Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 13
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Total Fiscal Burden of Illegal Aliens on U.S. Taxpayers: $115,894,597,664
KKK, Mein Kampf, 12 digit accuracy from a highly questionable source. This is going nowhere. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
[1]Vgrinberg (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
References
|
Vgrinberg, the OP, was just trolling - admitted this on his talk page: "I started this ball rolling, to just prove myself that Wikipedia is as brick-walled as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest of the Swamp speakers." now blocked. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Terick34.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: PeacefulPassion.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): R.dgzmn.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 July 2019 and 15 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eiturio.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blueberry0927.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Terms "illegal" vs "undocumented" vs "unauthorized"
Snooganssnoogans the terms "undocumented" and "unauthorized" are vague and false in many cases, and should only be utilized in direct quotes. An "undocumented student" cannot get financial aid, because financial aid literally documents who they are. An "unauthorized spouse" is not actually unauthorized because their marriage was legally conducted. I could continue further, but the point is that those terms are simply false to describe illegal immigrants and unnecessarily vague in many situations, and should therefore not be used. Bill Williams 21:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- "Unauthorized immigrant" and "undocumented immigrant" are far more common terms in the sources that we use in this article and they have the added bonus of not carrying the pejorative baggage of "illegal immigrant". It's kind of obnoxious to shoehorn "illegal immigrant" into sentences where the footnotes and cited scholarship do not use the term. As this is the long-standing language in the article, you should seek consensus before initiating a wholesale change of all the terms to "illegal immigrant". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- The only factually accurate term is "illegal immigrant" and that was already used more in the article than each of the other two terms. "Illegal gun owner" is an accurate term to describe someone who illegally owns a firearm, but some of them have a warrant out for their arrest for owning the gun, and therefore calling them an "undocumented gun owner" makes no sense when their gun and them are both documented as being used in crimes. The term "undocumented student" is false if the student is documented, the term "unauthorized spouse" is false if the spouse was authorized to be a spouse, "undocumented worker" is false if they are documented, "temporary undocumented immigrant" is false if they are permanently without proper documentation, "newly undocumented" is false if they never had legal documents to begin with, and so on. Bill Williams 22:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree that it is "the only factually accurate term," and so do the sources, and have thus reverted to the prior, longstanding version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- The "factually accurate" argument is undermined by the fact that "illegal" is typically used for criminal, rather than civil offenses. In the US, most "illegal immigration" is simply a civil violation (visa overstay or otherwise being "out of status") not a criminal one. Guettarda (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Most new illegal immigrants come across the southern border in criminal violations, and a civil offence is still illegal. It called illegally parking to park in an improper place even though that is only a civil violation. Bill Williams 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is untrue, or at least misleading; a large portion of unauthorized / undocumented immigrants end up in that situation due to overstaying their visas. This is one of the many reasons why the language used in sources has shifted (which is the real reason we have to reflect that language, of course.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Most new illegal immigrants come across the southern border in criminal violations
- assuming this is true (can you share your source please?) newly arrived people are only a very small proportion of the undocumented population. Guettarda (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)- Yeah I know they are only a fraction of total illegal immigrants, but regardless of their method of entering, illegal immigration is a crime. I have already cited below that visa overstay or illegal entry might be a civil vs. criminal violation, but both are considered illegal. And again, "undocumented population" is a nonsensical term; numerous states allow them to obtain a drivers' license, use healthcare or education etc., all of which require some form of documentation. Many have already crossed the Southern border or are simply overstaying their visa, meaning either way they have been detained and documented or were literally given a document called a visa. Nobody uses the term "undocumented firearms owners" to describe people who buy guns without background checks, or people who bought a gun legally but then commit a crime and are no longer allowed to own them. Bill Williams 23:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is untrue, or at least misleading; a large portion of unauthorized / undocumented immigrants end up in that situation due to overstaying their visas. This is one of the many reasons why the language used in sources has shifted (which is the real reason we have to reflect that language, of course.