Talk:Illegal immigration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Controversial subject improvement

Controversial subject improvement Many peope felt we should legalized the undocumented immigrants or not. They accuse undocumented immigtants broke the American laws. It was a subject that become our every day life talk. Why should help or not help undocumented immgrants. So this is debate is going on. s subject as well as others that are so laden with emotional opinion ought to be subject to a different standard for editing, one that slowed down the process and subjected it to more community review. --Unsigned edit by 4.131.222.208 10:09, 27 December 2005

I think this article has been an improvement over what I read in convention media outlets. That is, the article uses the cock term alien to explain why alien has been replaced because common readers don't usually have the legal meaning of the term, i.e. even for corporations, one chartered out of state is foreign, one out of country is an alien corporation. Then the article explains the alien as extra terrestrial connotation. The improvement I would like is the inclusion of the word non-citizen used the first time the term alien would have been properly used so we remove ambiguity with immigrants who are citizens and extra-terrestrials. John wesley 18:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti Illegals Are Racist: No Mention?

How come theres no mention that the grand majority of anti illegal immigration people are white racists? Face it LATINOS TAKING OVER get Over It. How can something like this be neutral when there need to be open borders US=MEXICO IN 2007

You've shown you're no better than the people you oppose. I am against illegal immigration. However, I also understand the main reason for it is the magnet of employers and administration after administration that largely looks the other way. Usually the most annoying and vocal protesters tend to be racist on both sides of this game, and it is one. Why do you even type in caps? To make the "racists" more angry? am I talking to air?.....I think he/she won't get a notification of this response...besides...it is not NPOV, bottom line. RMartinez

RESPONSE Because we aren't...we of all kinds of people agree that we are a lawfull nation, a compassionate nation and we have rights under our constutition to have our government protect us and our nation. Weapons of mass destruction aren't only Artillery, Arms and Missiles.... It's.... the threat of Invasion of a Country, Potential passage for Terrorist, Digging holes and tunnels for unlawful passage into our Country, Over- staying visas, Unknown Illegals within, Vicious and Violent intruders turned loose on our streets, Violent Illegal Gang and Drug wars, Murder of Citizens and Government Workers, Smuggling Humans, Felons, Animals, Weapons and Drugs by the tons, Aiding and abetting criminal activity, Corruption, Mexican Militia crossing our borders questioning and trying to intimidate Citizens. Personal attacks on our Citizens, Property and Government, Illegal and Fraudulent use of State and Federal documents to obtain Money, Social Services and passage into and around our Country and bringing in diseases that threaten large populations. All of these atrocities result in Mayhem and Endangering lives of Citizenry. As a result there has been a magnitude of: Theft of people's identifications, buying, selling and using fraudulent Social Security cards, Licenses, Voter's Registration cards, Passports, Visas, Green cards and other Government Documents, driving with/without legal licenses, no insurance and a danger to all people. A crippling effect on States spending, Federal Government spending because of Illegals fraudulently obtaining State and Federal Social Services, Education, hiding from the government, tax evasion, unlawful employment and businesses not paying their share

[edit] Immigration by Region

[edit] U.S. Immigration Law

[edit] Source on 9/11 perpetrators

What's the source on the 9/11 perpetrators? Two of them were granted visa extensions after their deaths, so they couldn't have been illegal when they committed their act. All were legally admitted as far as I know, but what's the source that all their visas expired? Bruxism 03:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

That may be partly my fault as my re-write may have introduced an inaccuracy. Atta was on an expired visa, but I am not certain of the others. Ah, I think this sums it up: "Two hijackers could have been denied admission at the port on entry based on violations of immigration rules governing terms of admission. Three hijackers violated the immigration laws after entry, one by failing to enroll in school as declared, and two by overstays of their terms of admission." Prepared Statement of Vice Chair Lee Hamilton and Commissioner Slade Gorton of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States I'll correct it. Thanks for catching it. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USA misinformation corrected

I cleaned up the US section and dropped POV and incorrect information (such as the false statement there ever was a quota for Jews), and added an explanation for restrictionism. Rjensen 09:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Good work. That's a nice little summary of U.S. immigration history. I only quibble with the tone of this text:
  • (supposedly for a future court date, but none ever show up that day.)
because it sounds like hyperbole. -Willmcw 10:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! The debate is underway right now (late 2005) about the capture and release policy, and all the news stories report that the people who get released do not return to court. So it may sound exaggerated but I think it's exactly correct. Rjensen 18:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's not "exactly correct," and neither is it sourced. Prisons around the country are filled with hundreds, if not thousands of people, who have been detained at airports and seaports for entering without legal documents. This has been the case since detention was mandated by federal law in 1996. Ditto the passage about undocumented parents of U.S. citizens not being deported. It happens all the time. In fact the law as it now stands requires deportation unless the parent can prove serious harm to a U.S. citizen caused by the deportation, and the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the government. Bruxism 20:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • umm I am going to remove "Restricting immigration in the United States has been driven foremost by the fear the immigrants will bring alien political values that will disrupt or dilute American values, second by nativism or general fear of strangers", as It does not have any fact to back it up, it applies that americans feel that immigrants are degrading our values and implies that we are afraid of immigrants. Umm this cant possibly be true in a country were are political views and values were brought here by immigrants! Mac Domhnaill 02:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh I think it better go back in. The questions is WHY there is opposition to immigration. The points are that there is a fear of strangers and that the immigrants will bring in false values. Historians have pointed this out over an over again, especially John Higham. Wiki does not take sides: it does not say whether these 4 arguments are true or not. It says these 4 arguments have in fact motivated opposition, as it true in 2005, in 1920, in 1854, Rjensen 09:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with Rjensen here. The 1920s historical example is particularly relevant. The red scare led to the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti, anti-immigrant sentiment (particularly against Italians, Russians, and others peceived of supporting anarchism and the Bolsheviks), and to the deportation of Emma Goldman and others. Twenty years earlier, there were also round-ups of immigrants, including Goldman, after the assassination of William McKinley by an anarchist. Bruxism 19:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, quotas for Jews did exist. Look it up in your college American History books--during the Russian Revolution and World War II, America did restrict Jewish refuges. --Nissi Kim 04:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Immigration Law

What Is Considered An Illegal Activity Under Immigration Law?

Here are some examples of the most common violations of United States Immigration laws:

Examples:

(This is not a complete list of violations.)

  1. filing false statements on applications or petitions
  2. making a false claim that you are a United States citizen
  3. making, altering or using counterfeit immigration documents
  4. making, altering or using counterfeit documents to support immigration applications or petitions
  5. failing to report the arrival of illegal aliens
  6. assisting or encouraging aliens to come to the United States in violation of the law
  7. harboring an illegal alien
  8. knowingly employing aliens who do not have permission to work in the United States
  9. recruiting or referring for a fee aliens who do not have permission to work in the United States
  10. failing to complete and maintain immigration Form I-9 for all new employees, whether citizens or aliens
  11. failing to depart the United States when ordered removed (deported)
  12. entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place which is not authorized
  13. attempting to enter the United States by misrepresenting (lying about) material facts
  14. entering into a marriage to circumvent the immigration laws
  15. entering or attempting to enter the United States without permission after having been removed (deported)
  16. assisting an alien to enter the United States for prostitution or other immoral purposes

[edit] Where Can I Find the Law?

Where Can I Find the Law?

The Immigration and Nationality Act is a law that governs the admission of all people to the United States. For the parts of the law concerning illegal immigration activities, please see INA § 212, INA § 235, INA § 271, INA § 272, INA § 273, INA § 274, INA § 274A, INA § 274C, INA § 275, INA § 277, and INA § 278.

8 U.S.C. 1325

Improper Entry by Alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts; Any alien who -

(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or

(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or

(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more than two years or both.

[edit] Report Suspected Illegal Alien Activity

How Can I Report Suspected Illegal Alien Activity or a Suspected Illegal Alien?

