This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 18.104.22.168 (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)
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)
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)
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: not moved. The consensus is that the current title is both the most common name and the term that most accurately describes the scope of the article. Jenks24 (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The term "illegal immigration" is most widely used. While the term "illegal immigrant" may have fallen out of common usage in favor of "undocumented," the same can not be said about the term "illegal immigration," which is the title of the article. The Wikipedia article you linked to even noted that. Calidum 03:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose "Illegal immigration" is the most widely used term. The term is certainly accurate, which is more than I can say for the various euphemisms proposed to replace it. The "no person can be illegal" line is a straw man argument. I have never known anyone to say that a person is illegal per se, by his very existence. However, people are certainly capable of illegal acts, including illegal immigration. But thank you for taking this to the Talk Page. Plazak (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Your rational is not grammatically correct. The term attached to "illegal" is "immigration", not "immigrant". The act of immigration certainly can be illegal, just as any act can be illegal, if the laws say so. Even people have been legally defined as illegal, if you recall the Trail of Tears and what happened to the Native Americans, so the supposition that people cannot be illegal is also wrong. Further, undocumented immigration is not equivalent to illegal immigration. Many instances of immigration to the US throughout history have been undocumented, as laws and controls needed to document immigrants in the open frontier did not exist. "Undocumented" would therefore be split to a separate article. -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:SCOPE. "Undocumented" and "illegal" are not the same thing. Illegal immigration can be documented and, as 126.96.36.199 notes above, vast amounts of legal immigration were undocumented. — AjaxSmack 14:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The act of immigrating in contravention to the law is ... illegal. It is most commonly referred to as "illegal immigration". The nomination has no merit, only mush. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Strongest Support. Wikipedia's guidelines specifically caution against using terms that may "introduce bias" (see WP:NPOV and WP:WORDS). At the very least, we should create an encyclopedia that avoids language that stigmatizes a vulnerable population. WIth regard to the word "illegal" in the context of topics relating to immigrants and immigration, "there does seem to be a consensus against the use of the term by the people most affected by it". CNN agrees that the term "illegal immigrant" is a harmful slur. To say that "illegal immigrants" and "illegal immigration" are separate from each other is simply a distinction without a difference. Both terms imply that a population is unworthy of equal treatment in our society. If we want to create an encyclopedia that values justice and equality, then this title MUST change. Furthermore, the title incorrectly implies that all people who enter the country without pursuing proper legal procedures will remain "lawbreakers" indefinitely. In fact, as the article explains, many individuals are later eligible for asylum, refugee status, or naturalization. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
You are conflating two separate cases, those cases called "illegal immigration" and those cases of "undocumented immigration". They are NOT the same thing. WP:RECENTISM please remember that the history of the country does not end in 1940, immigration existed prior to that date, going back to 1776. Documenting immigration did not occur across the U.S. until the modern age. Undocumented immigration was legal for while. The class of immigration which are documented and still illegal is also different from that which is not documented and considered contravention of the laws. There are 4 cases here (1) documented and legal (2) documented and illegal (3) undocumented and legal (4) undocumented and illegal immigration. These are all different and separate. Splitting the article about the four different cases would be the plan to go forward. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I think splitting the article is certainly a worthwhile endeavor (as long as we avoid the term "illegal immigration"), though I understand this is an incredible complex topic here. The essence of my argument is that using the term "illegal immigration" in the title of the article implies that there are people who are "illegal immigrants", which is an incredibly problematic and stigmatizing term. If you think there is a more appropriate title for the article than "Undocumented Immigration in the United States," then please let me know. However, I think we should avoid using the term "illegal immigration" at all costs, per WP:WORDS. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Notecardforfree, re the portion of your comment above which begins "In fact, as the article explains, ...": I'm not following this discussion but I saw your comment on my watchlist, and searched for asylum, refugee and naturalization in the article. I didn't find that in the article. