Talk:Illegal immigration

Small error?

Source number 2 (http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=344) is cited as saying that "1 in roughly 20 Colombians now live abroad", when in fact the cited website says in the first sentence that "roughly one in 10" now live abroad. Am I missing something obvious, or should this be changed?

Move page

I suggest that the page be moved to "Irregular immigration". The term "illegal immigration" is no longer used by international organizations. The primary international organizations that work on migration issues ALL call it "Irregular immigration" See sources here:

• ILO
• IOM
• GCIM

See others: CMS UNHRC

I would argue that the term "illegal immigration" is not neutral in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

- Kylelovesyou (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There could be a difference, irregular meaning "not conforming to rules or expectations", and "illegal" meaning "not conforming to official rules (laws)".--Patrick (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That said, in combination with the word "immigration" it looks like it does not just mean "unusual".--Patrick (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. "illegal Immigration" is commonly used (see the attached EU document from the UNHCR website): [1]. In addition, "illegal" is more precise and self-explanatory than the euphemism "irregular", which may be mistaken to mean unusual, erratic, or episodic. Plazak (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Favor - Currently all academic sources use "irregular immigration" as opposed to "illegal". All international organizations use irregular as well with the exception of the EU (which uses illegal immigration). Every other organization working on immigration issues, such as the International Labor Organization, the International Organization for Migration and the Global Commission on International Migration, The United Nations Human Rights Council, and the Center for Migration Studies all use "irregular". (See links that I have provided several sources above for these organizations and there are plenty of academic sources available as well) I am currently doing a post-graduate degree in this area and all scholastic sources and journals now use "irregular." You have only provided an EU document, but all other supra-national organizations use "Irregular Immigration." - Kylelovesyou (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Favor - I agree that academia calls it 'irregular immigration" also most international NGOs do as well. - 130.130.37.13 (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - The Wikipedia is intended for a general audience and ought to avoid catering specifically to academics. Also. the term “irregular immigration” is just a euphemism for illegal behavior, like saying the robbery of a gas station is "an irregular consumer transaction". In addition, the fact that several organizations in favor of illegal immigration use the term “irregular immigration” does not change the fact that these irregular immigrants have indeed broken the law. Finally, the terms "illegal immigration" and "irregular immigration" don't entirely overlap, as one could immigrate to America in any number of irregular ways without becoming an undocumented worker/illegal immigrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.35.162 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Elie Weisel has said: "No human being is illegal." - reference

This point is moot however, because the law never claims to be handling or puishing "illegal humans". Rather, the law is focused on punishing those who choose to enter a country without that country's consent, and are thus breaking the laws of that country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.35.162 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any other input? So far 2 in favor of moving and 1 opposed. - Kylelovesyou (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Favor - The term irregular immigration is more meaningful and less racist. Undocumented worker is the term that used to mean you failed to pay the $28 fee for a migrant work visa that could be obtained at any entry point into the United States. The term illegal immigration is actually a racist term invented in the United States by white supremacists, like William Randolph Hurst, and written into law during Herbert Hoover administration in 1929. This suspended migrant work visas for Mexican citizens, thus artificially creating an illegal class of workers by violating the Treaty of Guadalupe, while simultaneously collapsing the banking system by deporting hundreds of thousands of dwelling occupant/owners responsible for paying mortgages because of the color of their skin.Nanoatzin (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Racist? What are you talking about? The term is used to describe people who have immigrated to a country illegally. This can apply to any race or group, whether they be Europeans or Mexicans.--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

In addition, when contemporary English speakers use the term "illegal immigrant", they are almost never refering to people of color oppressed by Herbert Hoover back in the 1930's. They are merely refering to those who have immigrated without legal authorization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.35.162 (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

So by irregular you mean a steady predictable flow? Hcobb (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hcobb, the term "irregular" does not only refer to rates. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And that is why it should only be used in the titles of articles that require those multiple meanings. If the article is about illegal people committing illegal acts then call them out on it. Hcobb (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The English language is filled with words that have multiple meanings. We cannot keep all titles on Wikipedia to words that have only single definitions, it's simply not linguistically possible. Fortunately, people can actually read the contents of an article, which explains what precise definition is in use. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth pointing out that the article also covers a significant percentage of people who travel to a country legally, but then settle illegally by overstaying their visas or otherwise failing to comply with visa requirements. "Irregluar" is more inclusive than "illegal", and covers technical violations of regulations and similar issues.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Then make it clear that Illegal entry covers the crossings, by noting that as "main article" for the entry part of this article and leave "Irregular immigration" for people who stay rather than just visit. Hcobb (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

