Talk:2006 United States immigration reform protests

Editing needed

Like its companion H.R. 4437, I believe that this is a good topic idea. However, it likewise needs significant editing.

I'd be happy to work on it when I have time. But I hope that a more experienced Wikipedian takes an interest and starts editing before then. -Scottwiki 01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Both?

As I'm unaware how to read this correctly, I thought I'd leave it to people who aren't getting the news from the Wikipedia. However:

at least 50,000 people rallied for both pro-amnesty and anti-amnesty.

That reads that 50k people rallied for both causes at once (as though they cannot choose). I somehow doubt that's what is meant.

Name of article

Should this article be called "2006 immigration protests", "2006 illegal immigration protests" as it's currently been renamed, or something else? -Scottwiki 06:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets leave it as is for now. Its a current event dealing with illegal immigration, so most people searching the site for info the protest will imput something similar to the article name. When the legislation is passed we can do one of two things: consider moving the article to a more apropreite title, or merge it with a larger article. It all depends on public reaction. TomStar81 06:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the new name "2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests". This accurately captures what the protesters claim to seek (immigrant rights), which goes beyond the instigating legislation. --Krubo 15:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Outnumber by 2/3rds majority. Very well, move it to where ever you think it best. I wont argue. TomStar81 20:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahould ne called illegal immigration protest to be completely factual.

I believe we are doing a disservice to all legal immigrants if we don't distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

What are you suggesting exactly? Kaldari 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My apogees, I should have been clearer. I believe we should change the title to "2006 illegal immigration protests". Legal immigrants, such as those that have lived in the country for years, are not affected by the proposed changes.

Definitely not "immigration protests", since that would mean a protest against immigration, which they are all in favor of. Semantically, I'd say "illegal immigrant criminalization protests" would be most accurate, though it would be a mouthful. "Immigrant rights protests" is good enough for now, though. -Kasreyn 04:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually "illegal immigrant criminalization protests" wouldn't be accurate either. Illegal immigrants are already criminals - that's why they're called 'illegal'. Coming into the country without documentation is already a violation of several laws and a crime. This bill doesn't "criminalize" anything that isn't already criminal. If "felonizes" them, meaning that they would be in violation of federal laws. They're already criminals for violating state and local laws.--Daniel 18:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The previous entry reflects an ignorance of the legal situation. Undocumented immigrants are not violating any local or state laws, just federal ones. -- [Qwints]

I wasnt aware that Federal law was unimportant, nor do I see that the poster before you mentionwhether its state local or federal, just that it breaks a law

The point is that HB4437 introduces criminal penalties for illegal aliens in the country. Currenty, the only penalty is deportation. This is a qualitative change in the status of undocumented people in the U.S. [Qwints]

I think that this article and Great American Boycott should be merged, to make "American Immigration Boycott". [SatanSucks]

Let's not rush that. The boycott is a one-day event, this article covers the many events. -Will Beback 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources needed

The policy on Wikipedia is that statements in articles should be supported by reliable sources. At the moment, there are several statements, a grab bag of external links, but little connection between the two. -Scottwiki 07:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The links on sources 7, 8, 10, 13, and 15 are broken. 168.213.7.58 12:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that alot of linked sources aren't available anymore. The ones I tried were #12, 13, 14, 18. Not sure if the'yre supposed to be removed or links changed? Dandan 03:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

not from a completely trustable source

Over 60 events (around 3 million people) have protested so far.

3/7 D.C. 20,000 3/8 Atlanta 100 in city hall 3/10 Chicago 300,000 3/11 Tampa “several hundred” 3/14 Topeka KS “several hundred” 3/17 Santa Cruz 500 3/20 Trenton 1,200 3/22 Providence 200 3/23 Milwaukee 30,000 3/23 Racine WI

3/24 FRIDAY

• Phoenix 30,000
• Tucson 1,500
• Kansas City 2,000
• Dallas 1,500
• L.A. 2,700 students walked off at least 8 campuses, others rallied on

campuses and at least one highschool, students climbed the gate after administrators declared a lockdown

• Atlanta estimated 80,000 workers boycotted, 200 rallied at capitol
• Gainesville GA boycott, hundreds of students honor boycott (over 40% of

students)

