Talk:Immigration policy of Donald Trump

This is about his presidential campaign, not his presidency

How is this going to work? All of this information is about his campaign, not about his current policy as president. Basically, it's all talk he did when he had no power. What do we do? A different article for his presidential immigration policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandiego91 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I divided it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandiego91 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Especially for Trump, who has changed his positions often, it is important to distinguish what his proposed policies as a candidate are and what his current policies (during his administration). I'm going to start pushing some content off this article to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and remove from here as we gain consensus CatapultTalks (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Lawsuits

@Octoberwoodland: You have been very diligent in creating articles about each of the current lawsuits against the executive order. But I wonder if it is really appropriate or necessary to have a separate article for each lawsuit? I would hope that at some point very soon, they will be combined into a single article (not sure what to call it) with redirects from the individual cases (of which there will probably be more). What do you and others think? --MelanieN (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Your call Melanie. Whatever you think is best, please feel free to combine them. I just finished the fourth one. They are all slightly different with different approaches depending on the legal status of their plaintiffs. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to sleep on it and hope for more input. There's no hurry. Keep up the good work. --MelanieN (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I just made the same suggestion at User talk:Octoberwoodland. That would be more informative to readers, and provide a good destination for other cases which are sure to spring up. — JFG ^talk 07:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I just finished reading the morning news and by all appearances, it certainly looks like we are about to be awash with many many more lawsuits filed against Trump on this topic to the point we may get buried with them. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Lawsuits and all redirects updated to a single article -> Lawsuits against the immigration policy of Donald_Trump Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, October! That was a big job. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not over yet, another deluge of lawsuits got filed today. I am waiting to get the filings before adding them into that article. It looks like its going to be a BIG article. You were right on in getting it to a single article, we are about to be buried in lawsuit filings. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, we may need that lawsuit article placed under semi-protection. Your call. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was overturned to no consensus as the result of a move review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The original close was: pages(s) moved per clear consensus. There was previous precedent, in addition to the consensus shown here. Please refer to, Barack Obama et al. --QEDK (愛) 08:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Addendum: The tally stands 13/5 (which points to almost a 3/4th majority), hence I've labelled it as "clear consensus". I've considered the facts that the Trump's own positions should be separated from his administration but there's no resolute reason to, considering he's the head of the executive now, he does supersede other positions such as his own opinion, if there's a deviation from status quo, feel free to fork content from this article or better, add sections within policy articles themselves as comparison. (non-admin closure) --QEDK (愛) 21:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

---

• Immigration policy of Donald Trump → Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration
• Social policy of Donald Trump → Social policy of the Donald Trump administration
• Economic policy of Donald Trump → Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration
• Foreign policy of Donald Trump → Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration

– Donald Trump is now President, and thus it makes sense to move said articles to reflect the policies of the wider administration. --Nevé–selbert 16:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Agree Y HelgaStick (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Agree Y , but move relevant existing content into Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign. That article itself is too long, so may be create new page Immigration policy of Donald Trump 2016 Presidential Campaign and so on? CatapultTalks (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  Icons are neither necessary nor conventional in WP:RM discussions, and are distracting.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  I'm dead-set against forking Trump's statements during the campaign to some out-in-the-bushes-article that no one will be able to find or read. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  I concur with you on that, Snooganssnoogans.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support, per WP:COMMONSENSE and greater encyclopedic accuracy, especially given increasing reliably sourced evidence that the policies are being set by others than Trump himself, like Bannon and Pence.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, but remove Donald. the Trump administration is plenty precise for this. Dicklyon (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional support per Dicklyon. Srnec (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with Dicklyon Good afternoon (talk to me.) 13:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Agree, would be reasonable; but i would note that the current content of the article is mainly about Trump′s attitudes/pronouncements on foreign policy rather that of his administration′s (I meant Foreign policy of Donald Trump).Axxxion (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Agree, with the caveat that these sections should continue to reflect Trump's history of statements on these issues. In other words, we shouldn't remove all statements he did prior to the campaign or prior to him taking office as President. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – The current articles were forked out from Political positions of Donald Trump and reflect the positions of candidate Trump and analysis thereof. The actual policies of the Trump administration should be covered as they unfold in entirely new articles (which may of course refer to the candidate's positions to compare and contrast). — JFG ^talk 10:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Axxxion and Snooganssnoogans: You seem to hold the same views; can you clarify if you would prefer separate articles for the candidate's positions (current articles) and the President's administration (new articles) or lumping everything in the same place? — JFG ^talk 10:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

