Talk:2014 American immigration crisis

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... it is a notable event. --User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

An event? Reads much more like a diatribe against a group of people. AlanS (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, fix it. It is intended to simply be a report of a current event. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the declining Admin; I was about to decline speedy deletion as this is not attack page, and was beaten to it. It does have issues though. It is view pushing (calling it a "crisis" is pushing a point of view unless it is widely referred to as such by third parties) and appears to be pulling together references to make a point. I would recommend AFD/Improve, and I would suggest working together to achieve a better article rather than point out the problems. Stephen! ^Coming... 13:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree: Fix, not delete. I'll add some edits. --Cayzle (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Washington Journal

Washington Journal on C-span 2 is devoted to this and other immigration issues today, July 11, and might make an appropriate external link when it is available as a video. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Framing

The key to making this a great article is adequate handling of the political attempts to frame and exploit this issue as either an alien invasion or as a refugee crisis. That will, of course, be limited by availability of sources that address the matter in that way. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Title

Per the results of the AFD, the consensus is that this article should be kept, but renamed. Suggestions? I'm leaning toward Unnacompanied child immigration in the United States or something similar. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a general topic, not this particular crisis, and what it currently is IS a crisis. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

My choice would be Surge in unaccompanied children migrating to the United States from Central America. It is more or less neutral and mirrors language being used in official documents and news coverage. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Move

Children's immigration crisis → 2014 children's immigration crisis in the United States – It is a long title, but necessary to reflect all the elements. It did not become a crisis until 2014 and will differentiate any other, and tells who, what, when. This somewhat longish title appeared to have some support at the AFD. Until the sources settle upon a singular alternative name, this is the most accurate. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

My choice would be Surge in unaccompanied children migrating to the United States from Central America. It is more or less neutral and mirrors language being used in official documents and news coverage. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I find the word "children's" a bit suboptimal. Every time I see it, it reminds of the incorrect word "childrens", and anyway I don't think that the crisis really belongs to them per se. Is there a way to use the world "child" or "minors" instead? Maybe something along the lines of '2014 child immigration crisis in the United States'?

  W/r/t the 'surge in unaccompanied children ... from central america" suggestion, I think it's overly wordy. I don't think the "unaccompanied" aspect or the "from Central America" aspect is necessary. It's sufficiently specific to refer to the 2014 American immigration crisis involving minors. Nobody will be confused, and using the date is actually more specific. And I also think the word "surge" is problematic because, to me, it has a vaguely military connotation, which brings to mind a sort of invasion of children, which is not really neutral. YMMV. AgnosticAphid talk 03:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • children's --> child isn't a bad idea. To me, the word "crisis" is almost mandatory, however. I lived in Texas over 20 years and a couple more in Arizona, illegal immigration was common and almost laughably easy to do, but this sudden wave is different; overwhelmingly so. I agree the above is too verbose and oddly worded. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 08:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• How about Youth immigration from Central America to the United States? The article structure could be split into two: situation pre 2014, and current situation. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel like that title misses the important fact that the current situation is widely seen to be approaching critical mass, and instead characterizes the phenomenon as more of a type of ongoing immigration, which is not really the focus of this article. So I think I agree with Dennis' comment above. AgnosticAphid talk 18:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• 2014 American immigration crisis seems best--there are no other 2014 immigration crises to confuse this with. WP:CONCISE governs. Red Slash 05:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  Actually, I do like that as well, but I wonder if that would also be lumping together all the other immigration problems we have this year, and not just this one single child problem. That isn't necessarily bad, but would this title change the scope? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  Good point, but I would think not, unless you could call all other issues "crises" Red Slash 22:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  As always, it depends on what the sources call them :) I'm torn between the two names, either would be satisfactory to me at this point. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• To me, 'crisis' seems POV / crystal-ball. It seems to convey a conclusion that some decisive turning point has been reached. While some people may think that is true, that is not necessarily objectively the case. Perhaps there are various news organizations using that word, but to some extent that may be just to attract readers by conveying a subjective sense of urgency. Articles probably get more clicks if the headline calls something a 'crisis' than if it calls it a 'surge' or 'increase' or 'controversy' or 'problem'. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should try to convey a more objective tone. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times has a Q&A about this that specifically calls the problem a "crisis" and does not have the word crisis in the headline to "get more clicks." I am sure there are others, but I don't have time to drag them up right now. If media organizations call it a crisis, we are bound to do the same. I have a problem with the word "surge" as I said above. It's too military and brings to mind the word "invasion" which to me is clearly POV. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to "controversy." I dislike the word "problem" but I am not exactly sure why. AgnosticAphid talk 01:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about the potential military overtones of "the surge". A decade ago, the word 'surge' didn't have that meaning (e.g.,Wiktionary does not mention any military overtones). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• I like, 2014 United States Immigration Crises If anything, it should be "minors," not "children," because most of them are actually teenagers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob3gd (talk • contribs) 03:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Mexico

• NYT's article on what is happening in Mexico User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Needs Overhaul; Not Completely Accurate

I take issue with the framing with this article. First thing, the reasoning for unaccompanied children coming across the border needs to be further explained. Most of these "children" are actually between the ages of 14-17 years of aged, based on information obtained from the freedom of information act. Second, Most of these unaccompanied children already have family here in the states. These family members are paying thousands per person to Coyotes, also known as human smugglers. These smugglers are bringing children to the US and telling them to turn themselves in. Also, its not discussed that 80% of those released don't attend court dates, disappearing into US society. There isn't much talk about the conditions of the facilities either. Also, its not discussed that the overwhelming of these people came because of rumors of amnesty; a majority of them believed that they would be able to stay. Because of the prospects of immigration reform, many family members here thought it was perfect timing to get the rest of their family members here, especially the children. Coyotes also lied to them and found a way to exploit the child trafficking law. This is not, as been written in the article, some FOX News conspiracy, which discredits this piece for impartiality. This has been discussed and can be sourced. This article needs a major overhaul. I'm tempting to believe that it may even be biased and one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob3gd (talk • contribs) 03:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

173.165.61.69 (talk)The article is far more unbiased and neutral than what you just wrote. — Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The following passage appears twice in the article

"Some conservatives see the sudden influx as being planned by the Obama administration (even postulating a Cloward–Piven strategy), based upon an advertisement posted in January of 2014 by the Department of Homeland Security seeking a contractor to manage and transport approximately 65,000 Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) "ages infant to 17 years of age." This number is set in contrast to an average annual number of 5,000 UAC. The Department of Health and Human Services stated in its "Budget in Brief" that the annual number of arriving UAC had increased from 6,560 to an estimated 60,000 for fiscal year 2014, and the Government anticipated awarding a five year contract to deal with them."

I would delete it myself, but I am an unregistered user and it would probably be marked as vandalism. Could someone with authority edit this?