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Most new illegal immigrants come across the southern border in criminal violations, and a civil offence is still illegal. It called illegally parking to park in an improper place even though that is only a civil violation. Bill Williams 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The "factually accurate" argument is undermined by the fact that "illegal" is typically used for criminal, rather than civil offenses. In the US, most "illegal immigration" is simply a civil violation (visa overstay or otherwise being "out of status") not a criminal one. Guettarda (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree that it is "the only factually accurate term," and so do the sources, and have thus reverted to the prior, longstanding version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- The only factually accurate term is "illegal immigrant" and that was already used more in the article than each of the other two terms. "Illegal gun owner" is an accurate term to describe someone who illegally owns a firearm, but some of them have a warrant out for their arrest for owning the gun, and therefore calling them an "undocumented gun owner" makes no sense when their gun and them are both documented as being used in crimes. The term "undocumented student" is false if the student is documented, the term "unauthorized spouse" is false if the spouse was authorized to be a spouse, "undocumented worker" is false if they are documented, "temporary undocumented immigrant" is false if they are permanently without proper documentation, "newly undocumented" is false if they never had legal documents to begin with, and so on. Bill Williams 22:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- This argument is an example of the etymological fallacy: it "makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on that word's etymology." We are supposed to reflect current usage, not argue against language change. TFD (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The current usage is actually the term "migrant"[4] which is even more vague and inaccurate, but at least that is not as vague as "undocumented". Look at almost any current news article, they all realized long before you that "undocumented" is completely inaccurate, so now they use "migrant" without any connotation of illegality. Bill Williams 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- I really do not care about the term "unauthorized" vs "illegal", one is just a euphemism for the other, but the term "undocumented" is no longer as used in the media because of its inaccuracy, since most illegal immigrants are literally documented by the government, they didn't lose their visas or court papers, they just overstayed them or skipped their court appearances etc. Bill Williams 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
It took me just a minute to find an old AP memo describing this situation[5]
- "Terms like “undocumented” and “unauthorized” can make a person’s illegal presence in the country appear to be a matter of minor paperwork. Many illegal immigrants aren’t “undocumented” at all; they may have a birth certificate and passport from their home country, plus a U.S. driver’s license, Social Security card or school ID. What they lack is the fundamental right to be in the United States.
- Without that right, their presence is illegal. Some say the word is inaccurate, because depending on the situation, they may be violating only civil, not criminal law. But both are laws, and violating any law is an illegal act (we do not say “criminal immigrant”). Finally, there’s the concern that “illegal immigrant” offends a person’s dignity by suggesting his very existence is illegal. We don’t read the term this way. We refer routinely to illegal loggers, illegal miners, illegal vendors and so forth. Our language simply means that a person is logging, mining, selling, etc., in violation of the law — just as illegal immigrants have immigrated in violation of the law."
The next year the AP[6] states that the term "illegal immigrant" should not be used, but neither should "undocumented" because it is completely inaccurate, and this article uses undocumented on numerous occasions. The AP also states that "illegal immigration Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law" meaning that a person who engages in such an action is an "illegal immigrant" even if the AP wants to use euphemisms. The term "migrant" is what is currently used the most by the media, and it is even more vague, so we should be using the most accurate term on the matter. Bill Williams 18:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- We have to use the wording used by the sources, regardless of our feelings about it. And most of them (as you've said) avoid "illegal immigrant" now for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is its inaccuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
so we should be using the most accurate term on the matter
The most accurate term is undocumented, but "most accurate" is meaningless - policy says "verifiability, not truth" and for us to decide what's "most accurate" despite what sources say is a violation of WP:NOR. "Illegal immigrant" had the weight of common usage, not accuracy, but that usage is changing. And since policy has us follow current sources, I imagine this article will eventually be renamed. Guettarda (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)- "Undocumented" has been repeatedly described as completely inaccurate by numerous sources, hence it is no longer used. "Illegal immigrant" is accurate but the media did not like its connotations, so now they use the term "migrant" which is still completely inaccurate. Migrants can come here legally or illegally, so classifying them the same way would make no sense for this article, which is on illegal immigration and therefore people who engage in it are illegal immigrants. That is just basic grammar, while "undocumented immigrant" is false, because most[7] illegal immigrants overstayed a visa, which is literally a type of document, meaning most illegal immigrants are documented. Furthermore, many work jobs with some form of documentation, utilize healthcare [8] or educational services [9] with some kind of documentation, or even obtain a drivers' license etc., all of which show how absurdly inaccurate the term "undocumented immigrant" is. The sources state that even if someone comes to the U.S. legally via a visa, if they overstay that visa, that is illegal and therefore as an immigrant they are now an illegal immigrant. I do find it ironic how these sourced from a few years ago all use the term "undocumented" when describing numerous ways in which illegal immigrants are documented, but that does not mean Wikipedia should use inaccurate terminology as well. I think the AP Stylebook is correct in its description of the term "undocumented" as inaccurate. Bill Williams 23:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] it is pretty clear that the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal immigration" are used far more often than the terms "undocumented", "unauthorized", or "irregular". Although usage for other terms has risen in recent years, all it does is mislead readers by using a term like "undocumented" when they are very much documented in numerous instances. Bill Williams 23:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Google searches show both reliable and unreliable sources. Ngram viewer is preferrable because it tends to show more literaturat usage. As you can see, undocumented immigrants has narrowly passed illegal immigrants.