Talk:African immigration to Israel

I'm an israeli journalist conducting research for an article on african asylum seekers and i was shocked to see what wikipedia had allowed on its website... false information, full of biased, loaded language... it seemed to constitute incitement towards african asylum seekers.

Have seen too many articles about israel like this... that were obviously written by some government employee (read: hasbara).

Used to love wikipedia but i will be boycotting it from here on out as it is grossly irresponsible.

If there is a false information — don't blame wikipedia, just fix it, or write it on the talk page, and I'll try to improve it. komap (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I just fixed it. Now lets see if you "try to improve it" or revert it and I get some kind of sanction. This has been over a year waiting. --69.246.120.240 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree the article needs work. Even the first sentence the term "undocumented workers" is completely innappropriate, since many of the immigrants are not working. The article should not reflect simply a PC or leftist point of view, rather it should be verifiable.

TheCuriousGnome, I agree with your renaming to "Illegal immigration" from "infiltration", but I still believe that the term must be discussed in the article about. It is massively used in press and Israeli goverment organisations in English language (google ). If you don't like my paragraph about it, please write your own. הסתננות and הגירה בלתי חוקית are not the same, and this should be stated, as well as the reason why Israel is avoiding calling them asylum seekers or refugees. komap (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "loaded" is far more relevant than expressed above. I am also inclined to question the motives behind development of the content of this page. I am a critic of Israel and yet I'm also shocked coming here. How many editors have read Demographics of Israel or related pages before trying to nail this page down. Irresponsible is right. The Population Matters 2011 overshoot index[1] ranked Israel as the 3rd most dependent region in the World after Singapore and Kuwait. Honestly there are better issues to be pursuing than this. Please, for everyone's sake and for the sake of rationality, back off. Gregkaye (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Referencing

A recent edit introduced the claim that "Most African migrants are generally regarded to be legitimate asylum seekers by the UNHCR". This was sourced to two references; this one, which does not back up this claim, and this, which is a letter to the newspaper, and therefore not a reliable source. I've removed both and added the {{fact}} tag. The claim is probably true, but I can't find any source that confirms it, including UNHCR reports like this, this or Israel, which (from a quick read) do not seem to say much about whether the migrants are genuine asylum seekers or not. Number 57 11:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

[Copied from talk page discussions]

I see you referenced the UNHCR claim to this document. I've had a quick read through, and I can't find where it says that the majority are legitimate asylum seekers. Could you point me to the specific bit? Thanks, Number 57 12:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, you are right. It doesn't say "legitimate" asylum seekers, just asylum seekers. So you can remove the word "legitimate". However, they are referred to as refugees, which is, to my knowledge, the same thing as a "legitimate" asylum seeker. The previous revisions of the article referred to them as "infiltrators" and "migrant workers", so I just wanted to change that. You can re-word it how you please, so long as you remain impartial. I'd suggest simply referring to them as "asylum seekers". JDiala (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't even see where it says most are asylum seekers. Number 57 12:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • They are all referred to as asylum seekers. It's used as a blanket term, so we can assume the UNCHR believes that the migrants are asylum seekers. Again, you can re-word that sentence how you please, just refer to them how the UNCHR does. JDiala (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
      • We can't assume anything. I'll remove the UNHCR bit and leave it at the NGOs. Number 57 13:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
        • No, I don't see how much more clear the document can be. It referred to them as "asylum seekers" in every instance. From that, we can conclude that the UNCHR believes that the African migrants to Israel are asylum seekers. JDiala (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
          • • If you're not going to respond to my argument, then I'm afraid I can't just let you revert it. The report clearly refers to them as asylum seekers.. JDiala (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Yes, but it doesn't say anything about "most". Number 57 15:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
              • No, it does not. It, however, refer to them as asylum seekers. Therefore, the statement "the UNCHR believes that the migrants are asylum seekers" is not invalid. JDiala (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
                • But then all the report is saying is that there are asylum seekers coming, so isn't relevant to a sentence about whether most of the arrivals are asylum seekers or not. Can we keep this together on the article's talk page, rather than disjoined here? I am going to copy across all the comments. Thanks, Number 57 16:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What you're saying makes no sense. If the report says there are asylum seekers coming, then that implies that the arrivals are asylum seekers. I want to rephrase the sentence from its current form into something like this: "The migrants are regarded to be asylum seekers by various human rights organizations and the UNHCR". I want to eliminate the word "most" and "legitimate", since their refugee status and the percentage of the asylum seekers which are actually seeking asylum is a separate issue. It is not relevant. Their legitimacy is not the issue here, since an asylum seeker need not be legitimate (an asylum-seeker is someone who says he or she is a refugee, but whose claim has not yet been definitively evaluated). In other words, statistical analysis or measuring the percentage of which are "real" asylum seekers is unnecessary. This is about what the report says. If the report states that the migrants are asylum seekers, which they clearly do, then that is what they are.

The UNHCR clearly refers to them as asylum seekers even though they don't recognize their legitimacy as to whether or not they are true refugees. The UNHCR report calls these people asylum seekers; therefore, we state that "the UNHCR considers them to be asylum seekers". I don't see why this has to be so complicated.

I am doing this because previous edits refer to them as "infiltrators", "immigrants", or "migrant workers", and if it is brought to light that they are referred to as asylum seekers by various international organizations, then it will dispel that nonsense. Readers get the misimpression that the African immigrants are analogous to Mexican immigrants to the US, or other immigrants to Western countries. The article needs to make a clear distinction between those forms of immigration, such as migration to the UK or the US for economic or social purposes, and asylum seeking from war-torn countries, which is what, according to the report, African refugees are doing by seeking asylum, and when there is an international body and a reliable source referring to them not as immigrants but as asylum seekers, then it clearly needs to be mentioned. JDiala (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So why did you put "most" in the original sentence then? Number 57 17:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that asylum seekers should not be referred to as illegal immigrants; allthough their stay in Israel will become illegal if their asylum application have been finally turned down and a decision to extradict them have been made. Maybe the word migrants may be appropriate some places when we are referring to both asylum seekers and those who are in the country illegally? Iselilja (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)