Each immigration field office has a specific process for reporting suspected illegal alien activity. You should first decide where the suspected illegal alien activity or illegal alien is located. Our offices have areas of jurisdiction that are generally determined by state boundaries. The three immigration related agencies -- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection -- have web sites where you can find immigration information. They are: uscis.gov, ice.gov, and cbp.gov. All three are accessible from the Department of Homeland Security web site -- dhs.gov. --Unsigned edit by 71.116.176.231 14:34, 28 December 2005

[edit] Illegal immgration in Europe

There really should be a section on illegal immigration in Europe, where it is probably a more heated political issue than it is in the United States (where both main parties generally seem content with the status quo). Funnyhat 19:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration and India

  • India has the largest number of illegal immigrants in the world. More than 20 million Bangladeshis. deeptrivia (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you have a link we can use to develop that? We need more info in this article about illegal immigration around the world. Thanks, -Will Beback 02:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Here are some links:
http://india.indymedia.org/en/2003/01/2730.shtml
http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC15800.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-1961065,00.html
http://www.saag.org/%5Cpapers14%5Cpaper1330.html
http://www.saag.org/papers7/paper632.html
http://www.whatisindia.com/issues/povillim
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0304/p07s01-wosc.html
Basically I just googled "bangladesh immigrants india" and posted some links. Will post better ones when I find them. deeptrivia (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial Comments

[edit] Explanation needed

  • A third category is composed by those who, even though they are born in the country of residence, become "illegal immigrants" at majority (18 years old or more). The status of "illegal immigrant" can also be imposed because of bureaucratic reasons - someone being neither "expulsable", law protecting it from any sort of expulsion, nor "regularizable", his situation can't be regularized and he can't be nationalized either (this can happen to refugees, or sick people who, under specific laws, may be allowed to stay in a country without being given official documents)

How does one become an immigrant (illegal or otherwise) in one's country of birth? -Will Beback 00:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly easy actually. Many countries do not award citizenship based on location of birth but rather add other restrictions like citizenship of one or both parents. In other words, an individual born in a country to two foreign parents (e.g. foreigners on work visa) does not necessarily receive the citizenship of the country in which the individual is born.sebmol 02:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about other countries, but I know that in France this is fairly common - it was supposedly one of the causes of the French riots of 2005. I recall that in some French cities, the proportion of the population who are not legal citizens approaches or exceeds 50% - but don't put that in the article, as it hasn't been verified. I just wanted to give some idea of context. - Terraxos, 23:54, 23 January 2006
OK, this is partly semantic. Being an "illegal immigrant" means that one immigated illegally. Non-citizen or undocumented residents are a different matter. But we can't call someone who has never moved an "immigrant." -Will Beback 00:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I sort of thought that all Americans are illegal immigrants, at least according to the Indians. Should we all be deported? 71.112.224.112

[edit] Comments on Xenophobia

mexican mantra All of the laws should be enforced equally, regardless of race, religion, and/or national origin. That is with the exception of mexicans, and they should be above the law and exempt from the law. And the only purpose that a tonto gringo serves is to pay taxes to support the superior and noble mexican.

Anyone who disagrees with this philosophy is a Xenophobic Racist.

Pancho --Unsigned edit by 71.116.148.75 23:29, 26 December 2005

I think that statement is unfair. I disagree with your statement about Mexicans being above the law. Currently, legal Mexican immigrants get equal treatment from what I have seen. In the US, no one is above the law. If you are a legal US citizen, you are subject to the same laws as anyone else. I don't believe illegal immigrants should have the same rights as US citizens, because, well, illegals are not US citizens. Mexicans should not be above and exempt from the law because that would not be equal and would go against everything for which this country stands. I am not xenophobic, and I am not racist, I have nothing against any other race. Xenophobia is the fear of strangers and the unknown. I am afraid of neither. It is unfair to call one a "Xenophobic Racist" just because they don't agree with your statement.Wolfranger 14:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree with your philosophy. I think EVERYONE should be treated equally, regardless of social status, race, religion, etc. But there has to be a limit to the freedom. The United States can't let everyone in, because in some ways that's a threat to national security. If they freely let a terrorist in the country, that could bring another 9/11. The only reason we have a problem with illegal immigration nowadays is because there's people here who are willing to give them food, shelter, and WORK. If the government took more affirmative action in dealing with the employers, we would not have a problem with illegal immigration today. The government deliberately let's these people come in and join the needed workforce. Would the average American take the job an illegal immigrant has? Of course not! The economy needs these people and the government knows it, but now they have let it get carried away and the problem is now affecting the people. So what does the government do? They blame it on the Mexicans. Is this really fair?
Sofia
I partly agree with Sofia...in fact mostly. But saying that the average American wouldn't take the jobs the illegals take is a myth. The truth is, however, that the average American wouldn't do the jobs illegals do for the same rate of pay the illegals will accept.
Americans dig ditches, work in fast food restaurants, do sewer work, build houses, pave roads, just about anything you can think of an illegal alien doing, you see Americans doing every day. But nobody wants to work in the sewer for $4 an hour. No American, anyway.--Swalker2000 01:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Just remember Pancho and friends Wikipedia's NPOV, so all the work must have this Neutral (that is global, not just American, point-of-view). Illegal crossings are made illegal by the archaic inmigration laws of the U.S. All countries forbid illegal crossings, even Mexico, but this in no way explains the complex atmosphere surrounding the Mexico-U.S. dilema. In most ways it echos the Berlin Wall, where most inmigration is family oriented, and a sensible 'free-transit' law could end illegal inmigration and foster a return policy of mexican temporary workers. Also Pancho, there are literaly thousands of mexican customers that buy goods in the U.S. which don't get their taxes back. Could this taxes support 'illegal aliens'. Maybe even legal citizens, just witness cities like McAllen and Laredo. Just my 'two-cents'--Cosuna 16:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

[edit] I have removed the following chunks of text

"Crossing the border without papers is not a felony but only a misdemeanor (that is, a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment not to exceed one year). Mexicans who are caught illegally crossing the border are fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) made the hiring of an illegal alien an offense for the first time. American businesses have hired well over 10 million illegal aliens per year. (There is always heavy turnover in low-skilled jobs.) Enforcement has been very lax due to the efforts of powerful lobbyists such as the Chamber of Commerce, which argues the labor is needed by the American economy. Some major companies have occasionally been found to use undocumented workers. Tyson Foods was accused of actively importing illegal labor for its chicken packing plants, but a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee resoundingly acquitted the company after evidence was presented that it went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees. And Wal-Mart was accused of using illegal janitorial workers, though it claimed they were hired by a subcontractor without company knowledge. Philippe Kahn, who wanted to stay in the United States, created the successful computer software company Borland International without proper legal status. During his 2003 campaign for California governor, it was alleged that Arnold Schwarzenegger had violated his visa by working without a permit in the 1970s; he vehemently denied the charge and produced his documents. The employment by prominent individuals of persons without work permits has been an occasional issue in politics. Linda Chavez, Zoe Baird, and Tom Tancredo are among those accused of hiring illegal aliens, the resulting scandals sometimes being dubbed "Nannygate". Many or most illegals, of course, commit other federal offenses by accepting wages without withholding on "day laborer jobs" with millions of such transactions occuring annually, or by purchasing fake documents such as Social Security cards, birth certificates and driver's licenses, and many use fake social security numbers (knowing they will never see the money that they extra-legally pay into Social Security.) In addition to supplying cheap labor to American businesses, and day laborer services to individuals and families, illegal aliens also supply a significant quantity of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and, of course, marijuana, to the illegal American drug trade. Many experts estimate that over 25% of all major narcotics traffickers in the United States are illegal aliens." 18:40, 1 January 2006 67.124.195.107

"Irridentism, the operative "poly-sci" word, related to U.S. - Mexico Border Issues, is almost unknown by press,& public

Most nations located on a border between one cultural region and another quite different cultural region, tend to see illegal immigrants from that culturally different country to be among the least welcome, should they come in very large numbers. If they come illegally, and outnumber all other immigrants 2 to 1, this threatens by their very presence, the cultural identity of the counrty entered. This is usually seen as a "non-combat" form of invasion. Mexico's revolutionary hero, Pancho Villa, did in fact, invade the State of New Mexico in 1916, and killed a number of Americans. American Immigrant U.S. families from all other parts of the world must wait 5 to 10 years to allow a son or daughter to join their U.S. citizen parents. With world wide immigration, the U.S, will remain a "melting pot" english speaking culture. With mostly Mexican immigration, U.S. will become a cultural mixture of the two nations in all possible ways over the next 100 years. So goes the arguement of the out-spoken anti-illegal community on Mexico-U.S. Irridentism. In balance, it should be noted that Mexico sees the massive illegal entry from Central America in "irridentist" terms from their own perspective. "Illegals" are treated with little compassion, and are promply ejected by authorities." 2 January 2006 Nativeborncal

This information is pejorative and misleading, not to mention unsourced. In future please discuss major changes on the talk page prior to making them. Natgoo 12:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal immigration in the US

I removed the statement at the end of the paragraph about illegal immigration in the US, ", as well as covering those who are left undeported due to the citizenship of their children.". It is blatantly wrong and unsupported either by examples or legal cites. I am a clerk at a California Immigration Court of the Executive Office of Immigration Review and, although it is definitely not to my liking, my office orders the removal (deportation) of illegal aliens with US Citizen children almost every day. Very often the children are removed with their parents. There are cases even where a single alien parent does not have a sole custody over the child(ren) and since the US Citizen parent is nowhere to be found to take care of or to allow the departure of his/her minor children, the children are placed in foster care for an indefinite period of time.

