Talk:Migrant deaths along the Mexico–United States border

This article was nominated for deletion on 12/5/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Enhancing the article with more facts

I think this article has serious problems. There is no proof given that there are *any* immigrant killings on the US/Mexico border. I am aware of one case which occured some distance from the border, which I'll look up and include. Otherwise, it seems like a hypothetical discussion. Border crossing deaths due to heat exhaustion and other natural causes are a much bigger, and well documented, problem. I'd suggest renaming the article to "Immigrant deaths along the United States Border" so as to broaden the topic. (only one article links here: Illegal immigrants). Finally, I don't see how the Mountain Meadows Massacre is relevant. While it is a fascinating incident, it has virtually nothing to do with immigration or the border. Will McW 01:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • Mountain Meadows Massacre victims were considered to be immigrants by those that killed them. It's just an introductory item to what's happening now along the border, specially in Arizona.

"Antonio The Taino Warrior Martin"

I'll grant you that the massacre victims were called immigrants or emigrants, and that at least the incident is well documented. My other concerns still stand. Let's find some documented cases of immigrant deaths and enhance this article with more facts.

Flag Vigilante killings as POV

I am going to flag the section Vigilante killings as POV. Much of the material is taken from the leftist UK newspaper The Independent, whose correspondent, writing from Mexico City produces strongly POV "news reports" that trumpet some unlikely events. Direct quotes:

• ...the shootings of migrants by vigilante "posses" - believed to include members of the Ku Klux Klan - in the Wild West country along its border...
• Some ranchers have declared publicly that they are "hunting" the Mexicans "for sport".
• Irate local ranchers, led by the Barnett Boys of Sierra Vista, insist on searching suspicious vans and pickups on the public highway, despite having no authority to do so.
• Overzealous gringos with itchy trigger fingers are a new hazard in the sagebrush.
• Flyers circulating in Cochise County, blatantly advertise for tourists to join in the hunt.
• ...where vigilante "justice" claims more lives each week.

This is yellow journalism written for the self-satisfaction of the sneering anti-American left in the UK and has little connection to reality.

If there is no better sourcing for this section, I will delete it altogether in a few months. Kevinp2 20:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the section and deleted the POV tag accordingly.Terjen 08:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! Kevinp2 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia

Awful, paranoid, leftist drivel that presents maybe one or two facts.

Tars the ranchers of Arizona while giving no impression of the assault under which people all along the border are being subjected to.

POV. Should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.59.105 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

So why not add something on the conflict with ranchers to balance it? --BrownHairedGirl 12:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent Killings

This section is terrible. It obviously insinuates that the killings along the border are committed by Americans. If there are any killings being committed by Americans, some evidence and documentation should be provided. Hell, nothing here is documented. The only killings I can find evidence for are all on the Mexican side of the border, and are undoubtedly committed by Mexican criminal interests.

I should point out this article doesn't even mention the American citizens whose deaths were [b]caused[/b] by illegal immigrants and smugglers along the border. I can't find the news articles, a few Americans were killed in collisions such as discribed |here and |here. I believe that would be a valid inclusion, but may require this article change it's name to "Deaths along the U.S.-Mexican Border."

I'll also take issue with the snide Minuteman jab at the end, labelling some farmers as self-proclaimed vigilantes. There are many groups along the border that patrol and are armed, however they have never committed any violence, and their weaponry is to protect them from drug smugglers, coyotes, and the |Mexican Military. If there is any evidence to the contrary, provide it, or else this whole section should be rewritten or deleted.

Could you please include some statistics on how much people were killed by the "Minutemen"? It was a very good article. Thanks for defending Mexico. Congratulations!!! Viva Mexico!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This article should be deleted, really

This article is biased, manipulative and completely useless as an encyclopedia article. Its creators obviously wrote as a primitive political statement. Based on facts or not, you can't write an objective article with such agenda. It doesn't deserve a second chance. Unworthy.