3/25 Saturday

• L.A. 1- 2 million
• Denver 50,000
• Charlotte, NC 7,000
• Sacramento 4,000 +
• Watsonville and Salinas 2,500 (with the march from Tijuana)
• Houston 5-6,000 rally
• Cleveland rally organized by latino pastors coalition
• and tons of smaller cities I can't find turnout

estimates for, including Boise, Knoxville, and Reno

3/26 Sunday Columbus 4-7,000 L.A. 2,000 NYC/Washington Heights: 500

3/27 MONDAY San Francisco: 5,000? (hunger strike ends; march joins up with the March for Peace/Peregrinacion por la Paz from Tijuana) Santa Ana:700 rally while 200+ riot cops invade their neighborhood Watsonville march Detroit & Grand Rapids: over 50,000 Boston 2,000 Columbus ? D.C. 1,500 + 100 clergy Denver: strategy meeting, 200, mostly latin@ & some union organizers ending with work groups Louisville KY 3,000

WALKOUTS: L.A. 25-40, 000 (LA daily news) highschool walk out, blocking freeways, encircle city hall, from 52 high and middle schools Orange county highschoolers take over the Riverside Freeway Sacramento: 70 Fresno: over 500 San diego: 1,000+ Santa ana: morning, high school students shut down treasuer/tax collection office Phoenix: 400 walk out, march to capitol Farmersville (central Valley CA) 200 Also thousands of walkouts in Aptos, Hollister and Salinas.

3/28 Tuesday, ALL WALKOUTS L.A. 6,000 walkout from 25 schools Long beach: 400 San diego 3,000 walk out, rallies at chicano park, campuses Watsonville 1,000 Houston TX 1,000 Dallas 3,300 walk out & rally at city hall Springdale, Arkansas: 36 highschoolers Phoenix hundreds walk out, march to capitol again Farmersville walkouts day 2 Northern Virginia: 250 highschoolers, 8 middle schoolers

Number Forms

The forms in which numbers appear on this article needs to have a flow to it. For example, either express word notation (ex. seven-thousand) or express number notation (ex. 7,000). This is just for future reference for anybody who wants to edit and update this article. It may also recquire some clean-up. --EMC 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests, United States immigration debate, and H.R. 4437

What connection should this article have to United States immigration debate and H.R. 4437? My feeling is that all text concerning legislation should be combined, especially if and when one of the bills is enacted. The debate and protests should also be merged into one article, since the protests lack much meaning without the substance behind them. An all-encompassing article would be reasonable, since the bills, the debate, and the protests are all closely linked. Why make the reader jump from one article to two others, when a single article can tell the whole story? -Scottwiki 01:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I personally think it'd be better to have seperate articles, that way, when a person typed in what they were looking for, that's what'd they get...instead of a bunch of redirecting links where they have to sift through a much larger article to find the information that they wanted. --EMC 04:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Good points. I'm not sure what people will be typing in order to reach these articles. It's true that if every possibility (immigration bill, protests, debate, etc.) redirects to the same article, the article might potentially contain too much information. But I believe that the article can be concise and yet encompass all of these subtopics. In my view, the legislation, protests, and debate are all part of one ongoing event -- a controversy over proposed immigration reform legislation -- and shouldn't be in three separate articles. -Scottwiki 05:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I support separate articles, given that there is a lot of information in each of them. They should all clearly link to each other, though...I'll add some links now. --Krubo 15:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If the legislation passes, then this article and the "debate" article should be merged, as the debate is about the bill. If it doesn't pass then it should all be merged with the protests, which will be more significant than a failed bill. -Will Beback 21:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• In terms of structure, I think it makes sense to keep all three. United States immigration debate should probably be renamed to United States immigration policy (see immigration policy) and could be main article that would provide a historical context for immigration policy. H.R. 4437 and 2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests would be subtopics. (However, I could see merging H.R. 4437 into United States immigration policy if it eventually fails.) An argument for keeping separate articles is that some researchers will be interested in certain aspects of these events but not others. For example, a researcher of activism could be interested in what occurred during the 2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests, but they may not necessarily have a great interest in the general provisions of H.R. 4437. In any event, I certainly wouldn't want to see a merger at this point in time, since we do not yet know how large these articles may become. Accurizer 19:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Toughest Immigration Laws in the World