--Emcho 10:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) This is terrible! There should be a point where imorality succumbs to illegality.

Should there be a distinction made re the title, since "Illegal immigration" happens in many countries? The article is obviously from the US POV.69.6.162.160 01:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

This is the global article. We already have Illegal immigration to the United States. If you see particular parts of the article that are excessively U.S.-centric then please fix them or mention them here. Thanks, -Will Beback 07:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

  • I propose that Illegal immigrant is merged with this article. They both contain similar information and one should redirect to the other. I suggest 'immigration' as the base article as it is the name of the subject rather than terminology such as 'immigrant'. --195.92.67.208 23:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

agreed, but dont that you suggest Illegal immigration as the base? --Herzog 02:11, 6 December 2005

It's a tough one. Immigration might be the less POV term, because it describes the act as illegal rather than the person. And whether or not a person is illegal, or has committed an illegal act, depends on where you stand. (Just ask the Native Americans, or Australian Aborigines.) In fact, "extra"-legal would be a more neutral, accurate term, since it describes something happening outside the law, and not necessarily in violation of it (and the latter part is at the crux of much of the legal conflict arising from such situations - this is not splitting hairs, as under the Geneva Conventions, a political refugee who crosses a border without inspection to escape persecution, as from, say, Nazi Germany, is not considered to have done so illegally). Anthropologists and sociologists are increasingly using the term irregular migration, which is also less value-laden. The problem is, unless we do lots of re-directs, the term people are going to use as their search term will often be "illegal," which has become the dominant term in the popular media, at least in the U.S. Bruxism 07:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with merging the two, as they are inseparable is some sense: you can't have illegal immigrants if there is no such thing as illegal immigration. The former is derivative of the later. But while legal precision can always insert a level of complication, avoiding the term altogether is fundamentally dishonest. Countries have laws limiting how and who may immigrate and regardless of how you feel about those laws, they do exist. This is true even if widely ignored both by those charged with enforcing them and therefore, unsurprisingly, by those who desire to do other than the law permits. That would then constitute a violation of the law.
And while the escaping persecution example could set up a conflict between international law and national law, it remains possible to violate one without the other. Most countries including the United State have provisions for claiming asylum in which case there is no inherent conflict as long as the country’s law interprets the situation in a way that international law would.
As for the terms used by anthropologists and sociologists being less value laden, it is just as plausible to argue that they are selected because of their own value system and hence laden with that worldview.
--Unsigned edit by 4.131.219.6622:32, 26 December 2005
Using "Immigration" as the base is misleading. In fact, it is downright wrong, unless you plan to make "Illegal Immigration" a subtopic under "Immigration." Immigration and Illegal Immigration are two completely different topics and the articles would need to cover completely different material. But I agree that Illegal Immigrant should merge with this one.
Also, please be careful about confusing the idea of minimizing POV with the misguided practice of "political correctness." The former is desirable, the latter is despicable.--Swalker2000 01:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The article says, "Illegal alien" is the official term used in legislation and by the border patrol for a person who has entered the country illegally or is residing in the United States illegally after entering legally (for example, using a tourist visa and remaining after the visa expires)." This is absolutely incorrect. The term "illegal alien" is *not* a term of art nor is it used in any legislation or official documents of the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Citizenship and Immigration Services. The term is pejorative and is used primarily by anti-immigrant groups and individuals. It makes no grammatical or logical sense, and is factually inaccurate: "Illegal" generally refers to criminal violations, while overstaying one's visa or entering the country without inspection is a civil (not criminal) violation.

In addition, as many people point out, it makes no sense to talk about an "illegal person." The correct and accurate term is "undocumented worker" or "undocumented immigrant." Without them, by the way, the U.S. economy would collapse.

Please correct the article.

In the future, it would help if you researched your points before making them. It took me all of five seconds to find the following [[1]] which shows for a fact that the Border Patrol uses the term. The pages already in the article show that the various departments use the term as well.-Psychohistorian 13:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Words

  • "Those 'undocumented' are actually highly documented with fraudulent documents our government readily accepts."

"Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a burglar an uninvited house guest." ( Illegal Aliens.US)

What part of "illegal immigrant" is derogatory? It is fairly accurate and unbiased term to describe somebody who has crossed any national border illegally. Honestly, the term "illegal alien" makes them sound as though they are from another species, and should be considered derogatory! The term "undocumented immigrant" can be used to describe an immigrant who has forgotten to renew their legal documentation, and as previously stated, is indirect and broad.

Of course, the term of "illegal immigration" is simply an opinion, as is the monicker "undocumented immigrant", just as racial issues come in opinions (it might not appeal to all audiences).

Also, to more directly refute the term "illegal alien", if you look up the word "alien", you'll find a description such as "a person from another nation, territory, or governized landscape". Well, it's evident that they're not from here, so in a sense, it's redundant, while the expression "undocumented immigrant" and "illegal immigrant" are oxymorons, because an immigrant particularly describes one who has come from another country to legally reside in another, and is synonymous with terms such as "renewed citizen" (whatever that means). So again, it's all about definition of words.

the word "illegal" strongly suggests the person is a criminal-- However in America you are presumed innocent and not "illegal" until a court finds you guilty--which is rarely the case for these folks. They have been found guilt by a judge and jury on talk radio. Rjensen 01:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
let's remember that this article is international in scope. I'm going to remove the stray mentions of the U.S. As for the other points, I'm not aware of where the definition of immigrant necessarily implies "legal". -Will Beback 04:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A little off context there, Will. Let's take selling heroin for example. Of course the person selling heroin is innocent until proven guilty, however, the act of selling heroin is illegal, as is the fashion in which many of these "folks" are coming into our country is illegal. We're debating over the term "illegal immigration", not "illegal immigrant". Yet you're correct about the international in scope.
    • Seeding 80 miles an hour is exactly as illegal (both misdemeanors) Let us know if you are yourself innocent. Using heroin (felony) versus speeding proves a nativism as well as ignorance of the law, I used to live near the state line and I can testify that LOTS of people entered the state while speeding illegally. The Mexicans of course were legal before 1965. It was a loophole (or noose?) in the law that no one noticed at the time that changed it. Rjensen 06:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, so we have illegal speeding and illegal immigration. What could be a more straight-forward application of the term 'illegal' than that? How could applying the term 'illegal' to either of these activities be considered anything but a simple and concisely descriptive statement of fact? – Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
my point is that when we say "illegal" people think of heroin not speeding--just look at the above discussion! that means it's a heavily loaded POV term used in very HOT political debates. It's not a Wiki-neutral term Rjensen 07:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
My point is that there is nothing POV about the term illegal in this context—it is completely neutral. Immigration is not heroin and it is not speeding, so thinking of either of these is of little use, and I doubt a serious concern. The terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" are less concise as it is the act not the person that is illegal. The euphemisms "undocumented immigrant" and "undocumented worker" are neither concise nor accurately descriptive. If you have to pick one of these terms as NPOV, illegal immigration is the clear choice. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
But it is indeed a serious concern in the US and other countries and the choice of "illegal" is deliberately designed to inflame the debate. The term is red-hot POV and has to be flagged as such. Rjensen 08:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The term "illegal immigration" was a simple statement of fact used for a long time—the terminology did not become an issue until people with a clear POV attempted to replace the simple descriptive term with undescriptive euphemisms such as "undocumented" intended to obscure the fact that the activity was against the law and thereby legitimize it. Only at that point did the term become "red hot", but it is the euphemistic terms that carry the POV. Illegal immigration is the most neutral and accurate term, and only "red hot" if viewed through a non-neutral POV. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
What are we discussing here? The title of the article? If so I think "Illegal immigration" is the best title possible, and it's been discused at length previously. As for the content, we discuss each of the commonly-used terms, which is the NPOV thing to do. But we're not a dictionary. As for what term we use throughout the article, it may depend on what aspect of the subject is being discussed. For example, much of the issue with employment concerns documentation, so "undocumented aliens" might be appropriate there. So might "migrant workers". OTOH, "illegal immigrant" clearly applies to someone who breaks the law while crossing the border with the intent to migrate permanently. "Visa overstayers" is what we can use when talking about the 40% (in the U.S.) whom we rarely talk about. And so on. There are many terms because none fits all uses. -Will Beback 08:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are the arguments for "illegal aliens" and against "illegal immigrants" and against "undocumented immigrants" consistently and entirely removed? The editor(s) always seem to remove those arguments based technicalities or because of their personal and PC POV. Of all of the edits I've submitted THEY ALWAYS SEEM TO GET ENTIRELY REMOVED. This exercise has been frustrating and clearly shows the BIAS of the editors!!! The end result seems to be that Wikipedia will become politically correct mush and not an authoritative source.