[22] The reason illegal immigrants remains high is that reliable sources cannot avoid using the term when decribing hate groups and political demagogues who make immigration an existential issue for the U.S. TFD (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note the White House uses the term undocumented rather than illegal, although they also use the term unauthorized.[23] TFD (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't care what the White House says, that is not whatsoever an expert or reliable source on the matter. Multiple reliable sources have described why the term "undocumented" is highly inaccurate, and I have already explained in detail how it is literally false to call illegal immigrants "undocumented" when the majority are documented in multiple ways, including visas and documentation to receive a number of government services. Just because more sources use a false and misleading term does not necessitate that Wikipedia must do so. All it does is confuse readers who do not understand the obsessive need to euphemize by supposed experts, and these readers might think that illegal immigrants somehow do not have documents regarding one thing or another that they actual do have access to. It is not beneficial to readers to use the term "undocumented" vs. "illegal". Every single other illegal industry can describe the people in that industry using basic grammar, so "illegal immigrant" is again a simply grammatical exercise on the term "illegal immigration". Bill Williams 19:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- The majority of reliable do not use the term "illegal" any more, because it is derogatory. Our approach should be to reflect current usage. The White House incidentally is the seat of the U.S. government which deals with illegal immigration. Also, per WP:BLPCRIME, Wikipedia articles do not claim people of committed illegal acts unless they have been convicted. As the years go by, language usage changes. Terms that our grandparents used might now be considered offensive. We would be all happier if we just accepted it rather than try to stop the march of time. TFD (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody is proposing the term "illegal", but the term "illegal immigrant" is basic grammar relating to the term "illegal immigration", so saying that "Wikipedia do not claim people [have] committed illegal acts" makes zero sense when the article is about the illegal act. This article is not specifying that John or Jimmy commit a crime, but it is obviously discussing the large scale act of illegal immigration, which is a crime engaged in by millions of people. I do not care about the technicality of "illegal immigrant" but it is just basic grammar, while for the vast majority of illegal immigrants, "undocumented" is a false term because U.S. federal or state governments document most illegal immigrants in some way. Bill Williams 02:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- So if we call someone an illegal immigrant we are not saying they immigrated illegally? TFD (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- How is the literal description of something like "illegal immigration" with the words "illegal immigrant" derogatory? It just seems like the use of "undocumented" is a euphemism, not that "illegal" is some sort of insult. MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody is proposing the term "illegal", but the term "illegal immigrant" is basic grammar relating to the term "illegal immigration", so saying that "Wikipedia do not claim people [have] committed illegal acts" makes zero sense when the article is about the illegal act. This article is not specifying that John or Jimmy commit a crime, but it is obviously discussing the large scale act of illegal immigration, which is a crime engaged in by millions of people. I do not care about the technicality of "illegal immigrant" but it is just basic grammar, while for the vast majority of illegal immigrants, "undocumented" is a false term because U.S. federal or state governments document most illegal immigrants in some way. Bill Williams 02:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- The majority of reliable do not use the term "illegal" any more, because it is derogatory. Our approach should be to reflect current usage. The White House incidentally is the seat of the U.S. government which deals with illegal immigration. Also, per WP:BLPCRIME, Wikipedia articles do not claim people of committed illegal acts unless they have been convicted. As the years go by, language usage changes. Terms that our grandparents used might now be considered offensive. We would be all happier if we just accepted it rather than try to stop the march of time. TFD (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't care what the White House says, that is not whatsoever an expert or reliable source on the matter. Multiple reliable sources have described why the term "undocumented" is highly inaccurate, and I have already explained in detail how it is literally false to call illegal immigrants "undocumented" when the majority are documented in multiple ways, including visas and documentation to receive a number of government services. Just because more sources use a false and misleading term does not necessitate that Wikipedia must do so. All it does is confuse readers who do not understand the obsessive need to euphemize by supposed experts, and these readers might think that illegal immigrants somehow do not have documents regarding one thing or another that they actual do have access to. It is not beneficial to readers to use the term "undocumented" vs. "illegal". Every single other illegal industry can describe the people in that industry using basic grammar, so "illegal immigrant" is again a simply grammatical exercise on the term "illegal immigration". Bill Williams 19:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Liberal bias in page?