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, although the article does not use those terms specifically, the article discusses various attempts to grant "legal status" to immigrants. Legal status is often attained through asylum, refugee status, or naturalization. My point was simply that the term "illegal immigration" paints an incomplete picture of facts on the ground; it ignores the fact that a large portion of people who enter the country without pursuing proper legal channels are still eligible to receive "legal status." The article does not make this clear (and that certainly needs to be fixed) but the current title should change as well to reflect Wikipedia's policy of not using words that perpetuate biases and stereotypes (per WP:NPOV and WP:WORDS). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Notecardforfree above, quotes an opinion piece writing there is a consensus against the term "illegal immigrant". In fact, there is no such consensus, as a quick internet search of mainstream news organizations will easily and abundantly confirm. The term is used by the BBC, CBC, Australian, and New York Times. Even some of the politically correct sources which shy away from "illegal immigrant" have no problem with "illegal immigration". In using the terms "illegal immigration", Wikipedia puts itself squarely in the mainstream of current usage. Plazak (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Once more you are asserting facts not in evidence. What evidence is there for your so-called "widespread agreement"? The demonstrable fact that so many mainstream news organizations use the term "illegal immigration" is strong evidence that there is no such "widespread agreement": The Washington Post (uses both terms “illegal immigrant” and “illegal immigration”), Time Magazine (“illegal immigration), New York Times (“illegal immigration”), Christian Science Monitor (“illegal immigration”), CNN (“illegal immigration”), San Francisco Chronicle (“illegal immigration”). Apparently these organizations didn't get the memo about your widespread agreement. But I'm willing to be persuaded by the facts. Please lay out your evidence for this widespread agreement. As for the charge that the terms "dehumanize" people, that is one more straw man argument. "Improper entry", as you should know, is only one of the means of illegal immigration; another means is visa overstay. Plazak (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The use of the term in the media sources you provided does not negate the fact that experts in the field, immigration activists, and jurists all describe the term as problematic. If you want proof of this, please see the sources listed in my response to Khajidha below. Assuming, arguendo, that most sources do use the term "illegal immigration," the title of this article is still (at the very least) inaccurate and misleading because the process of removing individuals from the United States is civil, rather than criminal in nature. The United States Supreme Court even said in Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984), that "[a] deportation proceeding is a purely civil action". Furthermore, many individuals are eligible for "legal status" upon entering the United States even if they do not prior approval to enter the country. We should therefore follow Wikipedia policy, which states that "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" (see WP:COMMONNAME). If you can cite Wikipedia policies that suggest maintaining the existing title, I would very interested to hear them, but so far all I have heard is the common appeal to "what is widely used." Unfortunately, even terms that are commonly used may still not be appropriate for an article title per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV if they are inaccurate, misleading, or biased. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing "illegal" with "criminal". No one here has suggested changing the title to "Criminal immigration to the United States". Of course I can cite Wikipedia policy to justify the name. It is the same one you cite: WP:COMMONNAME. Your quoted exception to the general rule to use the common name applies only if the name is inaccurate. You are obviously familiar with the US Code, as you quote it above. Then you are no doubt also familiar with the repeated use in the US Code of the term "illegal immigration", that thing, which, according to some editors, does not exist (most such citations in USC are references to the "Illegal Immigration Reform Act", but there are some that reference "illegal immigration" itself). It also uses the term "illegal immigrant" (another supposedly nonexistent category). If you are unable to find the citations in US Code, I can provide more specific info. I have not, however, been able to find any references in the US Code to "undocumented immigration" or "undocumented immigrant". To your unsubstantiated contention that "illegal immigrant" and "illegal immigration" are inaccurate, I would point out that these are the very terms used in the federal code. Plazak (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