Some countries such as Luxembourg, Japan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia do not usually accept immigrants. While the United States does, it takes decades for people to become citizens at the present. I know many people who have been legal residents since the early 1990s and now they don't even have a green card . 66.81.192.88 05:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What's your point?Cameron Nedland 01:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about!?--143.92.1.33 11:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this article? --EMC 18:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because you can't tell the difference between a Japanese from a Chinese or Korean immigrant living among Japanese, doesn't mean Japan doesn't accept immigrants. Even a gaijin can become a permanent citizen of Japan if you dedicate yourself to learning the language and culture (of course, that doesn't mean Japanese -people- will be friendly to you, but the point is the law isn't strict on immigrants like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait). --70.134.219.9 05:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

First piece?

and was the first piece of legislation passed by a house of Congress in the United States immigration debate.

This is rather odd. Are we making the contention here that America has never had any public debate over immigration before the Bush Administration? I'd think the Alien Act at least would count.

If no one can provide a source for the startling claim that the "immigration debate" is so young, I'll be removing this as original research. -Kasreyn 09:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of the Term "Undocumented"

The term "Undocumented Immigrant" appears in the introductory paragraph. I think this constituts a violation in our NPOV policy. Ive changed it for the time being.

P.S. Wow, someone beat me to it! Anyway, we should probably decided on a policy regarding the term anyway Keeperoftheseal 15:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• How is "undocumented" biased in comparison to "illegal?" Are you saying there is nothing biased about dubbing a human being's mere presence in society "illegal?" Please kindly explain this difference.--Pinko1977 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The law states that non-citizens must follow a specific process to become a citizen, and another to enter the border and stay in the country. Not doing so by sneaking across the border is a violation of many laws. Therefore, yes, a human being's mere presence in that society is illegal. That's not a slander, it's just a simple fact. Aliens that are 'undocumented' are illegal simply by their mere unauthorized presence in the nation. "Illegal alien" is the proper term. "undocumented worker" was a term created to try and dodge this simple fact and make it sound nicer for political purposes. It would be akin to calling thieves something like "aquisitionists" - a clear attempt to avoid the connotation that is proper for the act. --Daniel 18:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• This nation has a large problem with "undocumented" drug use too --mitrebox 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Drug users are innocent until proven guilty. Guppy313 04:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have an "undocumented immigrant" article either; it redirects to Illegal immigration. There's similar arguments on the talk page for that article for anybody who's interested. --EMC 19:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I think the use of the term "undocumented immigrant" is inappropriate. It is a politically correct term to make it sound less serious.
• Actually, most people object to the terms "illegal" or "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" because they are racist and are used solely against immigrants from Latin America. When was the last time you heard of undocumented immigrants from Europe being referred to as "illegal?" In fact, the term "illegal alien" was invented decades ago to invoke the image of Mexicans "sneaking across the border" to invade America. No matter how you want to slice it, calling a human being an "illegal" has racist, xenophobic implications. You may also want to remember that much of today's Southwestern United States was once Mexico, and was seized by our government in an "illegal" (at least by moral standards) war. How can you accuse people of "illegally" occupying land that belonged to their ancestors?--Pinko1977 04:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Illegal Alien" refers to ALL aliens that are in the country without documentation (which is a crime), regardless of where they come from or what their race is. It's true you don't often hear people refering to Polish illegal aliens or Australian illegal aliens, but that is simply because there aren't as many of them. I've also never heard of a "Polish undocumented worker" - that's simply because they are rare. Most nations are separated geographically, which is why there is less illegal immigration. Canada is the only other nation with a similar adjacent location, and the Canadian economic situation is such that there isn't a big incentive to come across the border in an illegal manner. If some other poorer nation were directly adjacent to the U.S., we'd have more illegal aliens from there. Just because it INCIDENTALLY turns out that the bulk come from Mexico and most people in mexico are of one race, doesn't mean the very term "illegal alien" is racist. If I was a citizen of Japan, and I snuck into China without documentation, I'd be just as much an illegal alien. For something to be racist it has to be more than merely incidentally applicable to a group that has a high number of one race. It has to be something which was unjustly applied to a group BECAUSE of their race. There is no evidence here of that - and in fact, much evidence to the opposite: such as the fact that the U.S. has MANY legal hispanic citizens and legal citizens from many other races and nations, and no one of any significance or number has a problem with considering them as fully their fellow Americans. --Daniel 12:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Entering the country illegaly is a criminal offense. Being in the country without documentation is only a civil offense punishable by deportation. [user:Qwints]

