributed to other sections of this article as well. I will work more on this article and will do my best in order to improve it so that people have access to the correct and up to date information. Please let me know if anyone has any suggestions and I will add more. Fahmad007 (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Relevant pictorial

Forget the fence: these are the real markers of the US-Mexico border – in pictures

The 276 monuments marking the US-Mexico border were erected after the Mexican-American war which ended in 1848. David Taylor, an Arizona-based artist and professor, set out to photograph them all in 2007 – a seven-year task that took him from the Texas, New Mexico and Chihuahua border to the Pacific Ocean, passing through cities and remote mountainous terrain.

Includes thirteen quality photographs.

There doesn't seem to be anything about these historic markers either in the article of elsewhere in Wikipedia. Would be good to have them added. 95.146.117.38 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Dangers of border control section

The consensus is to remove the section which editors said read like an opinion piece or essay.

Cunard (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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 section seems very editorialized, I am unsure if it is fit for inclusion. I have tagged the section for further review. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 07:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Remove. Essayish. Possibly take some of the data (if reliably source) to some other section - definitely not a sub-section.Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Remove or redo - From basic google of the section title, the content seems missing the common mention of the dangers to Border Patrol Agents. Otherwise, yes it just looks a bit like an essay. The title seems a poor match also -- it was begun as "Danger That Border Control Poses" added by Kcorbet5 on 14 December; retitled to "Danger That Border Control Poses: on 18 December by Meiloorun, think it meant to cover Dangers of Doin an Illegal Border Crossing. Markbassett (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Remove I don't think I've read any other Wikipedia article that begins "what [insert country] has not realized" ... Chetsford (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Remove or redo rambling and essayish, any significant info (eg death toll), could remain or move, redo section heading to something more factual. Pincrete (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Remove or redo This section is basically an opinion piece, the issues about the danger are relevant, but all the POV wording needs to go. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2018 (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.

Semi-protection request

Mexico-United States border (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Important and controversial, would be good if requests would be made before editing to improve the consistency of the article. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 00:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Article info box sections that involve units

A similar article, Canada-United States border, uses primary units as metric and this article (Mexico-United States border) has to continue using metric as its primary units. MetricSupporter89 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent regional English

What variety of English is this article in? What variety should it be in? I point out that the dates in the article are mdy, which is typically an American practice, but the distances are metric. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In doing a little research to help resolve this inconsistency, I discovered that the article has never really been consistent long-term. In the very first edit in 2005, the first measurement is given metric first with a conversion, but the second is given in customary only. By the start of the next year, the article was changed to follow that first measurement example consistently. Skipping ahead another year, we see a MDY date and flipping over to customary-first measurements. For 2008, MDY and customary-first. By 2009, measurements are flipped back to metric-first and the dates are unchanged, mostly MDY. Would it be of any value to continue this analysis for the rest of the years? Imzadi 1979 → 01:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Whose war is it anyways?

Winston Churchill once said, “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else.” (Payan) The war on drugs will continue at the Mexican/ US border because of both countries inability to compromise, America’s insatiable appetite to consume drugs rather legally or illegally, and the futile efforts of America to control the war by any means necessary instead of assisting in creating an infrastructure of building institutions, reforming the justice system, and reforming police institutions in Mexico.

Sheria S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satchella (talk • contribs) 02:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no actual war on drugs in the US as in Mexico where the Mexican military is used due to police and local government corruption. A real War on Drugs would involve bombing of drug production zones, the insertion of Special Forces and regular military occupation in those areas. Reference the Tom Clancy book and movie Clear and Present Danger.Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Question posted by IP on numbers

You say 330 million US Mexico crossings a year. Then you say 990 US Mexico border crossing annually. Which is it? Fettlemap (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Unable to restore, proxy warning.

Can someone please revert this edit without getting the proxy warning? I can't find any proxy links, and trying to put in a previously accepted version gives me the same error. I cannot proceed. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)