[edit] Fixing the opening

The opening paragraph was both confusing and false -- not to mention its numerous useless links. I tried to simplify it and to indicate the POV status of the terminology. Suggestions welcome!! Rjensen 11:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree that the opening paragraph was a mess, but it is worse now. Certainly, much of the neutrality is gone and now it is POV. Any semblance of being encyclopedic is also gone. Now the article starts with the focus on the term instead of the subject. While this may have been your intent, I think it is highly POV. I disagree with several of your assertions, but rather than start an edit war I'll discuss them here before making changes:
  • a hotly disputed politicized term -- POV, please cite. In particular, if you are going to label this as a politicized term, you need to provide a reference showing a) where the term originated from and b) how it became politicized.
  • depending on the the speaker's political views -- POV, please cite. Where is a reference stating which political views use which term?
– Doug Bell talk•contrib 12:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • thanks for the good comments. Who first used "illegal immigrant" I don't know. But I do believe it is heavily used in 2006 by people on one side of the issue, and avoided by people on the other. I get that by reading the press. I'll dig up cites. But don't you agree the people on one side prefer "undocumented" and those on the other side prefer "illegal" or am I imagining this distinction? Wiki should tell users there is this POV dispute. Rjensen 12:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Some results. I did a Questia.com search on "illegal immigration" before 1965, and found 66 books, almost all of them relating to Palestine & Israel. Re USA I found only a couple cites: Senator Hubert Humphrey (1954) said "Gladwin Hill, the New York Times correspondent, reported in January, 1953, that an estimated 1,500,000 Mexican "wetbacks" entered the United States in 1952 without the formality of tipping their hats to an immigration officer. This illegal immigration was about ten times greater than the 154,000 persons allowed from Europe and Asia by the McCarran-Walter Act. Why hasn't Congress cracked down on the vast, illegal migration from Mexico? Because, Mr. Hill says, farm owners want cheap Mexican labor." [from From Hubert H. Humphrey Jr., The Stranger At Our Gate (New York: Public Affairs Committee, 1954), Pamphlet No. 202. Reprinted in American Minorities: A Textbook of Readings in Intergroup Relations ed by Milton L. Barron - editor. Knopf. 1957 pp 254-55]
      • more results of early use of illegal re USA: from Ernesto Galarza 1949 "The Mexican American: A National Concern. Program for Action," Common Ground, 9 (Summer, 1949), 27-38. Copyright 1949 by Common Ground. Reprinted by permission of Common Ground.

"Illegal Labor. There is also the widespread exploitation of Mexican workers brought to this country illegally. These socalled wetbacks number probably not less than 60,000 in southern Texas alone....Up to the present, the burden of blame and punishment for violation of the immigration laws of the United States falls on the wetback himself. He pays the penalty in the low wages he must accept, the mistreatment he must put up with, the constant fear of arrest, the loss of wages if he is picked up, and the hostility of the local Mexican community. That he is a symptom of a basic maladjustment in the economies of the two countries and a victim of the feebleness of inter-American standards is not generally recognized. Moreover, it is not only the bootleg contractor and the grapevine headhunter who paves the way for the wetback. In a sense he is forced to seek better conditions north of the border by the slow but relentless pressure of United States' agricultural, financial, and oil corporate interests on the entire economic and social evolution of the Mexican nation. Inflation, rising utility rates, the agrarian stalemate, and the flank attack on oil expropriation are some of the major causes of the persistent exodus of Mexican workers. oldest quote: Agnes E. Meyer, "Southwest Farms Encourage Child Labor, Illegal Entry", Pan American News, August 1, 1946, p. 3. Rjensen 13:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico

The section on Mexico says "It has also received those who are fleeing their native areas for religious persecution such as the Russian Molokai and Christian Lebanese and Mennonites". Since the word "Molokai" contains a link to the Hawaiian island of that name, which has no connection with Russia, there is obviously an error of some kind. Could somebody with the necessary knowledge fix it? -- DPJ, 2006-02-27 05:37 UTC

This was fixed on 2006-03-10. mexicans should stay where they are....IN MEXICO....... we don't want you here

[edit] Merger (again)

Illegal alien refers to the person crossing the border without authorization, and is the preferred US government term for unpermitted crossers (see Google unclesam link. Compare with undocumented immigrant, illegal immigrant, undocumented worker). While we should not be US centric I think this is an argument why the two should not be merged. Calwatch 09:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What content should be in "Illegal alien" that is different from this content? The articles appear to be near-copies of each other, which is a bad idea. -Will Beback 21:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I read it further, and yes, it does appear to be a fork. Illegal immigration should encompass all terms, from illegal alien, undocumented alien, undocumented worker, etc. Calwatch 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "illegal immigrant"

Am I the only one confused by the term? Simple grammar seems to suggest that it refers to a person who's a) an immigrant b) illegal. Since illegal is an adjective usually applied to acts, not people, and furthermore anything that is usually considered "illegal" is to be stamped out, I can see how it would be upsetting to be called (or so it would seem) an illegal person.

I'm strictly concerned about the (grammatical) accuracy of the term here. "Illegal immigration" is perfectly fine: it's an act, an act of immigration, and that act happens to be against the law, thus illegal. "Illegal immigrant" seems to suggest that a person can have the property of being illegal; while there's hardly any danger of reasonably alert adults making such a connection consciously, I am worried about false syllogisms along the lines of:

  • if X is illegal, we need to fight against X
  • an illegal immigrant is illegal
  • therefore, we need to fight against illegal immigrants

occuring subconsciously, or in young readers who haven't been confronted with the term.

I'm not aware of any other term in the English language that's commonly formed that way. When someone speeds in a car, they're driving illegally (by violating the law that specifies the speed limit), but I wouldn't consider them an "illegal driver".

Is anyone aware of further examples of the mechanism that resulted in "illegal immigrant" at work? I believe the term violates normal rules about how adjectives work in the English language to make a political statement (roughly, that all the adjective phrases that can be applied to all illegal acts can also be applied to illegal immigrants).

I believe that "illegal immigrant" is too inaccurate a term for wikipedia to use, and a dangerous precedent.

Note, again, that I'm not criticising "illegal immigration" and such terms, only those that apply the adjective "illegal" to people, which is something that the dictionary definition just doesn't allow. "They immigrated illegally, so they're illegal immigrants" is just not the way language works.

RandomP 02:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. However, "illegal immigrant" is what is used in the public debate on the subject, especially in the United States. It's a very unfortunate term and appropriate mention of that fact would probably be good to include in the article itself. sebmol 04:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


I agree with the statement that "illegal immigrant" is improper use of the adjective "illegal". "Illegal alien" is not much better. To clarify, an "illegal driver" would be better termed an "unlicensed driver". There seems to be no better adjective than "illegal" that is predominant in the current public discourse on this topic. By definition, an alien person within a given country whose presence there is contrary to that country's law, is a criminal. Perhaps "criminal alien" is a better term? Would it be appropriate for wikipedia to title this topic contrary to the terms used in general discourse? I propose that "Illegal Alien" be maintained as the primary topic title, because it is the legally defined term (in the United States, at least), and because "Illegal Immigrant" is a contradiction in terms of U.S. immigration law.

No the illegals are not criminals. In the US you have to be arrested, tried before a judge and jury with solid evidence like eyewitnesses, and given an appeal before you are considered a "criminal." The vast majority were never arrested in the first place. The legal infraction is a "misdemeanor", like speeding. (NOT a "felony", like robbery.) Rjensen 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Actually, if you followed the HR 4437 fiasco, you would know that unauthorized presence in this country is a civil matter, punishable solely by deportation and possible loss of eligibility form coming into the U.S. HR 4437 wanted to make illegal presence in the country a felony, but the Republicans tried to amend the bill to make it a misdemeanor but were denied by the Democrats who wanted to dramatize the felony aspect. Calwatch 08:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps then, the term "Criminal Immigrant" is more proper.

