Talk:Opposition to immigration

Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nativism

Both this article and the Nativism (politics) article use the term, "first-generation immigrants". I'm going to have to take issue with this term as hopelessly POV. Is there any other kind of immigrant? This term seems like a leftist, identity politics based term that implies that "we are all immigrants" (and therefore all members of some minority group deserving of special benefits rather than members of the majority), which as we all know is complete nonsense. If you were born in the country you live in, you are by definition not an immigrant. There are no "second-generation" immigrants - the very conecpt is an oxymoron. I'm going to have to object to the use of this term in any article and in any context. Puppy Mill 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'First-generation' is common usage in the United States, to describe those who were born outside the US and migrated there. Other countries may have different terminology. The only use of the term here is in reference to nativism - this article was split off from the Nativism article. (The term 'second-generation immigrant' is not used in this article). The population of the United States is composed largely of immigrant groups, that is why there is a specific term 'nativism'.Paul111 11:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV United States

The Argument and Counter-argument section seems biased because it mainly applies to immigration in the United States. It would be one thing if it were put in a counter US argument, but it's in the main article here. What about Europe or Asia? They are far more powerful as a whole compared to the USA. The general argument and counter-argument section needs to also be inclusive of Europe and Asia. Why is everything on Wikipedia America-centred? 206.113.132.130 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ "America-centered". Don't worry, though, I fixed things on this article.Qwenton (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

allrite good job: —Preceding unsigned comment added by DubO777 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counter arguments.

I do not see any reason to have a counter opinion part in this entry. 82.128.132.130 (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no need to have a counter opinion party in this entry. Another entry can be made for proponents of immigration, but this part comes across as defensive, dismissive and not particularly neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.207.16 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I don't see why the counter arguments are written as "proponents cite" while "opponents say" for the arguments. this is written like a POV debunk. though such naive writing can be seen in many articles. 79.176.49.28 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scare quotes

"the argument that immigrants "steal jobs" always overlooks the fact that the jobs being "taken" are typically menial and/or low paying positions which "natives" generally do not wish to perform, creating a demand for labour which is met by immigrants. Due to a lack of cheap labor, industries would be forced to raise prices, which may put an economic burden on the public. Some industries would be forced to relocate overseas."

I'm removing all the scare quotes, except those surrounding "steal jobs" since it is a colloquial expression.

indeed , this is weasel terminology , where do they steal job? why is immigration a viable sure counter to outsourcing? why should immigrants work for less or stay ? who benefits from the cheap labour and who looses? does subsidizing the cheap labour costs the same anyway? 79.176.49.28 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]