that makes some sense. To further confuse the issue: it's possible to enter illegally and then have one's status regularized through amnesty, asylum request, marriage, or other mechanism. That's all the more reason to separate the two topics.   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Irregular immigration → Illegal immigration – User Kylelovesyou moved original "Illegal immigration" article to "Irregular immigration" without following standard procedure. Seems to be adamant on keeping page where it is; posted this to formalize a debate which has not adhered to Wikipedia policy. Move has been contested by several users including myself. Hope this can bring about a consensus. Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support For all the reasons given above (Though I must say it would be better to move it back to the original without discussion and then have Kylelovesyou argue the case.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME. Google (illegal 12.6 million, irregular 58,000), google news (illegal 3490, irregular 7) and google scholar (illegal 37600, 1650 all have many, many more hits for "illegal immigration" than "irregular migration" so even allowing for the inaccuracies of such searches it seems clear that "ilegal" is favoured. In the case of google scholar this still applies even when limiting the search to articles published since 2010 (illegal 4900, irregular 264) so although "irregular migration" may be commonly used in academia it's not the common name. Of the five organisation listed above a search of the CMS site shows about equal usage (illegal 10, irregular 9) and three others show significant usage of "illegal" even if "irregular" is used 2-3 times as often (UNHCR since 2011: illegal 20, irregular 66, GCIM: illegal 3, irregular 6, ILO search does not allow linking: illegal 346, irregular 587). IOM does show a very significant preference for irregular (illegal 229, irregular 8290). This to me is no where near enough to overturn the common name found through the different google search. Out articles are titled so as to to surprise the reader least and to me it's clear that "illegal" will be the less surprising. The POV argument holds no water in my opinion - either term could be said to be POV depending on your view point. If you are supportive of these types of migrants you probably don't like "illegal" due to the stigma it gives, likewise if you don't support them you likely don't like "irregular" as it hides the "real" issue that they immigrated illegally. In short I see no reason why, in this instance, we should not use the common name as determined by various google searches. Dpmuk (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - per previous discussion. If Wikipedia was based off UN terminology, articles would be twice as long to accommodate all of the politically correct garbage it entails. Furthermore, "irregular" suggests illegal immigrants immigrate in an alternative way. They broke the law. There's nothing "inclusive" about it. --(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC))
• Speedy revert non-consensus move with absolutely no reasonable basis. Powers ^T 19:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Here is an ngram. Kauffner (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support per all of above comments. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 13:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Split The academic issue should keep this title while the real world impact should move back to the old title. Hcobb (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Part of me likes this idea because it might keep some of the politically correct "nonsense" off the page once it moves back(which seems likely at this point). The problem is that by Kylelovesyou's own admission, "illegal immigration = irregular immigration." So we don't need two separate articles describing the same thing. The academic argument doesn't convince me. For example, the scientific/academic term for the genus of true honey bees is Apis which is a redirect to the common term honey bee. Sure, there are plenty of articles for various genera, but usually only when there is no common name. The only way I could see "irregular immigration" as an article rather than a redirect would be some sort of article about the history of the term, but I don't see the term as historic or robust enough for that. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 19:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:POVFORK would discourage such a split, I think. Powers ^T 18:11, 19 October 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

I have reverted it to the version before the re-write and move to match content and title; any changes can be discussed now before some move- and/or re-write-frenzy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Image with unknown copyright status removed

I've just removed the following text and reference from the article:

• <!-- Image with unknown copyright status removed: [[Image:REF1 Clajot.jpg|right|thumb|200px| [[Tenerife]] / [[Los Cristianos]], June 7, 2007 - illegal immigrants from [[West Africa]] rest in a [[Red Cross]] tent after arriving at the [[Canary Islands]]. The cost of the journey is between $880 to $1,250.<ref name="bbc"/><ref name="bbc4"/>]] -->
• <ref name="bbc4">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3568329.stm Guinea: Unstoppable exodus]</ref>

This image had been removed by OrphanBot in Nov. 2008 and is unlikely to be restored in that form. I only mention this because I'm also removing the associated ref that had previously been causing cite errors. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

More sources

• Ferri, Javier , Antonio G. Gómez-Plana and Joan A. Martín-Montaner. "Illegal Immigration Booms and Welfare in the Host Country / Expansion de l'immigration illégale et bien-être social dans le pays d'accueil." European Journal of Population / Revue Européenne de Démographie, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec., 2006), pp. 353-370
• Solano García, Angel. "Does Illegal Immigration Empower Rightist Parties?." Journal of Population Economics, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Oct., 2006), pp. 649-670