Uraijit 12:22 28 Nvember 2006

The two arguments advanced here seem to be

  • if a term is "predominant in general discourse", it is always okay to use it on Wikipedia
  • if a term is a "legally defined term", it is always okay to use on Wikipedia.

I disagree with both. For an example of the latter, consider that "the abominable and detestable crime against nature" was, at least until 2002, a term legally defined in Massachussetts, referring to, I believe, anal sex. Clearly that wouldn't have been an acceptable article name?

For the former, consider "China" and "Ireland", both of which are used to refer to different geographical/political entities; while I admit those two are also confusing, and I can't really think of a non-confusing example that's still in common use, I have no doubt that historically, they used to be very common. I'm not really sure I want to remember the "general discourse" terms relating to miscegenation, homosexuality, or religious dissent, I think that such nonsensical terms as "unamerican" were at one point used generally, but still would not have been acceptable.

In essence, I believe if a term is rejected by a minority that's not vanishingly small that has something that might be considered a good argument, and a usable alternative is available, the NPOV doctrine means we should use the alternative. That's certainly true of "illegal immigrant" (a person who immigrated illegally, or an undocumented immigrant).

RandomP 19:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with RandomP's analysis. "Illegal Immigrant" is the correct term, both grammatically and legally. To quote his example, "illegal driver" is also a valid term, it refers to someone who has driven a car illegally, for example while not holding a driving licence. "illegal doctor" is also good English.
Being an "Illegal Immigrant" is a criminal offence, maybe not where RandomP lives, but in many countries. It is the act of being an immigrant, i.e. residing (and usually working as well) in a country when not permitted to do so. It remains a criminal offence even after you have ceased doing it, in the same way that you can still be prosecuted for driving a car without a licence, even after you have stopped driving the car.
The illegal act is not in entering the country, you may have done that legally as a tourist, but if you remain after the permitted time, or work without permission, then you are an immigrant who does not have permission to be one, you have commited a criminal offence, and can be prosecuted. TiffaF 07:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Unlawful presence may be a criminal offense where you are, but it is not a criminal offense here in the USA where I am. Here it is a civil violation. In fact, we reciently had a series of huge protests by immigrants and their supporters here in this country because of a bill in the congress that was threatening to criminalized it.--Ramsey2006 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'NPOV violation'

"while others follow underground routes, such as the movement of African-Americans into free northern states and Canada through the Underground Railroad during the 19th century" is a big violation and so I've deleted that clause. Joncnunn 20:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


-- added the term "unauthorized immigrant" ---- unauthorized is becoming the U.S. Federal Statistical System's term for what formerly might be called "undocumented". Unauthorized (= quasi-legal + illegal) is intended to capture the legal status of the person.

"Those more supportive of the illegal immigrant community tend to replace illegal with undocumented, falsely implying that those who do immigrate illegally are not committing a crime. (In virtually every nation, failing to comply with immigration requirements is, by definition, a crime.)" This string of statements contains value judgements and is not factual. How can the use of the word 'undocumented' imply that migrants are 'not committing a crime', when illegal migration is by definition migration without the necessary documentation (visa)? --194.204.106.127 00:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Matt

I removed the line "Ironically, with the recent effort to track these populations, documentation - including drivers licenses and health cards - have been given in some jurisdictions, making them fully documented." These IDs are being issued without citizenship or immigrant status, which remains the "undocumented" part in question. Yet another reason that Wikipedia should avoid vague euphemisms like "undocumented immigrant" (see argument above.)

12.205.149.45 03:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally, any line that starts "Ironically" does not belong in an encyclopedia. -Will Beback 03:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why then, not just the word "Ironicly"?

user:Uraijit 12:15, 28 November 2006

[edit] Changes and reversions

This morning, an editor removed the following passages from the article:

"It is said that the U.S. is pressuring Mexico and paying for the deportation of Central American origin."[2]

"Restricting immigration in the United States has often been driven by the fear that the immigrants will bring alien political values that will disrupt or dilute American values, by nativism or general fear of strangers, by fear of wage and benefit reduction, by concerns of adverse impact on public services and the environment, or by security interests regarding criminals or terrorists (such as the anarchists of the late 19th century)."[3]

and

"The first laws creating a quota for immigrants were passed in the 1920s, in response to a sense that the country could no longer absorb large numbers of unskilled workers, despite pleas by big business that it wanted the new workers."[4]

He or she also added the text of several articles of the Mexican Constitution to the section on Mexico.[5]

I restored the removed passages and removed the passages from the Mexican constitution, since, in addition to being placed into the article without any context and out of any order, many of them did not pertain to illegal immigration into Mexico even indirectly. In fact, they seemed to be added to create the impression that "Mexico is hostile to foreigners".

I restored the removed passages because they were removed without discussion with edit summaries such as "removed vague claim", the enigmatic "legal", and "need source". The "unsourced" passages appeared to cite the Ngai text and contain crucial information about the topic. Having read about the U.S. pressuring Mexico and other countries to enforce their own borders more strictly, a tactic referred to as "surrogate enforcement", I restored that passage as well.

The editor in question then restored his or her edits (once with the summary "Rockero if you delete again without reason you will be cited as a vandel[sic]."), this time providing some context for the inclusion of the Mexican constitutional articles, and then left an unsigned but polite comment on my talkpage asking me to explain my edits. Hence this post.

While I agree that the article is not in the best condition (could use more information, citations, and global and historical perspective), it seems to me that the removal of information it more "vandal-like" then my restoration of the information. At this point, I am willing to concede to leaving out the bit about surrogate enforcement out until more research can be done since I couldn't immediately recall where I had read it. I would even concede to leaving in certain articles of the Mexican constitution provided that they are germane to the discussion at hand.

But the other passages are well-documented by numerous sources and ought to remain in. I won't edit--I don't want to get involved in any edit wars or even skirmishes-- and therefore leave it in the hands of the rest of the community to decide what should and should not be included based on these comments.--Rockero 21:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from main article space

"Undocumented aliens" and "overstays" defeat the legal U.S. immigration system and punish law-abiding, foreign nationals who successfully complete the immmigration process, but then are forced to wait many years before being permitted to live or work in the U.S. The extended waiting period is a direct result of the "undocumented aliens" that are occupying jobs of the prospective immigrants in the U.S. without adhering to the established immigration process.

I didn't go back and to see who added this, but it is questionable to say the least.--Rockero 07:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 14th Amendment

  • Initially, children born to non-citizens were not granted automatic U.S. citizenship. This was first challenged before the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins112 U.S. 94 (1884), in which the Supreme Court upheld that the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant citizenship to the domestically born children of non-citizens. The amendment was subsequently interpreted, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark169 U.S. 649 (1898), to provide citizenship to all children born to resident aliens within the country (see jus soli) who are fully under the jurisdiction of the United States. At no point has the Supreme Court actually interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to domestically born children of visiting aliens and illegal entrants, however; there is a widely held presumption that anyone born in the United States is granted citizenship (except for the children of diplomats and invaders). From Senate records of the debate on the Amendment, the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment was carefully chosen to exclude the children of foreign nationals. Obviously, the U.S. Constitution is a living document (see Judicial Activism).

This material does not appear to be based on normal legal interpretations. Please provide sources which show that citizenship was not granted to the children of foreign nationals. -Will Beback 00:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Methods Section

Does anyone have a reference for the Approximately 60% of illegal immigrants in the U.S. entered without a valid passport and visa by illegally crossing the border. statement? How do we know this?--Herda05 03:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the government tells us so.[6][7] -Will Beback 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New section - Illegal immigration to the United States

I have started this section. It contains lots of stuff from the article. I have not at this stage removed anything form this article that maybe should be in the new article, until things settle down. Please please correct/edit/add nice things to the new article. Thank you very much. Wallie 10:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That looks good; we've been needing to split out a U.S.-specific article for a while. Pleas4e also check the POV-forked article Illegal alien for any worthwhile material. That article needs to be merged back, as it is mostly the same material as here. -Will Beback 23:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE. Hi Will, OK. I have now moved everything, unaltered, out of Illegal alien. There are quite a few duplications, which I removed. There was some worthwhile material there. However, if you think anything is POV, have a look at the artciles Illegal immigration and Illegal immigration to the United States, and see what I have added from Illegal alien. I would appreciate it if you could also check what I have done. Thank you. Wallie 19:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I have merely copied text across, put in some more section headings and rearranged the order. If you want to bring in material from other articles, or change anything, please do. Eventually I (or someone else) will start removing or summarizing material from the higher level articles, as there is now duplication. I left the original articles in tact at the moment, as I did not want to disrupt things too much. Wallie 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving day

Copied over much material, while removing the completely duplicated sections. Have also copied the text (unduplicated) word for word. There could bve still some duplication! So please check what I have done. Thanks, everyone.Wallie 19:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV dispute: illegal immigration to the United States

I added the POV tag to this section as I am concerned that it seems to be written from a non-neutral point of view. Specifically, it seems biased towards the 'anti-immigration' side of the argument, and parts of it read like an argument written to support that point of view rather than an encyclopedia entry. For example:

"Additionally, it is not only unfair, but also inherently racist for protestors to say that these illegal aliens come to America to do work that Americans refuse to do. The 18 million unemployed Americans, in addition to the millions of US citizens already working in these industries, would surely work in construction, landscaping, and the restaurant business, assuming that businesses were willing to pay more than the sub-living wages frequently paid to illegal aliens."