They should be lumped in the same place. I don't think we should privilege the statements made by Trump after winning the election than those made before it. The promises that he made during the campaign and positions espoused are relevant to the policies that he enacts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the above. As things unfold, the election campaign period material can be condensed and appropriately modified, still relevant.Axxxion (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support, conditional on keeping some of Trump's campaign promises/statements within the articles. The presidential campaign informs (but does not dictate) the presidency. Orser67 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per JFG - there is a place for the varying views of Trump as a person/candidate and another for the actions of his administration which may or may not align with those views. @SMcCandlish: suggests that Bannon/Pence et al. will be influencing policy - I agree but see this as a reason to have separate articles. |→ Spaully ^τ  09:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – Is the word "Donald" necessary in this request? "Trump administration" is certainly more common than "Donald Trump administration". With few exceptions (J. Adams/J.Q. Adams, W.H. Harrison/B. Harrison, A. Johnson/L.B. Johnson, T. Roosevelt/F.D. Roosevelt, G.H.W. Bush/G.W. Bush), I don't see the need for including anything other than the president's last name followed by "administration". Master of Time (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Prior presidents have their full name, e.g. we have Economic policy of the Barack Obama administration, Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration. If you feel strongly about this, perhaps you can file another multi-move request for all affected presidents after this one concludes. — JFG ^talk 23:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Followup comment If we need separate articles (JFG makes a reasonable point), the pre-presidency one should not be named "Immigration policy of Donald Trump"; a candidate does not set policy. It would have to be something else, such as "Immigration stance of the Donald Trump campaign" or something.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. For most of the world, these articles are adequately named. Candidates do announce policies. Agree that new articles on the policies of the Trump administration would be a good idea, the existing articles are long enough and should stay focussed on the policies announced before the election, and there should be no problem finding material and editors to build these new articles. Would not oppose renames for the current articles that preserve the current topic and focus, if their current titles are confusing to Americans. Andrewa (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. It is the administration's policies that matter, not personal opinions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Y , but move relevant existing content into Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign or its subpages as addressed above.--Carwil (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per JFG. This article is principally about the positions of the man himself, and the articles are a fork of the main positions articles, which date back to before his presidency. Some of them may specifically not be the views of his administration.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support without Donald per Dicklyon. All of these articles were created after the election, two after the inauguration, so it is appropriate focus their contents on the policies of the administration, and to title them accordingly. (Note: I undid a previous !vote in opposition, but then did more research and changed my mind). --В²C ☎ 21:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think there should be separate articles about the opinions of Donald Trump and the actual policies of the Trump administration. The actual policies of the Trump administration are brand new and not fully formed, but may be substantially different than the opinions Trump has previously subscribed to.--Aervanath (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Addition of refugee policy

I am interested in adding information specifically about the Trump administration's actions regarding refugees. Of course, the section would focus on the recent executive actions. Any input or guidance regarding this preliminary bibliography is appreciated.

Origins and President Trump’s actions:

U.S. State Department. 2016. “Visa Waiver Program.” https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html

This lists the seven countries referenced in President Trump’s executive order. The list was first compiled by the Obama administration.

The White House: Office of the Press Secretary. 2017. “Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

The White House: Office of the Press Secretary. 2017. “Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.”https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united

The White House: Office of the Press Secretary. 2017. “Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Provisions.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/executive-order-border-security-and-immigration-enforcement-improvements

Asylum officers placed on southern border security detail. I will find information concerning how this may affect legitimate asylum seekers.

Seeks to end manipulation of asylum policies to for the purposes of allowing potentially removable persons in the country

The White House: Office of the Press Secretary. January 31, 2017. “Statement by Press Secretary Sean Spicer.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/31/statement-press-secretary-sean-spicer

I also plan to reference various Twitter posts the President has released.

Legal Challenge:

Reuters. February 3, 2017. “Seattle judge blocks immigration ban after Boston judge refused to extend stay.” Washington Post. http://nypost.com/2017/02/03/seattle-judge-blocks-immigration-ban-after-boston-judge-refused-to-extend-stay/

United States District Court for the Western district of Washington at Seattle. 2017. “Robart Order.” Contributed by David Gutman of The Seattle Times. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3446391-Robart-Order.html

Explains U.S. District Judge Robart’s ruling blocking the executive order

Rusty shackleford (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please quote secondary reliable sources while you do this CatapultTalks (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Anchor baby" usage

In the Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump#Birthright_citizenship section, there is a mention of children of illegal immigrants being referred as "anchor babies" - Trump used the word, but he isn't the first one to use it. My edit clarifies that. please comment your concerns here before reverting. CatapultTalks (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Of what relevance is it that others have used it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

whom he refers to as "anchor babies" - seems to indicate that he came up with this term. The Politifact article for this clearly states that - Some, like Trump, refer to these children as "anchor babies." CatapultTalks (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to indicate that he came up with the term at all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks CatapultTalks (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It really does imply he created the term. The bias is obvious. Had Trump invented a new word for this activity, it would be reasonable to say "Trump refers to them as x". More accurate for it to say "so as not to grant citizenship to US-born children of illegal immigrants (commonly referred to as "anchor babies"). RenderedToast (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. I changed it to "sometimes called anchor babies". I would not say "commonly referred to" since the term is not in general use; it is only used by one particular segment of the political divide, and its use implies an anti-immigration sentiment. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reverted my change. Snoogans, let's talk about it. I think it is dishonest to say he refers to them that way without some context showing that he is not the only one who uses that term. I see that I am not the first to have made this change and been reverted by you. In fact this section looks to me as if three people (CatapultTalks, RenderedToast, and myself) object to the wording you prefer. Can we talk about consensus, please? --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I was unaware that a discussion had continued beyond the dialogue between me and CT. My comments are below. There are two things that I find a bit confusing: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