So then why don't you sign your comments and recommend the article for deletion? --MPD01605 03:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Before people get up in arms, deleting stuff, shouting POV, or "leftist dribble", this is a very USEFUL article, and factually correct.[1][2] It has no 'agenda' (other than to inform one of what is verifiable) and unless you can prove otherwise, it needs to stay. Dark jedi requiem 16:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I wikified a lot, removed irrelevent things (examples: farmers told not to shot immigrants (as farmers were never said to have shot immigrants) and a massacre that happened 150 years ago in utah that bares no relation to the mexico/american border deaths.) I also added references.Dark jedi requiem 18:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Clean up and neutrality

After I cleaned up the article, is there anything that seems slanted, biased or anyway unobjective? If not, I see no reason for the clean up and pov signs to remain. Dark jedi requiem 00:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a clean article

Let me add my voice to Dark Jedi's: this is a passably neutral article, and the signs should come down. There's no reason to give any particular credence to assertions that the article is biased, useless, or politically motivated. It would be a disgrace for it to be deleted. Besides, if out-of-state volunteer Minutemen are going to go running around in the Arizona border country, the article may save their lives.

It's a matter of simple fact that immigrants die crossing the border. This is nothing new. It wasn't new in my grandparents' day, either. The U.S.-Mexico border runs through some very rough desert and semi-desert country, and for half the year or more, the daytime temperatures can reach life-threatening highs. Anybody plonking around on foot in the Sonoran desert or the Baboquivaris is taking risks.

When immigrant deaths are the result of human action, most often the humans responsible are coyotes: people who make a business of smuggling immigrants across the border. Sometimes it's the result of outright violence -- coyotes are a nasty lot -- but more often it's manslaughter via gross negligence, as when they abandon illegals in impassable and waterless terrain, or leave them locked in the unventilated cargo compartment of a truck throughout the heat of the day.

Obviously, there's a considerable amount of controversy attached to this and related issues. The one thing you can't say is that immigrant deaths don't happen.

Needs balanced contributions.

Readers should contibute any information that is applicable to the debate, as long as it has a valid source and can be cited. This is a hot issue at present and deserves attention. Do not delete entire article.

This article is improving.

Not long ago, I tried fixing it up a bit, but I have little Wiki experience and didn't get very far.

It's definitely looking much better now than it did before.

Good job!!

Citing sources

as per Wikipedia:Citing sources "Say where you got it

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear." In other words, the fact that you got content from a website sponsored by a group identified as a hate group (Nation of Atzlan) needs to be identified. -Psychohistorian 20:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the link to point to the original article from La Prensa, San Diego. --Ramsey2006 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources is covered by identifying Rodolfo Acuña as the intermediate source rather than bypassing him and source the claim about the fourteen deaths directly to Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affair. I don't think the quoted policy is intended as an excuse to introduce a particular POV bias. Terjen 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point, for that particular case, the issue is resolved as Ramsey2006 found another source for the article. However, Terjen, the policy is quite clear. It says "Say where you got it". If Ramsey had not been able to find another source, we would have had to say where we got the source - from a hate group website. The spirit of the policy is to identify the source so that the reliability of the source can be identified. If I give you a letter which I say comes from source A and source A says it comes from source B, you might argue that source B was the original source, but you really have no idea if the letter was altered by source A or myself (intentionally or not). Likewise, you might argue that source A was an intermediary source, but you have no idea if I altered the letter. You might say that I was the intermediary source, but you have no idea if source A altered the letter. Consequently, every person who had a chance to alter the letter's contents (again, intentionally or not) needs to be identified - its called 'traceability' and is an extremely well known principle of research.

Now, having said that, you, Ramsey, Will Breback and others who enjoy distorting and obscuring facts in order to prop up your politics will be happy to know that I am leaving Wikipedia. Will, you can go ahead and obscure the fact that the SPLC may not be a reliable source with regards to who is and who is not a 'hate group' - you don't care about objectivity, so my absence will make it easier for you.-Psychohistorian 12:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do no make personal attacks on other editors. -Will Beback · † ·

Recent numbers

Does any one have a more recent number for the total death for 2007? Rdrgz25 (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Migrant doesn't equal immigrant

A lot of the content in this article isn't relevant. Perhaps this article should be renamed. It also makes heavy reference to deaths on the border without sources that the people who died are immigrants and not drug runners, migrants, or something else. This article should be renamed "Deaths on the U.S - Mexican border"-198.97.67.59 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely if a significant number of the thousands who die are drug runners, that would appear in the articles and the graphs? I would not assume the worst of those people that choose the most dangerous routes, with insufficient food and transportation equipment.