This is not fact, it is opinion, and something which is still very much debated in the US at the moment. I have neither the time nor the accurate knowledge of the subject to properly improve this section, but I'm making a note of the problems with it here to see if anyone else can in future. Terraxos 02:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


When this section started, it was just the first poaragraph that you see in the section, but has blossomed to the level it was before we split up the article. Detailed discussion of illegal immigration in the US should be moved in the sub-article. Calwatch 01:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] terminology

Usage within this article and in Wikipedia generally is inconsistent between undocumented immigrant, illegal immigrant, and illegal alien. A central guideline should be adopted. A proposed one, with different versions recommending "illegal" and "undocumented," is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration). Kalkin 18:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concern

I am seriously concerned about this article. Arizona is not, as the article implies, theo only state with immigrants crossing the border. People crossing the border between the US and Mexico are not all Mexican nationals--Mexico has a huge immigration problem of its own from countries along its southern border. This article is xenophobic and not at all appropriate for Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.115.166.146 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Unbalanced tag added

It is clear from the discussion and the edits that there is an "invasion" of this page by one point of view. I propose that we allow all points of view instead.

Morlesg 23:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tags are not there to make a point. You need to explain what do you mean by "invasion" and "unbalanced", and propose ways to move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. By adding the tag I was hopping to stimulate additional contributions. Obviously I have no read enough about the WikiPolicies. The “invasion” comment refers to an “editing war” with another editor who claims the US is being “invaded by illegal aliens” and therefore using the military to defend the borders is justified. Old stuff! Morlesg 16:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] forced prostitution belongs here?

This comment on forced prostitution seems out of place, and it's not sourced. Should it be deleted?

Quote: "====Methods==== The so-called "white slave trade" referred to the smuggling of women, almost always under duress or fraud, for the purposes of forced prostitution. Now more generically called "sexual slavery" it continues to be a problem, particularly in Europe and the Middle East, though there have been increasing cases in the U.S." Unquote.

I put a {fact} on it hoping for someone to tie it to immigration. Thank you. Morlesg 16:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The women are smuggled over borders, hence the connection to illegal immigration. I'll check through the past versions, there may have been more on this in the past. -Will Beback 21:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's a source for modern smuggling of women for sex trade, [8] Unfortunately it's just a Google cache, as the original article has been taken down. I'm going to restore the text while we look for better sources. I don't think that anyone contests that smuggling women into a country for forced prostitution is a part of illegal immigration. -Will Beback 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No this seems out of place as does the slave trade. I don't think that prostitution and slavery is in any way considered equal to illegal immigration. It is one reason related to it, but either needs its own heading and should be reworded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.34.222.235 (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
No this seems out of place as does the slave trade. I don't think that prostitution and slavery is in any way considered equal to illegal immigration. It is one reason related to it, but either needs its own heading and should be reworded.--156.34.222.235 16:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal and Political Status

In the section on “Legal and political status” the following affirmation is unsourced:

Agriculture, construction, domestic service, restaurants, resorts, and prostitution are the leading legal and illegal jobs that undocumented workers are most likely to fill.

So I added the tag [citation needed].

(well i know you wont be seen at the next fourth of july parade,you unpatriotic person you)

No coments or citations. Deleted today. 74.225.89.228 09:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. definition of "immigrant"

  • According to the United States government an immigrant is “An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States.” [9]. Since an “immigrant” is defined as a person who is legally residing in the United States, the phrases “illegal immigrant” and “undocumented immigrant” have no meaning under law.

This text appears to make an original argument that is not appropriate, and which doesn't help the article. I've remvoed it previously but an anon user keeps re-inserting it. Any other opinions? -Will Beback 21:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Looks like we were editing at the same time; then firefox conspired with Google or something. Here's a list of what I the changes I propose: 1. Formatted most references in end note style. 2. deleted the following paragraph because it is not a definition of terms. Maybe it should be include somewhere else in the article.

In the United States, 60% of illegal aliens are estimated to be illegal border crossers, while 40% are visa overstayers.[10][11]

3. Added “neo-conservative historian” to describe Victor David Hanson (got those adjective from the Wiki article on him) 4. Added “proponent of immigration reduction” to describe Fair. 5. On these last two I have no opinion, but if we take the descriptions out of these two we should also take “linguist and progressive strategist” from the George Lakoff description.

Morlesg 03:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you deleted several sections, with the comment "page cut off". Was that intentional? -Will Beback 04:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
For example, there was a "methodology" section.[12] -Will Beback 05:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a technology problem. Not intentional. I only worked on the definitions section. Worse of all is I do not know how to repair the damage. Please do not kill me! Morlesg 05:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I got it back. Morlesg 05:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Whew. -Will Beback 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)



listen,i would call you various offending monikers related to the words "hotheaded" and "sucker punch",but it`s late here and i have to get up at 6:00 a.m, i guess in other people`s eyes i would be considered odd,i have very good relations with my boss and this "mexican-like" person i speak of,but im very suspicious of the both of them,living in a climate that tops mexico in both heat and frost,the way the people are,even a fairly easy going person like myself is effected to the point of being suspicious of anyone that isnt my own kin,id like to leave it at this if you could perhaps keep off the anti-american rhetoric,

your a cityboy,one of those kinds that likes rap music and thinks he is the next "50-cent" or some wasteful career like that,id like to force you to work in my job and circumstances,but i dont think that would be enough,every sewage worker,mechanic,and heavy working u.s citizen would have to be fired to show you just how much more valuable the work of an established u.s citizen is than that of a foreigner,mexican or not,illegal or not,or with a greencard or visa

there are so many technological solutions to solve any worker shortage that permanently deporting the illegals would cause (not to mention machines never need to be payed,and the maintnence jobs would be good economy) but because of the lazyness of politicians and some bigwig farmers,parts of our great nation,the most powerful in the world,are languishing behind other parts of the nation (technologically) because of the buerocracy,the politicians,and the bigwig farmers,this is just like back in the days of the roman empire when possible technological advancement was completely halted by the abundance of slave labor,almost the same situation nowdays,cept no slaves and disparitys are messed up 100 fold

"for the nation which is the most powerful,only when all parts of it`s economy and society are united for a clear goal,can it advance in trueness"


if you need evidence of this,look up some ww2 history and how it boosted america,all-around and not just in pocketts and sections (refferring to kalkin since i just erased that first long angry speech of mine in this section)


"Since an “immigrant” is defined as a person who is legally residing in the United States, the phrases “illegal immigrant” and “undocumented immigrant” have no meaning under law.

your really a bad debate guy if you think you can win something based on a false technicality, "illegal immigrant" refers to someone who is an illegal version of "immigrant",usually by passing through without the proper documentation,or overstaying on there alotted time (usually by a visa or greencard),and for another thing,(with the usual exceptions to the rule accounted for) mexicans arent very fond of intense cold,yet not only are europeans from the colder parts of europe cold-endurant,but the majority of u.s citizens have a basic cold resistence,hence why you never see alot of mexicans around the town i live once winter hits (40 below+,),hence any tiny little boost from illegals is battenned down abit once winter in the northern regions rolls in

[edit] Terminology

The terminology section appears to be very American-centric. Some of it may apply internationally but it at least needs more international citations... While it does make it clear it's talking largely from an American POV (which is good), we still need to expand it do include more POVs (I wasn't the one who included the expansion template however) Nil Einne 17:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


yes,im slightly curios to see how other countrys refer to illegal immigration

[edit] legal alien

With the recent passage of the detainee bill I came to Wikipedia to look up "legal alien" since now these people have been striped of their rights of habeas corpus, but there is no Wikipedia entry. Perhaps someone would be interested in making an entry explaining the definition of a "legal alien".