Hello everyone,
In the page, right from the start (namely read the claims that cite sources 3-16 in the page, you will notice a clear positive, biased tone, promoting even, of illegal immigration) you can see that positives for illegal immigration are listed very early on, with little to no negatives listed. Anyone with 0 knowledge on the subject upon reading this article would probably gain a biased view on it. What do you guys think? 143.208.17.217 (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- 1) WP:NPOV does not maintain that articles give equal weight to all viewpoints, merely that it gives due weight to viewpoints based on their prevalence in established scholarship. Expecting perfectly equal treatment at Wikipedia articles where established scholarship does not should not be expected. 2) You have provided no sources for additional data or scholarship that would, as you claim, provide possible negatives to be added to the article. If such scholarship exists, it should be easy to provide it. If it doesn't exist, then from where do we get such information? --Jayron32 15:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Responding to your point 1: I did not expect for equal weight on all viewpoints, I was stating my concern that there was apparently a bias in the wording and constructing of the page. The viewpoints that I mentioned could perfectly be in a separate section, and not shoved immediately when starting the page. WP:IMPARTIAL states that the tone of wikipedia articles should be impartial, and I was highlighting my concerns that I belive that it is not. Responding to 2: The main purpose of my comment is to highlight my concerns, not to provide sources for negatives. Amorgos420 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments. The first paragraph of the lead ends, "Illegal immigration has been a matter of intense debate in the United States since the 1980s." The next two paragraphs then rebut the anti-immigrant position without actually explaining what that position is or who holds it.
- I would prefer that the second paragraph explain the role that illegal immigration plays in the U.S., which is unique among Western nations. While the U.S. has programs for bringing in temporary workers into their country, unlike most countries it relies primarily on illegal immigration to fill unskilled labor vacancies.
- Next we could present the anti-immigration views ("They're stealing are jobs! They go on welfare! They're committing crimes!") and then present expert opinion on these claims.
- TFD (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Amorgos420: You say "The main purpose of my comment is to highlight my concerns, not to provide sources for negatives", but my point was that your concerns may not match established scholarship on the topic. Articles on Earth do not, for example, deal with Flat earth prominently, because despite the loud volume of "flat earth supporters", there is basically no established scholarship that says the Earth is flat. If your concern about there being "little to no negatives listed" were a valid concern, it would be reflected in existing scholarship on the topic. If that scholarship doesn't exist, we can't very well include it in the article. --Jayron32 15:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- OTOH, the lead of the article on the Earth does not take up half its space with rebutting the flat earth theory. TFD (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't follow? I assume this is a joke but one can never be sure. The flat earth theory is mentioned exactly once in the whole article, and it isn't mentioned at all in the lead. --Jayron32 23:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I meant to say the flat earth theory does not take up half the earth lead. I try to avoid irony etc. My point is that the wording of the lead reads like a rebuttal of the anti-immigrant position. It could probably be re-written making the same points but in a different tone. TFD (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Paragraph 3 contains data that addresses the points in Paragraph 2. I fail to see how that is inappropriate. Paragraph 3 hardly has a tone beyond "Here's a bunch of data". It presents no value to that data. --Jayron32 11:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Why is the second paragraph devoted to arguments of opponents of illegal immigration? The second paragraph of Earth is not devoted to the flat earth theory. The third paragraph as you say then debunks the anti-immigrant claims.