As for "migrant" vs. "immigrant", I will propose a move to "Migrant deaths along the United States–Mexico border" to hear arguments and gather consensus. MantisEars (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Before I start, allow me to clarify that, while there are others who use these IPs, in this case, I am the IP anon who removed the irrelevant content.

I trust you recognize and will acknowledge that you are making an assumption when you say "Surely.."? I mean, the point I'm making here is that we don't know who were drug runners and who weren't. Its not about assuming the worse of anyone. It is about recognizing what we do and do not know and heeding the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Please acknowledge as well that many of the sources I removed in this article gave no indication that the people being discussed had insufficient food or that their transportation choices were the result of being unable to afford better (or even whether Mexican drug mules can afford better).-75.179.153.110 (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was No Consensus has been reached. Furthermore, the article itself includes a combination of terms. Might I recommend discussing a bit further? And/or coming up with a term that is inclusive without being overly so? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border → Migrant deaths along the United States–Mexico border — "Migrant" is not the same as "immigrant"; some of the deaths mentioned in the article may have been from migrants. — MantisEars (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. Seems logical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that the problem is much bigger than that. Not all sources in this article discuss migrants, but rather simply deaths on the border - often unidentified deaths on the border. If we remove all sources which do not explicitly reference migrants, then I'll support the renaming. If not, then all you're doing is a paint job on a big pile of stink.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The rationale for this move is illogical on its face. "Some of the deaths may have been from migrants". Exactly, some may have been and others may not, so title is inclusive, and target title would exclude any deaths of non-migrants.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Covers individuals dying while migrating across the border without us making assumptions on whether they intended to settle in the country. The qualifier is needed as Deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border is too inclusive. See also the note in the discussion section below about the frequent use of migrant in the Government Accounting Office report[3] about border crossing deaths . Terjen (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support for reasons enumerated by Terjen. This is the term that I have seen most often in discussions of this issue, and would avoid quibbling over the definition of "immigrants", as well as including deaths that may occure on either side of the border. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think we may have a terminology issue here and the opposes and supports as not so much in disagreement but talking past each other. Migrant means to me specifically an itinerant farm laborer who harvests crops seasonally, and at least where I come from, that is the dominant meaning. I see on various dictionaries this listed as a primary definition but on others, a generic definition is listing as primary: "moving from one region, place, or country to another". My oppose comes out of interpreting the title through the lens provided by the former definition, which results in the title being quite exclusive, while the generic meaning makes it more inclusive. Not sure where that leaves us.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    • That may be a localism. In British English, migrant is always accepted as having the more inclusive meaning. Regards, Asterion^talk 09:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The 2006 Government Accounting Office report on Border-Crossing Deaths[4] uses the term migrant more than 100 times, as in migrant border-crossing deaths, migrants attempt to cross the border, and number of migrants attempting to cross the border. Terjen (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Renaming

We achieved No Consensus in the recent survey to rename the article to Migrant deaths along the United States–Mexico border. SatyrTN suggest that we should be coming up with a term that is inclusive without being overly so. Yet I note that those opposing seem to favor the much more inclusive Deaths along the United States–Mexico border. Nobody argued in favor of not changing the title. I thus suggest that we change the title to use the more inclusive term migrant instead of immigrant, and then discuss whether we need to change the title to make it even more inclusive. Terjen (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As I highlighted in the survey, migrant has a meaning is some places of an itinerant farm laborer who harvests crops seasonally, which definition is listed in many dictionaries (see, e.g., Merriam-Webster definition). While most give the generic definition as the primary, when interpreted in the former manner, migrant is more exclusive than immigrant. I think "deaths along the..." works better than either. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Were any of the deceased not illegal immigrations? Why not call it "Illegal immigration deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border"? Schrandit (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2008