[edit] gandydancer "legal alien" entry

Thank you Will Beback! I am new to the Wiki process and I thought my sig would appear automatically and close my entry. I'll have another go at it...

Gandydancer 22:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminoloy

  • According to the United States government, “illegal alien”, not "illegal immigrant", is the correct term for a person who has entered the United States illegally or is residing in the United States illegally after entering legally (for example, using a tourist visa and remaining after the visa expires). [text in question is underlined]

I don't see the necessity of detailing what terms the U.S. Government does not use to describe a set of people, or why we only list one item. They don't use "undocumented worker" either, so far as we know. Why do we need to point out to readers why this one particular term does not have is not used in U.S. law? Let's recall that this is not "Illegal immigration to the United States". Also, per WP:MOS, it is not appropriate to bold random terms. The only routinely bolded text is the title of the article when it appears initially in the text, and also major variant terms that redirect to the article. -Will Beback 10:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is to inform. One common misconception is that these people are immigrants and that 'illegal immigrant' is a legitimate term. That misconception needs to be specifically addressed. Further, the 'not' is not a random term, it is bolded to emphasize a fact.-Psychohistorian 11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
As for the bolding, it does not follow WP:MOS. Otherwise we could all bold those bits we wanted to accentuate. As for the main point, the people are immigrants if they take up residency, legally or illegally. The U.S. Government does not call them "undocumented workers", but no one disputes that some of them work without documents. There is no good reason for including this little aside, which is only based on your own deduction. This article is global in scope, so we shouldn't dwell upon the details of one country's government's legal nomenclature. Indeed, most of the material in that section belongs in the U.S. article instead of this article. -Will Beback 11:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"As for the bolding, it does not follow WP:MOS. " I just finished reading that policy and there appears to be nothing which prevents the use of bold to emphasize a point. "As for the main point, the people are immigrants if they take up residency, legally or illegally." No, they aren't and I'm confident that you cannot find a reliable, NPOV source which supports you on that (and I really doubt you'll find any such source which is reliable, NPOV, -and- as authoritative as the U.S. Government). "There is no good reason for including this little aside, which is only based on your own deduction." No, it isn't. It is based solidly on the official definition used by the U.S. Government. "This article is global in scope.." Obviously, and by 'global', we need to include the U.S. What the disputed content does not do is state what words are used in other countries. Anyone who wants to add content regarding what terms are used in other countries is free to do so. "Indeed, most of the material in that section belongs in the U.S. article instead of this article." The point of what is here is to act as an overview and provide a link to that other article. It does that. -Psychohistorian 11:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The U.S. government is no more an authoritative source than the Chinese or Uzbekistani government. It's terminological decisions do not decide Wikipedia's. Kalkin 14:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a legal issue and, in the United States (the disputed content specifically states "In the United States.."), the U.S. government absolutely is more authoritative on legal issues than the other governments. It is perfectly legitimate (and noone has contested doing it) to add, in addition to it, "In China.." and "In Uzbekistan..". I welcome your addition to the article if you want to do this.-Psychohistorian 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed reply, but it's certainly not just a legal issue. The objections to "alien" and "illegal" are not legal objections, but are real nevertheless. Kalkin 14:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your point. I was asked what makes the U.S. Government's definition authoritative. I answered, it is authoritative because immigration is a legal issue. You aren't disputing that it is a legal issue. You are saying that other people object to the U.S. Government's definition. So, let me turn it around. Just as I was asked what makes the U.S. Government's definition authoritative, I ask you what makes these other peoples' definitions authoritative on any level equivalent on legal issues to the U.S. Government? -Psychohistorian 14:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's so confusing. Immigration is plainly not just a legal issue, any more than any other issue sometimes covered by law. I am very much disputing your assertion regarding that. What makes other people's definitions authoritative? Well, if they are authorities like a dictionary, a journalists assocation, or a highly respected nonprofit, then theirs might be. Not more so than the government, necessarily; only enough to take the controversy into account and try to find a neutral alternative. Kalkin 06:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I moved the "In the United States.." content to the end of the section to make it clearer that it is an individual example. -Will Beback 19:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that makes sense and I finished the move by moving the rest of the content which is U.S. specific (in that it is either 1.) only sourced for the U.S., or 2.) unsourced and only undisputed in the U.S.) to the end as well. -Psychohistorian 13:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure every country uses the equivalent of "immigrant", etc, so it makes no sense to split the list into two parts. If we want to treat U.S. specially we should move them to the U.S. article. -Will Beback 00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you know quite well that "I'm sure" is not a valid source for Wiki policy. The only country for which that list is undisputedly accurate is the U.S.

A source which shows that these terms are used -globally- (that is, not in a few countries, but all around the world) needs to be added, or these terms need to be put back with the U.S. section, or they need to be removed. Because they are used in the U.S., I'm going to put them back there until a source is provided which shows that they are used globally. -Psychohistorian 11:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime

The citation that is given for immigration lowering crime gives a link to a site with a defunct permalink to the article cited. The citation needs to be updated or removed. -Brenden 04:17, 6 October 2006

In fact, there is a link in the comment section of the page where someone directly challenges that assertion (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060312_sampson.htm). Otterboy 11:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions in U.S. material

The following was deleted, "n addition, illegal immigration has been linked to issues of border security and protecting the country against terrorists, although thus far there is no proof or evidence of such events occuring and is very unlikely, because most illegal aliens emigrate to the U.S. to increase their earning power. They do so by working the same jobs for less money than legal immigrants or U.S. citizens require, thereby deflating wages for unskilled legal laborers in U.S. This has enabled management and shareholders of corporate America to reap greater profits at the expense of the American working class. Hence, politicians are split over the controversy created by the illegal immigration crisis. Those politicians that are beholden to corporate America tend to side with the pro-illegal immigration movement and those politicians in favor of a living wage for working Americans tend to side with advocates of border security and legal immigration.

As crossing has been pushed into more desolate areas of the Arizona desert, the journey to find work in the United States has become much more hazardous for illegal immigrants.

Each year, numerous immigrants illegally flooding into the country become heat casualties of the arid Sonoran Desert. In 2005, the US Border Patrol reported finding 463 dead bodies of illegal immigrants. On behalf of a request made by Senator Jon Kyl, the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association calculated the cost of providing health services to illegal immigrants to approximately 31 million dollars in just one year. However, this does not take into account the millions of dollars that the illegal immigrants pay in sales taxes. The figure was given as a "bare minimum number", said the Association's John Rivers. The difficulty of the journey has prompted many immigrants who come for seasonal or temporary work to stay in the United States rather than face the difficult crossing to return home.

The Mexican government places the blame for these deaths largely on the numerous "coyotes" who abandon their passengers along the way. (In this context, a coyote is intended to mean one who, for a steep price, agrees to ferry illegal immigrants from Mexico into the heart of the state; see people smuggling). In an attempt to minimize the number of illegal immigrant deaths, t


Many proponents of illegal immigration see the flood of undocumented aliens as a benefit to Arizona's economy and workforce. Some see Mexico as a poor country that sends its tired, weak, and hungry to the United States for work. Mexico is ranked 87th by gross domestic product per capita.[13] While some people argue that the flood of illegal aliens has also accompanied a surge in crime, and has subsequently seen the prisons become even more overpopulated.[1]

Many illegal immigrants are members of Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTO) operating in the U.S. Mexican DTO's dominate the drug trade in the U.S. Approximately one third of the prison population is comprised of non-citizens[citation needed];

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, an immigration reductionist group, estimates that illegal immigration costs Arizona taxpayers approximately 1.3 billion dollars every year. However the study didn't take into account the billions paid in sales taxes by illegal immigrants[citation needed]. Current reports estimate the population of illegal aliens in Arizona to be nearly half a million. The U.S. Border Patrol reports stopping that many criminals crossing the border in just one year, highlighting the extremity of the problem at hand.