First, I'm confused as to why this article should mention the trivia that *some* refer to babies born to foreign mothers as anchor babies. Seeing as how its a pejorative term, why mention it at all, unless it describes something about Trump (that *he* uses the term)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Second, I don't see at all how someone can leave with the impression that he coined the term, given that it's is a known pejorative term and denotes a particularly strong dislike for birthright citizenship. It's not a term that proponents of stricter immigration laws generally use, but rather a term that more extreme politicians use. That Trump *uses* the term is valuable info. It's a bit as if Trump opposed Obamacare on the rationale that they contained "death panels" and someone would change text in his article to "he opposed a provision of Obamacare on end-of-life care (which some refer to as "death panels")" when it would probably be more descriptive to denote that *he* uses that lingo: "he opposed a provision of Obamacare on end-of-life care (which he referred to as "death panels")? Nobody would leave with the impression that he coined the term 'death panels', but they'd know that he uses inflammatory language about Obamacare. I hope I get my point across. I'm sure there's a better hypothetical out there. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions

Re this and this. Those edits violate TWO of the discretionary sanctions in effect on this page. First, they violate the 1RR restriction. Second they violate the restriction on reverting challanged edits. This is long standing text. CatapultTalks changed it in the first edit with a false edit summary claiming it was a "copy edit". I undid that, effectively challanging the changes. They then restored their preferred version, violating discretionary sanctions.

The changes also remove well sourced text and POV the wording.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

First, stop reverting my good faith edits without discussion. if you'd like to challenge something start in the talk page. please point out portions that are "False" or "POV" sentences - so we can get into a constructive discussion CatapultTalks (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No, first, stop making changes in violations of discretionary sanctions. You've violated 1RR and you've violated the part which says "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I broke down my edits into 4-5 separate ones and gave descriptions to each. Hope this would address content concerns, if you had any -- CatapultTalks (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Mass deportation -> Mass deportation of illegal immigrants

I'm going to rename the section to "Mass deportation of illegal immigrants" since that's what the sources refer to Trump's immigration plan as. If anyone have different views, let's discuss here CatapultTalks (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Kate's law

An edit, supported by sources, that I made regarding Kate's law has been reverted without basis. I'm going to restore it, please comment here for the reason you'd revert it. CatapultTalks (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close pending outcome of the move review for the recent title change — JFG ^talk 08:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

---

• Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration → Immigration policy of the Trump administration
• Social policy of the Donald Trump administration → Social policy of the Trump administration
• Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration → Economic policy of the Trump administration
• Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration → Foreign policy of the Trump administration

– No need for "Donald" in these titles. This was suggested by Dicklyon in the last RM, and there was considerable support, but apparently not enough for the closer to put it into effect, so I'm addressing that issue alone in this RM. Just searching NY Times we get 326k hits for "trump administration" when we exclude "donald trump administration" [1], and only 26k hits for "donald trump administration"[2]. That difference is over 10 times, and is strong basis for this move per WP:COMMONNAME. В²C ☎ 21:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, but we should do the same with the various Barack Obama administration articles; and maybe others before him. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless all the other related articles (e.g. Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government; Economic policy of the Stephen Harper government; Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration) are moved. Laurdecl ^talk 02:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guadalupe García de Rayos in the lede?

A mention about this deported person was added to the lede terming it as ".. was iconic". I doubt it will withstand the test of time. Also, the edit talks about her children which is not relevant per WP:BLP. This was challenged and edited to a more neutral version in the main text, but somehow the POV continues to be mentioned in the lede. Is there a reasonable explanation?

I've also added back a sourced statement by ICE on this case which was reverted. (in the edit summary, I wrongly typed redundant instead of relevant. My bad) CatapultTalks (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Just seen this section. I have removed that sentence - her case was processed during the Obama era ending in a removal order, ICE deny it has anything to do with Trump, and she is not notable except for this deportation. To me it doesn't belong in the article let alone lead. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this article neutral? And is this article written based on recent policy changes?

I think one of the sub-sections, Mass deportation of illegal immigration, is not neutral statement. Obama was already deporting people, and when you say "mass deportation" sounds like bias. If would be more neutral if you could say "Deportation Force Plan" as Trump argued. Also, "Proposed Muslim Immigration Plan" has a good timeliness of his proposal until August 2016. Some sentences need to update citation with current policy changes in Muslim immigration plan. Dongchanyang (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

godddammit

I was in the process of fixing the urls -- the problem can be FIXED without a massive GODDAMM SUBSTANTIVE REVERSION. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: This was originally inserted by an IP with this search-and-replace - [3] - which would be vandalism (as it broked URL and refs - massively). The article was using "illegal" prior to this IP edit. Heads up this page is open at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Snooganssnoogans. Apologies if I created an edit conflict - the vandalism comment was unclear and I thought that the rationale as to why this was alleged vandalism was missed.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)