That is correct, and perhaps I should have explained this point with a little more precision. What I meant to express is that using the term "illegal" in the title perpetuates the criminalization of undocumented migration and connotes an "unworthiness" of undocumented immigrants. One one hand, I am concerned about the biases implicit in this term; Wikipedia policy expressly forbids perpetuating biases (see WP:NPOV). On the other hand, "illegal" is an inapt term because this article discusses (at length) individuals who are eligible for "legal status" upon entering the country, even if they do so without permission. The answer may ultimately be to split this article, but as it stands, the term "illegal" is an imprecise and inaccurate descriptor for the subject of this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Request - can someone actually present some evidence on the usage of "illegal immigrants" vs "undocumented migrants" in the sources rather than using Wikipedia as a forum for their personal opinions? I don't care what you think or feel. I want to know how the phenomenon is described in recent reliable sources, so that we can follow Wikipedia policy. My sense of it is that the term "illegal immigrants" used to be predominant but in recent years "undocumented migrants" has become much more widely used. I don't know if the extent of that switch has been substantial enough to warrant moving this page. But I want to see evidence about it, not opinions. Volunteer Marek 12:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, the argument for renaming this article has nothing to do with how frequently the terms are used. It is well established that the term "illegal" (in the context of immigration) is a a stigmatizing phrase that perpetuates biases (see this source, this source and this source). We must follow Wikipedia policies that specifically state articles should not use "loaded words" (quoting WP:NPOV; see also WP:WORDS). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
They are not equivalents though. There are cases of immigration that is documented and then later found to be in contravention of various immigration statutes and laws, which is not the same as being undocumented in the first case. If you permanently overstay your visa, your entry is documented. Other cases involve lying in the immigration process, which results in a documented immigration, but still in contravention. And this article covers those cases as well. -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - an immigrant (ie a person who has migrated into a country) who has done so illegally is an "illegal immigrant", it makes no claim as to their being an illegal person. Also, I fail to see how describing an illegal action as illegal does harm. --Khajidha (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you please provide evidence of how sources use the terms, not your own personal opinions. WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek 14:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not an opinion, it's a definition. And the second point was in response to the original poster's uncited contention that referring to "illegal immigrants" does harm. Finally, is there some reason you are singling me out as opposed to others in this discussion that have made similar statements? --Khajidha (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Khajidha, to answer your question about the harm caused by the term, see this source, this source and this source. The phrase "illegal immigration" implies there are "illegal immigrants," and the latter of those terms is a loaded phrase that perpetuates biases and stigmatizes the population it seeks to describe. Therefore, we should follow Wikipedia policy and avoid such language, per WP:NPOV and WP:WORDS. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
First source has nothing about the harm done by the description. The second source repeats the irrelevant "no human being is illegal" objection. No one has claimed that the people are illegal, only that their entry into and/or continuing residence in a country is illegal. It also confuses the statement that there are illegal immigrants with the allegation that a particular person is an illegal immigrant. The third source has the same problems as the second. Again, how is it harmful to state that a person who has done something against the law has done something against the law?--Khajidha (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
My apologies about the first source, I meant to link this piece from the New Yorker in which Jeffrey Toobin describes the term "illegal" as "pejorative,""toxic," and a term that has been consistently rejected by the "people most affected by it, who happen to be a vulnerable minority seeking a better life." The CNN article explains that the term "illegal" is an inaccurate, biased, and racially charged term because "[m]igrant workers residing unlawfully in the U.S. are not -- and never have been -- criminals. They are subject to deportation, through a civil administrative procedure that differs from criminal prosecution, and where judges have wide discretion to allow certain foreign nationals to remain here." The article from Time Magazine article explains that the term "illegal" is harmful because is "dehumanizes and marginalizes the people it seeks to describe." The article further explains that "[t]he term illegal is also imprecise. For many undocumented people — there are 11 million in the U.S. and most have immediate family members who are American citizens, either by birth or naturalization — their immigration status is fluid and, depending on individual circumstances, can be adjusted."Lawrences Downes' editorial in the New York Times also explains the harm caused by the word "illegal:" "America has a big problem with illegal immigration, but a big part of it stems from the word “illegal.” It pollutes the debate. It blocks solutions. Used dispassionately and technically, there is nothing wrong with it. Used as an irreducible modifier for a large and largely decent group of people, it is badly damaging. And as a code word for racial and ethnic hatred, it is detestable." If this doesn't convince you that the term "illegal" is harmful and inaccurate, then I'm not sure what will.