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Last Edit

I don't understand why this last edit was undone. Everything is referenced and neutral. EDIT DETAILS: 02:48, 30 October 2011‎ Seb az86556 (talk | contribs)‎ (75,217 bytes) (Reverted 7 edits by 130.130.37.13 (talk): Rv Kylelovesyou; please log in and use talkpage first. (TW)) (undo) - 130.130.37.13 (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You introduced the exact same changes as Kylelovesyou (talk · contribs), so I can't help thinking that's you. However that may be, please look at the above discussions on this page, including the reversal of the move some days ago. If you want to introduce those changes, you should discuss them here first. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. let's discuss them now. - Kylelovesyou (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you start? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the primary issue with Kyle's edits is the vagueness they introduce to the article. For example:

The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) suggests that "most experts today would agree that there are already inadequate legal channels for migration and especially for migration for work." In fact, many international organizations consider creating more channels for international immigration would be beneficial to the world economy. Others, however, suggest that removing immigration barriers threatens national sovereignty and creates political issues.

Notice that Kyle has used many when describing the "international organizations" that support creating more channels for international immigration. He then uses "other" to describe those who oppose it. This implies that there are more officials who support this kind of legislation. Where are the sources for this? Who are these "organizations" that support the channels? Even the quotation used is vague ("most experts today")

This vagueness can also be observed in this paragraph:

Many of these people who are forced to flee in an environmental emergency do not have time to file immigration documents or lack the means to do so. Others may emigrate from their country of origin to another due to environmental causes which prevent them from earning a livelihood. Others may choose to leave for economic reasons (i.e. environmental causes have limited their ability to earn money in their home country).

Notice again that Kyle has used "most" and "other". Yes, it is sourced, but statistics are needed to verify this claim.

The bottom line is that Kyle needs to be more clear. In addition to this, Kyle's abnormal behavior makes him difficult to trust. These behaviors are as follows:

• Generally aggresive nature when discussing (see above)
• Failure to participate in vote in issue which he started (I don't know is he was available, though still suspicious)
• Movement of article without consent of other editors
• Attempting to pass under the radar by editing as IP

That's my two cents. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC))

---

I'm not trying to be aggressive or anything else. I'm just trying to add constructive info for the article.

*Generally aggresive nature when discussing - I did not mean to do this at all. *Failure to participate in vote in issue which he started - I assumed that I already put in my reasons and had not much else to add *Movement of article without consent of other editors - I am sorry about this one. I introduced a section on the discussion page, I am not quite sure about the proper protocol for doing page moves. *Attempting to pass under the radar by editing as IP - I'm not trying to do that.

You clearly have problems with the few section you mentioned previous, however most of my edits are not controversial at all and have great sources:

• "It is officially called "illegal immigration" in the United States and by the European Union. Most International governmental and non-governmental organizations, such as the United Nations, the International Labour Organization (ILO), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and others use the term "irregular immigration"."
• "In 2010, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimated that 21.4 to 32.1 million people (or 10%–15%) of the world's total 214 million international immigrants are illegal immigrants, though the IOM notes that difficult to get accurate estimates. Other estimates put this number slightly higher. Furthermore, the IOM states that "most of these migrants enter legally but overstay the authorized stay." The majority of illegal immigrants are in the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimates that there were 11 million irregular immigrants in the US in 2008, while other estimates for the US range from 7 to 20 million. If these estimates are correct, it would mean that approximately half of the total irregular immigrants in the world are living in the US."
• It IS also called "irregular immigration" quite often. This should clearly be included in the article under the terminology section, and I would argue, at the beginning of the page as well.

Can anyone find any fault with any of these at all??

- 130.130.37.13 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC) (kylelovesyou)

Kylelovesyou, log in to your account when you make talk page comments. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that "irregular immigration" should be mentioned in the article's terminology section, though it should not dominate it. Still unsure about its inclusion in the lead. While it is an alternative to illegal immigration, it is not widely used by national governments or the media. An alternative word is usually included in a lead if there is an equally if not more popular term used or if there are different terms for dialects (ex. Automobile, Truck, Semi-trailer truck). Irregular immigration is neither more popular nor from a different dialect. Frankly, it is politically correct diplomat jargon.

• Don't see any immediate issues with the second edit. Again, try to limit your use of "many" and "other". We'll see what others think.

• Definitely issues with those other edits. You'll have to specify and verify facts if you want to include them.

Apologies if I seemed too assuming. You can never be too careful in Wikipedia. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC))