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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Please remember to expand references

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

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)[reply]

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