At the very least, you should understand that the movement of people to America is a complex geo-political phenomenon and it is simply incorrect to conflate the legal status of all people entering the country without authorization as "illegal." Upon entering the country, many individuals are eligible for "legal status" even if they do not prior approval to enter the country. Furthermore, the process of removing individuals from the United States is civil, rather than criminal in nature. The United States Supreme Court even said in Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984), that "[a] deportation proceeding is a purely civil action". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
1) Uh, what does it matter if the people described by it reject it? If the people are engaged in illegal activity, how is it harmful to say so?
As the Downes editorial explains, it is a "code word for racial and ethnic hatred." Consequently, even if the term is widely used, Wikipedia policy still mandates using a different title (see WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
2) Residing unlawfully is not criminal? Did not say it was criminal, said it was illegal. Civil offenses are still against the law.
That is correct, and perhaps I should have explained this point with a little more precision. What I meant to express is that using the term "illegal" in the title perpetuates the criminalization of undocumented migration and connotes an "unworthiness" of undocumented immigrants. One one hand, I am concerned about the biases implicit in this term; Wikipedia policy expressly forbids perpetuating biases (see WP:NPOV). On the other hand, "illegal" is an inapt term because this article discusses (at length) individuals who are eligible for "legal status" upon entering the country, even if they do so without permission. The answer may ultimately be to split this article, but as it stands, the term "illegal" is an imprecise and inaccurate descriptor for the subject of this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
3) Again, there is confusion here between the existence of illegal immigration and the immigration status of particular individuals.
That may be true, but you cannot deny that the word "illegal" is a loaded phrase, and we must follow Wikipedia policies that specifically state articles should not use "loaded words" (quoting WP:NPOV). In any event, this article describes undocumented entry into the United States generally, rather than naturalization laws specifically. Therefore, "undocumented" would be a more accurate descriptor for this article's title. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
As your own source states "Used dispassionately and technically, there is nothing wrong with it." An encyclopedia is supposed to be dispassionate and technical. --Khajidha (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your aspirations regarding passions in writing an encyclopedia. However, we must follow Wikipedia policy when reaching our result. WP:NPOV forbids biased and racially charged language, and WP:COMMONNAME forbids the use of "inaccurate names" for articles, even if those names are commonly used by reliable sources. If you can tell my why Wikipedia policy supports your argument, then I am willing to be persuaded. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Whether it is an "opinion" or a "definition" is not up to you to decide. It is up to reliable sources. So what we need is evidence which shows how the phenomenon is described in reliable sources, not somebody coming here and saying "well, I think that blah blah blah". And I'm only singling you out because you were the most recent person to make this mistake. It does apply to other comments in this discussion as well. Volunteer Marek 16:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Definition of "illegal immigrant" from Cambridge Dictionaries online: "someone who lives or works in another country when they do not have the legal right to do this". --Khajidha (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose the renaming, on pretty much the same grounds described by others in opposition. I don't propose an alternative renaming, but I'll mention that I've seen the terms "Unlawful immigrant" and "Unauthorized immigrant" used. Here's some sourced info I posted at Talk:Anchor baby#"Illegal immigrant" changed to "undocumented immigrant" re those alternative descriptive terms a month or so ago:
Oppose Term is precise and its use is longstanding. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be used for POV pushing by nomenclature.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per everyone above - If you enter a country illegally you're an illegal immigrant it's as simple as that, The term is still used widely and so should still be used now. –Davey2010Talk 19:05, 27 September 2015 (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.