The reason for the proposed change to use the more inclusive migrant instead of immigrant in the title was spurred by that the anonymous multiple ip editor sometimes known as 75.179.153.110 and 198.97.67.59 purged the article for content that referred to migrants rather than immigrants as in the title. Illegal immigrant is even more excluding, being a subset of immigrants. The alternative is to not use any qualifier, but I would argue that an article on deaths along the United States–Mexico border is way too inclusive. Terjen (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, not all those crossing are "migrants," as usually defined, because many if not most wind up working in single locations. A review of the article reveals no cases of deaths of those crossing legally, so the most accurate description of the article is "Illegal immigration deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border," and so that's what it should be called. Plazak (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In the scope of description including the term 'Illegal immigrant' defiantly is more excluding, but the fundamental question should be "is it true?". Have any of the dead not been Illegal Immigrants? Schrandit (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2008

The anonymous multiple ip editor sometimes known as 75.179.153.110 and 198.97.67.59 spurring the change states in an earlier section that the article makes heavy reference to deaths on the border without sources that the people who died are immigrants. The press seems to often prefer to use other labels, perhaps because it is not strictly correct to label them immigrants.Terjen (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How about "Illegal border crossing deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border"? Clearly, those crossing legally are not in danger. Plazak (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We have substantial reliable sources using the term migrant as label for those dying along the border. See: United States Government Accounting Office, GAO-06-770, August 2006; Eschbach, K., J. Hagan and N. Rodriguez (2001): Causes and Trends in Migrant Deaths Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 1985-1998. Center for Immigration Research, University of Houston. Terjen (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The meanings of Migrant may include itinerant farm laborer who harvests crops seasonally, but that doesn't exclude other meanings of the term, such as the one used by the sources referenced in our entry. Migrant is not more exclusive than immigrant. All immigrants have been migrants; some migrants might be immigrants. Terjen (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not more exclusive, just less accurate for this article. Plazak (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Migrant refers to anyone moving from point A to point B. Drug mules are migrants. Itinerant workers are migrants. Immigrants are migrants. Drug mules are not the same as immigrants which are not the same as itinerant workers. I challenge any of you to provide verifiable evidence (as per Wikipedia policy) that the sources in this article which refer to migrants mean, in every case, immigrant and not drug mule. Becuase you can't provide such evidence, these sources shouldn't be used in an article about immigrant deaths.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of our cited sources indeed refer to migrants rather than immigrant when covering those dying while migrating between the U.S. and Mexico. As not all migrants are immigrants, using these sources conflicts with the current title of the entry, Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border. Rather than purging the article for content that uses the term migrant rather than immigrant, I suggest we change the title to better reflect the terminology of these sources. Terjen (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

From the discussions in this section and the ones preceding, there seems to be high degree of consensus about at least one thing: we agree on changing the title of the article to something else than Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border. I recognize that there has been several suggestions. Migrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border seems to have the most support, and although it may not be the preferred term for everybody, maybe we can all agree that it is an improvement over the current title. It also resolves the issue of most of our cited sources uses migrant rather than immigrant to refer to those migrating between the U.S. and Mexico. As an evolutionary step in the right direction, I suggest that we for now change the title to Migrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border. Terjen (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why settle for a semblance of truth when we can have truth? Immigrant and Migrant are both inaccurate - why not use Illegal Immigrant? It is factually correct when the other terms are not. - Schrandit (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we cannot know that when our cited sources refers to migrants they are really talking about illegal immigrants. A few comments back the anonymous IP editor challenges those in doubt "to provide verifiable evidence (as per Wikipedia policy) that the sources in this article which refer to migrants mean, in every case, immigrant". If you still disagree, I suggest you take the challenge. Terjen (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree that they are all attempted "border crossers"? That would resolve the migrant/immigrant issue. Plazak (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

U.S.-Mexico border crossing deaths? Deaths of U.S.-Mexico border crossers? Border crosser death along the the U.S.-Mexico border? Deaths resulting from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border? Deaths resulting from U.S.-Mexico border crossing?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Do any of these sources refer to legal migrants? I think Deaths of illegal migrants along the U.S. -Mexico border would narrow down the article's topic nicely.-66.213.90.2 (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)