- This is giving too much weight to fringe views. The article should emphasize the topic, i.e., illegal immigration to the U.S., rather than the "debate."
- Better articles to compare this with include ones on evolution or climate change which have also "been a matter of intense debate in the United States." While those articles may mention the "debate," they don't spend half the lead discussing it. Readers want to know about evolution or climate change rather than the reasons why they are preferred to creationism or climate skepticism.
- TFD (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Paragraph 3 contains data that addresses the points in Paragraph 2. I fail to see how that is inappropriate. Paragraph 3 hardly has a tone beyond "Here's a bunch of data". It presents no value to that data. --Jayron32 11:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I meant to say the flat earth theory does not take up half the earth lead. I try to avoid irony etc. My point is that the wording of the lead reads like a rebuttal of the anti-immigrant position. It could probably be re-written making the same points but in a different tone. TFD (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't follow? I assume this is a joke but one can never be sure. The flat earth theory is mentioned exactly once in the whole article, and it isn't mentioned at all in the lead. --Jayron32 23:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- OTOH, the lead of the article on the Earth does not take up half its space with rebutting the flat earth theory. TFD (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Responding to your point 1: I did not expect for equal weight on all viewpoints, I was stating my concern that there was apparently a bias in the wording and constructing of the page. The viewpoints that I mentioned could perfectly be in a separate section, and not shoved immediately when starting the page. WP:IMPARTIAL states that the tone of wikipedia articles should be impartial, and I was highlighting my concerns that I belive that it is not. Responding to 2: The main purpose of my comment is to highlight my concerns, not to provide sources for negatives. Amorgos420 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- "Better articles to compare this with include ones on evolution or climate change" These are hardly comparable. Our current understanding of evolutionary biology depends on about 2 centuries of scientific research, and on data provided by paleontology. Our understanding of climate change depends on climatology and on data collected from all continents. Immigration and relative policies are not purely scientific topics, and there is no uniform way to estimate the economic or cultural impact of immigration. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- There actually is a lack of uniformity in expert opinions on evolution and climate change, other than a consensus that both of them are real. But like illegal immigration, there are fringe views that have no expert support. For example, the view that illegal immigrants are a "social and economic burdens on law-abiding natives" is just as false as the claim that evolution or climate change are hoaxes. TFD (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- "Better articles to compare this with include ones on evolution or climate change" These are hardly comparable. Our current understanding of evolutionary biology depends on about 2 centuries of scientific research, and on data provided by paleontology. Our understanding of climate change depends on climatology and on data collected from all continents. Immigration and relative policies are not purely scientific topics, and there is no uniform way to estimate the economic or cultural impact of immigration. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
A tiny edit needed in the Legislation section
In the paragraph that begins, "In 1996, Congress debated two immigration bills - one focused on limiting legal immigration, and another other focused on illegal immigration." Someone should fix "another other", presumably by deleting the word "other". I can't do it. Thanks. 76.236.220.28 (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Done. 13:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Section out of date
Section talking about net reduction of undocumented immigrants since Great Recession is out of date. Footnotes 21-24 are all more than four years old. 2601:644:401:14B0:0:0:0:D125 (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Much of the data in the article is 4 to 6 years out of date. The source for one graph is this site: https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/border-security/border-security-metrics-report, but this site has much more current data that used in the article. The article needs to be brought up to date. Tail Hook TailHook (talk 05:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TailHook (talk • contribs) 05:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: States and their Secrets
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gracemillettvanderbilt (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Gracemillettvanderbilt (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2022
![]() | This edit request to Illegal immigration to the United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I didn't see any mention of an additional economic effect from illegal immigration: it puts downward pressure on employment costs of business owners. [1]
Can you please add a mention of this economic effect?
