Jump to content

Talk:Illegal immigration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arydberg (talk | contribs) at 20:42, 3 August 2017 (→There Are no Illegal Aliens.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Small error?

Source number 2 (http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=344) is cited as saying that "1 in roughly 20 Colombians now live abroad", when in fact the cited website says in the first sentence that "roughly one in 10" now live abroad. Am I missing something obvious, or should this be changed?

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Illegal immigration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Illegal immigration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Bangladesh

I have reverted this addition because the source states that there are 500,000 Indians residing in Bangladesh, not that 500,000 Indians are residing in Bangladesh illegally. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the source does say that there are illegal Indian immigrants to Bangladesh, "People who are migrating to Bangladesh illegally are from West Bengal, Meghalaya, Assam, Tripura and Mizoram." I have reworded it to "There are 500,000 Indians living in Bangladesh as of 2013, many of whom are illegal immigrants." That should be fine. A.Musketeer (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not fine, because the source says nothing about the proportion of the 500,000 who are in Bangladesh illegally, so "many of whom" is not supported by the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can say "a number of whom are illegal immigrants". Now there shouldn't be any problem? A.Musketeer (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A number" could be two or 200,000. I don't think it's worth mentioning the 500,000 figure at all, now that I think about it. It tells us pretty much nothing about the topic at hand. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A number" could be "any number" which is why I reworded it this way. But anyway I have added new sources that explain it more clearly. A.Musketeer (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the new term "illegalized immigrants"

A new term has been added, "illegalized immigrant". It has not become widely used, but the cited piece is trying to change that. But, I am not sure it is a helpful term here.

I read the source and have been debating the the aptness of this term. The author of the cited piece wrote that the government of the country of arrival makes these immigrants' status illegal. For example:

  • a "government 'illegalizes' those migrants who do not possess permission to enter by denying them legal status"
  • "illegalization occurs when a migrant initially enters a country with a visitor, student, or work visa or permit, but stays in the country past the expiry date"

An advocate for this term says it "draw[s] attention to the systematic process that renders people 'illegal' rather than blaming illegalized immigrants for the situation in which they are placed. Illegalization is a process created by governments and institutions enacting and enforcing migration and refugee laws." However, I am not sure the term is accurate, or at the least, not clear. For example, if I book a motel room but stay longer than the authorized time, by this approach it appears that I did not do anything illegal but the current law illegalizes my presence in the room. Or, if I enter a sporting event without a ticket, the local government has illegalized me.

Does the term "illegalized immigrant" seem accurate and helpful in this article? Should the text of the article address lack of clarity or accuracy related to this term.Pete unseth (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The accuracy and helpfulness of the term don't really matter at this point. "Illegalized immigration" is listed, as it should be, as one of the proposed replacement terms for "illegal immigration". If you have a source which discusses what it believes is lack of accuracy or clarity of "illegalized immigration," please add the info and cite it in the article. If you don't have such a source, then there is nothing to add. Regards.. Plazak (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Plazak. The present version of the article does not claim that the term is accurate or helpful; only that it has been proposed, notably and verifiably. Pete, if you feel that the wording of the article somehow endorses the term, do feel free to improve. Heptor talk 20:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is quite debatable if the term meets the notability criteria. Opinions? Heptor talk 20:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. It doesn't appear to be in use except in very narrow circles, most notably its original proposer. Heptor talk 14:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"blaming illegalized immigrants for the situation in which they are placed"? How are they placed in any such situation? Unless they were kidnapped and dropped across a border without their knowledge or consent, then they are the ones who have placed themselves in this situation. --Khajidha (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this wording was problematic, as it insinuated something controversial in Wikipedia's voice. But read my previous post: I already removed the offending text due to lack of notability. Heptor talk 23:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whole page largely copied, including word for word

Please see[1]. Copyvio says only 31% likely but URL comparison (see footnote) shows 99.1%. Michtrich (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC) I realised that the above 'source' I found may be a wiki mirror. But now I found another 'source' that has identical wording (96.4%)[2]. This doesn't look like a mirror. Other problems of that page are a too strong focus on the US and Mexico and - according to my impression - insufficient distinction and clarity between illegal immigrants and other kinds of immigrants or refugees, e.g. I am quite sure that the Cogolese that were expelled from Angola were (or should have been considered as) refugees. Bhutan section is about refugees, etc., etc. Michtrich (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, the first one is indeed a known mirror; they credit wikipedia on that page (see "citational source". Kuru (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There Are no Illegal Aliens.

If illegal immigration is indeed illegal there must be a law against it. You should quote this law, and the penalty.

My understanding is that immigration is not illegal but the person leaves themselves open to being deported. If this is indeed the case the term undocumented alien seems preferable.

Arydberg (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Illegal_immigrants#cite_note-logic-7
  2. ^ http://cdn.hisarjmun.org/documents/resreps/HRCReport1.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illegal_immigration&oldid=793768855"