True, Qwints, with one minor quibble. Your use of "criminal" and "civil" offenses suggests they are two different categories. This is a mistake. On one hand, you have "criminal" and "civil" *COURT CASES*. A CRIMINAL case is one that involves the state charging you with violation of a law (any law: city, county, state, federal). A CIVIL case is one that may or may not involve any laws being broken, but is between two people (NOT the government and a person) - one sueing the other for damages. You can have a civil case where no laws are broken, but if laws are broken it sometimes affects the ruling. A person can sue you because they don't like the color of shirt you're wearing, and that would be a CIVIL case (one that would likely get thrown out before even being tried, but a civil case nonetheless). In short, *criminal* cases are when a law is broken and the government is prosecuting you. *Civil* cases are when one citizen sues another person.

But none of that has anything to do with illegal immigration. ANY breaking of a law (city, county, state, or federal) is a CRIME, and therefore a CRIMINAL act. If the city council in a small town passes a law against spitting on the sidewalk and a person in that town does so, they have commited a criminal act.

Therefore, ALL cases of illegal immigration are criminal acts and would be a "criminal case" in a court of law. The only question is whether that criminal case would take place at the city, county, state, or federal level; and that would depend on the level of the law being allegedly violated.

I think, what you meant to say is better said as this: "Entering the country is a federal offense. Being in the country without documentation is a state offense punishable by deportation." -- I'm not sure if that's exactly right, but it's as close as I can imagine your statement being to the structure of the law I outlined above. --Daniel 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The biggest difference between the legal terms (at least in the context of immigration)"illegal" and "undocumented" is mostly that the term "illegal" has negative connotations attached to it... Therefore, if we want the article to be NPOV we would use the word without the negative connotations so that the reader would decide for themselves, right? Otherwise the readers would be biased against the immigrants from the first couple of sentences... 206.15.236.254 16:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Many Americans don't like the term "undocumented" because that is seen as whitewashing the fact that the immigrants are technically illegal. I am opposed to using the term undocumented.--Alabamaboy 17:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Undocumented may leave uninformed readers into believing that we haven't located them. Their legal status is living here without having a legal right to do so yet. that is, if the government brought them to court, they would lose. Until they obtain legal status, be able to win in court they are not undocumented but without legal status. We usually use the short hand illegal not to imply crime but the absence of legal protection. Many illegal acts are not criminal. John wesley 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Also they are aliens because they are not yet citizens while an immigrant is a citizen who has been naturalized, just like Robin MacNeil of the MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour on PBS who was born in Canada. John wesley 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling an immigrant "undocumented" implies that they simply don't have their paper work yet. As if the whole issue is a technicality and they are just waiting for a rubber stamp. However, it's not a technicality. If you're in this country, and you're neither a citizen nor part of some kind of temporary stay program, then you're here "illegally". You're not just "undocumented". You wouldn't call someone without a driver’s license, an "undocumented" driver. If they drive a car, they are doing it illegally. Likewise, you wouldn't call someone without a Medical Degree, an undocumented Doctor. If you practice medicine without a medical degree, you're doing it illegally. Likewise, we don't call illegal immigrants undocumented. If you are in this country without the consent of the law, you are here illegally. If you want to say that the law is flawed, and everyone should be allowed to live here without consent from the law, then that is a different issue. As it stands now, if you don't have consent to be here from the law, then you're here illegally.--146.244.138.238 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term Alien

In state law, a foreigner is out of state. There are foreign insurers. Alien insurers are say UK insurers -- Lloyds of London. Lloyds of Lubbock Texas would be foreign in any state but Texas. An immigrant is a citizen, while an alien could be a permanent resident (right to remain indefintely) or a tourist or a student or an illegal alien. Technically there are no illegal immigrants except for all the reporters who don't know the legal terms. John wesley 14:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Caption of the picture...

Should the caption of the picture near the start of the article start "Thousands of stupid mexicans gather...", as well as including the words "illegal Gay Mexis" in the article? Sounds like it violates NPOV, as well as being racist.165.165.127.248 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This vandalism has been fixed. Kaldari 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to expand references

The headline pretty much explains it all.--Jersey Devil 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro sentence

In the intro sentence about the march I have removed the mostly hispanic statement and it's corresponding ref as unworkable. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 14:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• does that even need to be cited? --Grocer 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Companion Senate Bill Number ?

