Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Illegal immigration to the United States article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 3 months may be archived by.|
Ham-handed, apparently POV edits by User:Nanoatzin
This article is outside of my normal focus areas, but it is on my watchlist. I am concerned about recent edits by Nanoatzin. I have not been following these edit-by-edit. The specific edit which prompted this comment was this one. Subsequent to that edit, we have this article asserting in Wikipedia's editorial voice that the likes of former presidential candidates John McCain, Barry Goldwater and George Romney, all of whom are or were US citizens born outside the United States, are considered naturalized citizens (Lowell Weicker as well, though he didn't make it past the presidential primary process; perhaps others too). Can we get this under control? Can we come to a consensus here about Nanoatzin's POV issues before this article gets further into the fringe?
- I was unaware that US immigration law is "fringe territory" in an article about US immigration law. Seriously?
- May I remind you of the following, administrator Wtmitchell?.
- Presumably that includes actual US law?
- I am pleased that you took such a strong interest in the correction of this typo. Appreciate the help.
- I posted zero material with political content.
- If there is any political content, then kindly take that up with the actual person that did that.
- Owing to the fact that you appear to have accused me of something that I did not do, I have made a copy of the main page, talk page, and history for both.
- My editing efforts began 23:01, 19 March 2013.
- This article contained substantial fiction masquerading as fact before that, which actually is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy.
- I discussed EXACTLY what I planned to do about that violation before I began editing.
- My focus is limited to inserting facts related to US law and removing fiction that does not belong in "encyclopedic reference material".
- As an administrator, Wikipedia and you have entered into a fiduciary agreement that means anything that you do on behalf of the organization WILL compromise US charity status for the entire organization.
- Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
- I WILL inform senators, representative, IRS, and DoE if an administrator removes any of my contributions when the edit may support a political agenda on this topic.
- That being said, how are government immigration laws and university information about immigration an "NPOV violation" of Wikipedia policy in an article that is about immigration?
- I was unaware that academic information from universities is not permitted by Wikipedia policy (i.e.: facts).
- I was unaware that actual US immigration law "gets further into the fringe". Really?
- Would you please let me know what is wrong with including the US Sentencing Commission, the US State Department, DoHS, and USCIS?
- I see that you are displeased but have posted no substantiated proof to dispute any references or statements.
- You are welcome to dispute individual references or facts.
- You are welcome to suggest better or more credible references that may support the article.
- If you can substantiate anything that you disagree with, then I will make corrections.
- Kindly clarify in accordance with actual Wikipedia policy - provide links or other substantiated information to support your claims (click here).
- Regards, Nanoatzin (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Uhh.... As an administrator, Wikipedia and you have entered into a fiduciary agreement that means anything that you do on behalf of the organization WILL compromise US charity status for the entire organization and I WILL inform senators, representative, IRS, and DoE if an administrator removes any of my contributions when the edit may support a political agenda on this topic??? Just block already.Volunteer Marek 01:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I laughed my a__ off the first time I read this article.
- The original author and some of the readers might not realize this whole "illegal immigrant" thing is satire of functionally illiterate people (i.e.: comedy).
- Many people have so little education that they have no clue that we have a constitution, what it means, or how everyone even got here.
- Those are the kinds of people that take this "illegal immigrant" thing so seriously that they get HIGHLY offended when facts creep into the fantasy (laws and things like that).
- I have considerable knowledge and experience on this topic but I am not an administrator and therefore I cannot block anyone else without blocking myself.
- Regards, Nanoatzin (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I have just blocked Nanoatzin for making legal threats (per WP:NLT). I will be reverting this article to the state it was in prior to Nanoatzin's recent round of changes. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the article to an earlier version. A few edits by others had to be reverted along with the massive number of questionable edits by Nanoatzin—and it is also conceivable that some of Nanoatzin's changes might be objectively justifiable on their merits—but these problems will need to be sorted out on an individual basis. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
US Citizens do not need to be naturalized.
Under the Definition section, it states "US citizens born outside the United States (naturalized)". US Citizens do not need to be naturalized, as they are citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC) US citizens do not need to be naturalized, but US citizens who were born outside the US are often citizen as a result of having been naturalized. If you are a US citizen, and you were born outside the US, then the odds are, you are naturalized. [Dthomann] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomann (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
What nationalities are allowed to live in the USA without a visa?