\ 2600:8801:2825:3900:89A1:8B91:2390:A413 (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Not done. That’s an advocacy site, not a reliable source. Sorry. Dronebogus (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2015 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Unbalanced tag
On 17 April 2023 User:Wikiexplorationandhelping tagged this article as being unbalanced, but didn't provide an explanation of which views are over/underrepresented. This is a highly complex and contentious topic, so simply tagging it as unbalanced isn't that helpful without discussion and explanation. -- Revoran (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oh hello there! I even forgot this existed. Well, I've seen a video off wiki named "How Wikipedia Lies To You" made by Pax Tube talking about this article (timestamp 3:14). He mentions that on a neutral website, "one would expect to simply see a description of the phenomenon". Now that I have looked at the article again, it seems that there was a new source added that is against illegal immigration, so it's more neutral than before. But I believe that the arguments for and against shall be moved to the controversy section, or a new section altogether. What do we think here? (I hereby disclose that I am NOT being paid to make this comment.) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- "it seems that there was a new source added that is against illegal immigration, so it's more neutral than before" What the heck are you talking about? Articles are not supposed to balance opposing views on topics. We have a specific policy on false balance":
- "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." Dimadick (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, with all that said, this article does seem to cover all those points. Looks like the unbalanced tag is no longer necessary. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Graph at the Top of the Page is Incorrect, Should be Removed Until a Replacement is Made
A friend of mine checked the graph against the source (for the sake of quick reference, this data is pulled from Table 39 on page No. 105) during a discussion we had and, having double-checked his finding, I can confirm that it is the case. Whoever made the graph mislabeled the data to the point that it practically inverts the data.
To give a clear and stark example, in the year 2000, the data from that page number lists 188,467 removals and 1,675,876 returns. The displayed graph's key says that red is the color showing returns and that the lighter red (salmon?) shows removals. Thus, you would expect the red to have about 1.5 on the graph and for the salmon portion to be comparatively tiny. However, the graph shows the inverse, with more than 1.5 million removals represented by the color red and a comparatively small number of returns represented with the salmon color.
Every year follows this exact pattern, so I am concluding that this was a problem of whoever made the graph probably inputted the data correctly but mislabeled the graph key. As such, I ask for someone with permission to edit the page to please remove the graph temporarily until a corrected replacement graph can be made. YIMBYzus (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/1892-_Immigration_Enforcement_Actions_-_Department_of_Homeland_Security.svg/180px-1892-_Immigration_Enforcement_Actions_-_Department_of_Homeland_Security.svg.png)
- I'm the uploader of the chart and will check into this issue today. —RCraig09 (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, YIMBYzus, and welcome to Wikipedia. It was indeed a labeling error on my part in May. I've just uploaded a Version 2 that changes the order of "Returns..." and "Removals..." labels in the legend in the upper left. To see the change, you may have to by-pass old cached versions of the file when you refresh your browser. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for making the correction. YIMBYzus (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The part on sanctuary cities is outdated.
does anyone have real 2020-2023 stats for them? -Jf (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- All of their data are deliberately obsolete. They deliberately ignore the last 3 years. 75.114.200.33 (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Very bad formatting, possibly biased, overly long
Too often do the authors just revert to rattling off every study they can find, quoting from each, one by one, paragraph after paragraph. Not only does it make for a disorganized and tedious reading, it also leaves a strong impression the author is trying very hard to convince you of something. You can see this type of formatting on numerous topics of contentious nature, but never where the topic is beyond doubt, like eg heliocentrism.
The article requires a reformatting so that it actually summarizes the relevant literature, instead of being a score count of how many citations one can fit in a section. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Formatting is horrible, probably deliberate. I found some numbers buried in the middle of the article and it took me 20 minutes to find them again. It is just a wall of text with a bunch of irrelevant sentiments when we just need specific data: how many illegals cross every year especially in 2021-2023 which is probably the most important trend. 75.114.200.33 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: LIBR 1 Working with Sources W
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2023 and 20 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PoMoncho (article contribs). Peer reviewers: PoMoncho.
— Assignment last updated by PoMoncho (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Intro lacking citations
In the final paragraph of the intro, it says "These immigrants also disproportionately commit more crimes then legal citizens" but there appears to be no citation for this and the footnotes actually cite the opposite. Why is this allowed in here? 2601:152:981:54B0:58EC:8347:27A9:148A (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- "The footnotes actually cite the opposite". Which footnote? What pages in the footnotes you mean? Jc3s5h (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I see that the material in question has been added to and reorganized in the last few days. I've removed the changes because it seems to go from saying that critics of immigration make certain claims, to saying the claims are true. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)