It's unusual for the US Senate to work off a house bill directly on major legislation until they are ready to go to conference. So accordingly, there should be a companion Senate Bill number to cite. Joncnunn 16:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Senate version is S.2454 [1]--Rockero 21:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Move/Merge

I suggest we move this article to a much more suiting title. Some of these protests aren't even about immigrants rights, yet they're included. This title is too narrow, and I feel needs to represent a more broad subject. --EMC 18:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the word "justice" would suffice? It encompasses their need for awareness on this issue, winning rights, dignity, and purging criminalization. -- 71.255.104.101

To IP: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. To EMC, I think the title seems ok, but if you have any suggestions for a name change I'm listening.--Jersey Devil 19:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"2006 illegal immigration protests", or for those who might think that's too much of a POV title, "2006 immigration protests". --EMC 19:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind changing it to the latter, the former however does have some POV. Let's wait for a few others to comment on this.--Jersey Devil 19:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I attended the protest in Austin. It was promoted as a "Rally for Immigrant Rights." I think it's fair to use the label the protesters themselves have chosen. While there is certainly a diverity of views among protesters as to the best policy, the central theme at the Austin protest at least was the dignity of immigrants and their rights. -- User:Qwints

Don't forget to check out the "Name of Article" section on here, for it's relevant. --EMC 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the protests were over the reform proposals, I think that "2006 Immigration reform protests" would be an appropriate and NPOV title. They are not protesting illegal immigration, and they are not directly protesting for immigrant rights either. -Will Beback 20:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that I think is the best proposal except that it must say U.S. in the title. "2006 U.S. Immigration reform protests".--Jersey Devil 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So how do we know whether the decision is unanimous or not? And I'm all for "2006 U.S. immigration reform protests". That works. --EMC 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Since most of the involved editors on this topic have piped in , let's go with "2006 U.S. immigration reform protests" . Cheers, -Will Beback 22:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Kaldari 00:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article should be merged with the Great American Boycott, since they are both about the same thing. dposse 19:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Please see my comments at Talk:Great American Boycott for more detail. -Harmil 20:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Don't merge. These are separate events, with many of the protest leaders (like Cardinal Roger Mahony) opposing the boycott. Perhaps one day, after historic perspective changes on all of this, a merge would be justified but at this point it is not.--Alabamaboy 20:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the "in the news" section of the main page today? even that says that they are both the same.

"Immigration reform protests in the United States, sparked by proposed legislation H.R. 4437, continues with the Great American Boycott."dposse 21:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Financial statistics?

I was wondering if someone following this issue closely could cite some financial statistics for the proposed law. How many immigrants do they plan to have imprisoned for how long, and how much is all that going to cost? How much do they expect the law to deter illegal immigration, and how much is that expected to save in tax money? Mike Serfas 03:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If the government were to actually enact such a law, the burden on the judicial system would be enormous. Imagine 12 million people trying to get jury trials at the same time. That's one of the main reasons why the Bush administration won't support it. Kaldari 05:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Statistical (Insignifance)

I'd really like someone to address, or write a paragraph in, representing the opposing view here. I mean, every poll, every day, says that >80% of US citizens favor clamping down on the borders; and this entire article makes it sound like the rallies and riots were universally accepted as over some civil rights issue. Most of the opponents (again 80+% of Americans) would be offended to see themselves written off as racists--it's more accurately seen as a discussion of whether the immigration issue has become so widespread in its own nature as to justify amnesty as part of a broad program of closing the borders. Again, until there is a truly statistically and politically significant number of people either protesting or sympathizing with said protestors, descriptions of protests need to reflect both positions semi-equally. --Mrcolj 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Most of these protests do not fall under those "80% of U.S. citizens". Although there are some protests that are in favor of tightening the border and immigration policies, there honestly haven't been any impressive protests from that spectrum of the argument; however, we do state in the list of protests, protests from both sides, but there's no comparison between a quarter-million rally in favor of amnesty, and a three-hundred person rally against amnesty. But you're right, the article does seemed partial, and we do need to make a section which expresses "80% of U.S. citizens" more clearly (please check out illegal immigration). Thanks. --EMC 23:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the pro-immigration rallies, not the opposing point of view (the "80% of Americans"). The opposing point of view should be presented in the United States immigration debate article. Where it is directly relevent to this article's subject, it should be discussed, for example, in the section on the flag backlash. But I don't believe a discussion of the attitudes of Americans in general on the topic of immigration is within the scope of this article. Kaldari 00:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would like to know what "riots" you are talking about. Kaldari 00:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And I would like to point out that most people in the US agreed with the war in Iraq, but now they have changed their minds ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War ). This is because they have been flooded with information and made them think and realize why that war was so wrong. If the media gives the immigrant "issue" as much press as the war in Iraq you will see that "80%" number going waaay down. Peple are afraid at what they don't understand. Make them understand and they won't fear it. But of course this means explaining a lot of external policy and the reasons why american countries are poor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Condor is a good example ), so it will take some time. But you can't just ask someone uninformed "whats your opinion" if they are not informed.