In the "Definition" section is states "Foreign-born non-citizens without a current visa but that are not prohibited from entry (undocumented)" and "The terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal immigration" are sometimes used incorrectly outside the scope of US law to mean foreign-born non-citizens that are undocumented but not prohibited from entry into the United States.".
I am an expert on immigration to the USA, and am not aware of any nationals that can enter the America without any visa or any documentation whatsoever. Could someone please cite these foreign nationals? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is far below standards
I'm sorry, I'm new at contributing, but this article is far below the standards for anything I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The entire thing is basically an opinion piece combined with a semantic debate that has nothing to do with law. You can't cherry-pick parts of US law and hold them out to a lay audience as being authoritative definitions. The term "illegal immigration" is not something defined by Congress, it is a term defined by different political and social actors to describe different things. Section 1325 of the US Code has no bearing in immigration court. It is language written for a specific purpose, and providing a lay definition of a term is not that purpose.
This article contains too many redundant and poorly written statements. The cites are terrible (britannica online to explain US deportation? that's like citing National Geographic to write about baseball - I'm sure there's something in there you could use, but why would you bother to look in that source when there are countless sources that are actually about baseball??). Where does the idea that people are removed (the difference between deportation and removal is not semantic, by the way, it is legal - tha act is the same, but the legal meaning is different) for the "protection of resources, and protection of jobs" come from? Those things may arguably be the reason Congress gives for restricting immigration, but they are not the reason for removals. The drinking age is 21 as a result of trying to reduce drunk driving across state lines - but it's ridiculous to say that a policeman ticketing an underage drinker is doing so to prevent drunk driving. They are doing so because the law says you have to be 21 to drink, it doesn't matter what the purpose behind the law was. People are not removed "to protect jobs," they are removed for violating immigration laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomann (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, parts of this ARE well written and informative, but the information they contain can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia or can be moved to other articles. Parts of it are good, but as a whole, it falls short, and does not need to be a separate entry. It is an op-ed piece that seeks to literally define a term that is not used literally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomann (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Lost in the noise is the fact that there are a large number of people here on green cards, working. They must periodically leave the country and apply for reentry! If they don't, they are in violation of the law and will be deported to "protect jobs;" that is, to allow an American to do the job that the temporary immigrant was hired to do. Student7 (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- While I respectfully agree that not all the sources on this page are up to Wikipedia's "reliability" standards, most of the article is well-sourced and well-written. Rather than remove or move the content out of the article, why don't we leave it in, tweak it, improve it, and expand it. If statements from one point of view are being made, we should provide sources and content from the opposing side to balance the page. Best! Meatsgains (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Erase dehumanizing language
The term 'illegal' to modify 'alien' or 'immigrant' is an attempt to describe people in a dehumanizing way. Whether perpetrators of this behavior consider themselves patriotic or racist or xenophobic is of no concern but civility and accuracy dictate that name-calling should not be part of Wikipedia. AmboyBeacon (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please don't try to lecture civility of word choice while you are calling people racist and xenophobic. If you really believe that "civility and accuracy dictate that name-calling should not be part of Wikipedia", perhaps you should first examine your own behavior. Perhaps then we can have a civil discussion. Plazak (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Writing New Related Article on Undocumented Immigrants
My name is Katherine and I am currently a senior attending Rice University. I intend on writing a new Wikipedia page titled “Healthcare availability for undocumented immigrants,” for which I thought this page would serve as a great parent article for. In this new article I intend on including four main sections on the following: introduction/background, usage of healthcare services, barriers to accessing the health care system, and relevant federal and state-level policies. Under each of these main sections, except the introduction, there will also be at least one subsection related to particular populations, such as women or specific data found on the topic. This proposed contribution is also part of a course I am taking for my minor on poverty, justice, and human capabilities. Please feel free to offer thoughts, advice, and suggestions! Katcai02 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- One immediate thought I had was that this clearly US-centric topic should have a US-centric article title. See WP:PRECISE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Also re the title you're considering, see WP:EUPHEMISM. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)