This section shows a basic ignorance of the current political climate. A Washington-Post-ABC poll found that 63% of Americans favor letting immigrants who have been in the country for a long time begin the citizenship process. A Time magazine poll in March found that 78% of Americans favor " allowing illegal immigrants in the U.S. citizenship if they learn English, have a job and pay taxes. A similar number of Americans also favor increasing border security. I would argue that there is no need to keep out hardworking people who want to be Americans but that we do need to control borders to maintain national security. [user: Qwints]

As the person who wrote the flag controvery and backlash section, I agree with Kaldari that the views of most Americans on immigration policy should be addressed in United States immigration debate. This is an article about the protests and the direct reaction to the protests. Now, if someone had a poll showing the reaction of Americans to the protests, that I could see being in this article, but otherwise no.--Alabamaboy 22:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Too many photos

I think the article now has too many photos for its length. Not only is this visually distracting, I believe it turns a NPOV article into a pro-protest article by now looking (from a visual point of view) like a propaganda piece. Any thoughts on how many pics we should have? I liked having two pictures, with the Nashville picture being a great pic for the top of the page and any one other pic. Any thoughts on this?--Alabamaboy 17:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't particularly like the Salt Lake photo (featuring the back of someone's head). And the photo of the students should at least be moved down next to the paragraph about student walkouts. Kaldari 19:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory

The intro says there were protests in 94 cities on April 10th. The timeline says 102 cities. Kaldari 06:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone resolved it, although the figure is still unreferenced. Kaldari 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Right To Protest

Aren't the majority protests illegal,don't you have to be a citizen to protest? Dudtz 5/1/06 6:33 PM EST

No. -Will Beback 02:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Own Country??

The thing I dont understand is why they dont go to Mexico city and demonstrate, and protest there. I could really care less if all of those illeagal immigrants left. Also, I completely agree with you Dudtz. El bender 23:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Because that way stupid people like you will never find out. Do you see news from other countries than US? The idea of the protests is for YOU AMERICANS to notice the situations. Mexicans are informed enough so they don't need a protest. Besides there is no point on making a protest for a US law in Mexico. It surprises me how STUPID are you man.

Why the hell can't they make Mexico better,if you want to be American,go through the legal process. Stupid preople say that "Mexicans take the jobs that we don't want",tell that to somone who lives in a place like, Flint Michigan . Dudtz 5/1/06 7:54 Pm EST

Completely agree with both. --CrazyAmerican 02:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This talk page exists only to discuss how to make this article better, not to resolve political issues. Please find a different forum to offer opinions. -Will Beback 02:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There should then be a link to a common forum to discuss these issues, so all wikipedians with words to say can be heard, and people like me, who are interested in hearing what people are saying, can go to. Having a million readers come to this talk page, do a random google for an even more random forum to speak on, doesn't bind us together well. Because this is not the right forum... where is? -Chewbacca 10:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh shut up......... Do you know what is like having a family of 8 living in a 2 bedroom house and everyone in your household picks tomatoes and fruits no you don't so be quite... any poll or news station will tell you central americans do all of America's dirty work! We are all humans and should help each other--HurricaneRo 01:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Number of protesters

Since the stats on the page say 300k in Chicago and 700k elsewhere, shouldn't the opening sentence say "a million people were involved in protest" rather then "millions"

300k + 700k = 1M (maybe a little more due to rounding). Millions means like 3M-6M. Ghostalker 03:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Man, they ARE there. They EXIST. Don't try to minimize them, don't try to act like they don't exist. Even the white house recognized the immigration system is broken, because there are 12 million illegal immigrants. Is that enough "millions" to be plural for you?

"Wikipedia is not a place for free speech. It is a place where reality is created through concensus. A place where truth, like the truth that illegal immigrants are law-breaking criminals, is not important."

-The Managment

"Wikipedia is not the place to discuss that americans are the biggest criminals in history, with their wars and the racism and the thirst for oil have killed more people than any other country in this earth, and this is only to support the "american dream" of a house and two cars, which every people in this planet should envy and no one that wasn't born with pure american blood should enjoy. The rest of the world solely exists to make the american dream possible. But when the planes hit new york america woke up and realized -- everyone hates us. But they didn't understand why. Sooner or later they will, and maybe then "world peace" will become reality, and the world will not suffer hunger and death anymore. But while americans (the people, not the government) refuse to understand this, history will repeat itself."

Flag Controversy

"These actions were seen by some Americans as a sign of disrespect for both the flag and the United States.[13]"- That doesn't cut it. From what I've seen and heard, more than "some" Americans see this act as downright Treason, more than petty disrespect. I can understand waving a Mexican flag, sure, that's a protest. But hanging this country's flag upside-down, UNDER the Mexican flag? Sorry, but that's beyond disrespect. That's treasonous. If wikipedia is trying to document how people are reacting "currently," then 'some Americans' seeing it as 'a sign of disrespect' is too light a sprinkling of reality. People are pissed- don't leave out the truth, no matter how brutal it is. -Chewbacca 10:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd originally thought of using the words "most Americans" but I couldn't find any poll or other reference for this. I'd still support using the word "most" even without a reference.--Alabamaboy 17:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the word to "many Americans." If more people support going with "most," we can then make that change. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Very biased article

Please someone review this article, this is TOO biased. Remember this is the ENGLISH SPEAKING wikipedia NOT THE "AMERICAN WIKIPEDIA".

"Given the fact that no borders existed at the time and that Mexico itself was founded as a European colony the veracity of these claims is somewhat in doubt."

In any case, Mexicans have more native ascendancy than americans so if we were to give the land to whoever was here first, then america has to go. Also, considering that most places in Texas and California have spanish names, it's obvious "who was here first".

"There is some question as to the appropiatness of media outlets in organizing widespread civil disobedience. The stations in question may have violated the law."

This is coming from a country that had "THE" CIVIL WAR? Please, americans, don't try to teach us moral. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

You're quite biased yourself too, you know. If we wrote the article the exact way you'd want it it wouldn't be unbiased, just biased differently. --Cyde Weys 17:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It was intentional, you know? Also I just realized, this is a COMMENT, which is not necessarily objective, it's a purely subjective opinion. An encyclopedia article it's required to be as objective as possible, and this article isn't.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.19.123 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the article is doing a very good jobs of taking a NPOV with regards to the protests. If anything, the article leans a little too much to the side of the protesters. --Alabamaboy 18:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Riot Reported !!!!

I have found a California newspaper that has reported that a riot has taken place. Riot Reported During the May 1,2006 Demonstrations Where can this newspaper account be placed ? More reports of this nature will surface. Martial Law 23:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC) :)

Wow

A LOT of controversy over THIS:

And, YES, it's mostly about MEXICANS, in spite of the fact that illegal immigrants also come from other countries. 204.52.215.107 04:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The National Anthem

USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 28-30, 2006. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which comes closer to your view? It is only appropriate for people to sing the U.S. national anthem in English. OR, If people want to, it is appropriate for them to sing the U.S. national anthem in Spanish." Options rotated

• English Only 69%
• Spanish too 29%
• Unsure 3%

4/28-30/06

What the hell?

I totally support the cause of the immigrants. However, adding this just took it too far: "In 2006, millions of people were involved in protests over a proposed reform to existing United States immigration laws were massacered by a huge evil army run by the evil President Bush. Apparently failing to kill them with his hurricanes, he decided to do it outright with his private army that took the oil from Iraq."

Can we please make this part less biased? AllStarZ 17:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Pfft. Less biased? Looks more like vandalism.