According to California Republican Michael D. Antonovich, a member of the Board of Supervisors for Los Angeles County, the county loses $1 billion a year due to the costs of illegal immigration. [14]

According to the Urban Institute, there are several myths associated with illegal immigration. One of them is that undocumented immigrants come to the United States to get welfare when, in fact, their undocumented status renders them ineligible for any form of government-issued benefits, including welfare, MedicAid and MediCare, and food stamps. Another myth is that undocumented immigrants do not pay taxes, when in fact they pay sales and property taxes (even when renting). Furthermore, the U.S. Social Security Administration has estimated that three quarters of undocumented immigrants pay income taxes, and that they contribute $6-7 billion in Social Security funds that they will be unable to claim due to their undocumented status. However, the validity of this was disputed greatly upon it's release.[citation needed]" due to multiple problems including lack of source, verbiage, POV, and inability to provide a balanced perspective without giving undue weight to the U.S. (the material is better handled in the Illegal immigration in the U.S. article). -Psychohistorian 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Op-eds

Op-eds cannot be used to make assertions of fact, and are not considered a reliable source for generic statements, such as the ones recently added . ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What I added recently were not Op-Eds. They were Borjas, a Harvard researcher, clarifying research he has done (and his source research is available on the web). They weren't opinions and the content in them is readily available. -Psychohistorian 22:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
it is an op-ed published in the New York times and should not be used to assert facts. These may be used as colateral material, if properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
An Op-Ed is a statement of opinion, not a description of one's research. This is a description of one's research.-Psychohistorian 23:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The Borjas articles are clearly written as op-ed pieces and one is even labelled as such. -Will Beback 23:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
"one is even labelled as such" that link has been removed and replaced with a link to a paper on the harvard.edu web server -Psychohistorian 00:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
If the others are not Op-Ed pieces then what are they? They are not regular reporting. At best they are essays. -Will Beback 00:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"If the others are not Op-Ed pieces then what are they?" I answered this question already. I quote, "An Op-Ed is a statement of opinion, not a description of one's research. This is a description of one's research." -Psychohistorian 00:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


<<<As long as it is attributed as an Op-ed, it can be included. Without it, reads as an assertion of fact instead of an opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no sense in attributing it as an Op-Ed when it isn't an Op-Ed. An Op-Ed, by definition, is an opinion. This isn't an opinion. -Psychohistorian 00:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me? An op-ed is the opinion of the author, and needs to be described as such. Read Op-ed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Even by that definition, its not an Op-Ed. Op-Eds are defined there as, "An editorial or op-ed is a statement or article by a news organization (generally a newspaper) that expresses the opinion of the news organization or one of its members. " Borjas is not a member of the newspaper, he's a Harvard professor. -Psychohistorian 00:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
.... that wrote a an op-ed piece in the New York Times... There are thousands of professors. If Borjas published a paper, article in a peer reviewed journal, or a book, that would be different. But if the material is from an op-ed, it is an opinion and needs to be described as such. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
So, your argument now is that it is an Op-ed because it was written by a Harvard professor who wrote an op-ed to the paper? You do know that that's a ludicrous argument, right? -Psychohistorian 00:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I have explained myself quite clearly, and do not intend to repeat myself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you have explained yourself quite clearly. You have presented your position as wanting to ignore how Wikipedia defines Op-Ed, wanting to ignore how it is defined in dictionaries (e.g., "Of or being a newspaper page, usually opposite the editorial page, that features signed articles expressing personal viewpoints. - American Heritage Dictionary), and wanting to create an entirely new definition out of original research so that you can label the writing of a Harvard professor clarifying years of his research as just an Op-Ed. -Psychohistorian 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It is presented as an opinion piece and was published on the NYT's opinion page. -Will Beback 01:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Huh? It was published by the NYT. That's all that it is presented as. Its not presented as an opinion piece. -Psychohistorian 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The only peices that the NYT runs from non-reporters are opinion pieces. Are you contending that Borjas was acting as a reporter for the NYT? -Will Beback 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] summary article

This is a summary article, meaning that each section which has a main article, needs to summarize the main article. The current version of the United Section, is just a bunch of POVs and does not represent a summary of the main article in illegale immigration to the US. These POVs cn be move to that article, if relevant. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have specifically made an attempt to prevent any POV from being presented without an oppossing POV to balance it and to keep both brief (which is why my original edit of this section was along the lines of "its a contentious issue, some (such as John Doe) say 'X', others, such as Jane Doe, say 'Y'" . The only time more content has been added in this regard is when you, yourself, demanded it by contesting content. I'd be quite happy to comment out substantiating material if you are going to stop demanding it be included. That would shorten the subsection. -Psychohistorian 14:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I have trimmed down some content. The section is now no longer than the section on the Economic Union or the section on Mexico.-Psychohistorian 14:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not about shortening the section. It is about summarizing the main article. As it stands it does work, as it is a bunch of opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
According to Princeton, an opinion is defined as 'a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?"' I object to your labelling things in this summary as opinions when they don't meet that definition (such as the Borjas quotes). You are attempting to denigrate or brush over the years of research he's spent on the subject as 'not founded on proof or certainty'. -Psychohistorian 14:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
While we're at it, let's discuss what a summary is. The content you keep putting back in the article is a discussion of what terms are used. That belongs in the terminology section of this article. The content I keep restoring is a brief discussion of the economic, criminal, and medical impacts of illegal immigration as well as a discussion of why it is such a contentious issue in the context of history. Now, look at the main article and what is it? Is it a lengthy discussion on what terms should be used? No. It is an exploration of the economic, criminal, and medical impacts of illegal immigration and a discussion of why it is such a contentious issue in the context of history. What you keep putting in this article is not only redundant with the terminology section and out of place (as it belongs in the terminology section), it is not a summary of the main article. -Psychohistorian 15:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Read Summary articles. This is a summary article, meaning that there are main articles that describe in detail the subject of each section. As such, you cannot create a new wording or a new text for this section! What is needed is to summarize in one or two sentences what the main article describes in it. It that simple. What it needs to say is that (a) it is a contentious issue; (b) it is highly political; and (c) there are competing viewpoints about the effects of such immigration. Period. Then,. let the reader go to the main article to read about thes issues. The "summary" you have written does not do that. It simply paints the anti-immigration POV, that yous so obvioulsy profess. It needs to be written in a neutral voice and summarize the dispute without describing it. Leave that to the mian article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm telling you! What you are putting in the section is not a summary. It does not provide a brief review of the content in the main article. It simply repeats content that belongs in the terminology section. To move this discussion forward, how about you provide in this discussion section (so that I have a better idea of what you are talking about) an example of an alternative POV to the -specific- parts of the subsection which you claim are anti-immigration POV? While you're at it, discuss the specific sections of the summary article guideline and in what -specific- way you think I'm violating it - not the vague accusations you are currently making. -Psychohistorian 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

First, stop using the edit summaries as a weapon, OK? Second, the burden is on you, not on me, as you have added that section: You have added that material that is NOT a summary of the main article. Summarize the main article, without pushing any POV, and we will be done. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it takes two to edit war and we're both guilty. There is no burden on me as I have no idea what your problem is. The content I've provided is a summary and you aren't able to explain specifically why its not.

Let's review history. I added content which disagrees with your politics. You deleted it as unsourced. I provided a source. You claimed it was an Op-Ed. I pointed out that doesn't fit the definiton of an Op-Ed and we reviewed several definitions for Op-Ed. It doesn't fit them. So, you created your own definition. Rather than continue pointing out what you were doing, I linked to the author's original research. You claimed it was just an opinion. I pointed out that a Harvard professor discussing years of his research is hardly just an opinion. You claimed that the section was too long. I pointed out that the reason it was so long was because you kept demanding more content and I commented out the content. You claimed it wasn't a summary. I pointed out that it describes, in brief, the economic, criminal, and medical issues of illegal immigration and why it is such a contentious subject just as the main article does. You replaced it with a discussion on terminology, despite the fact that the article already has a discusson on terminology. You claimed that it adds new terms, but are unable to tell me what terms you think it is adding that are new. You claim that it violates the description for summaries, but are unable to tell me specifically how it does so, you claim that it is anti-immigration POV because you are unable to provide a counter position to some of its points. Now you claim that, rather than telling me specifically how it is a violation of policy or POV, it is my responsibilty to read your mind and figure out why you think it is. Finally, you tell me not to use edit summaries as a weapon despite the fact that you have consistently made spurious claims in your edit summaries. In short, you are trying every possible tactic you can think of to have content removed from this article because it disagrees with your politics. Well, whether or not it agrees with your politics is the determiner for whether content belongs or doesn't belong in this article. -Psychohistorian 17:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Asserting that you know an editor's personal politics, and then saying that they made edits due to those personal biases, is very close to a personal attack. Please focus on the edits, not the editors. -Will Beback 20:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] non-compliant

This article lacks references and attributon to reliable sources. Most sections are written as an essay and are not encyclopedic in tone and in content, in violation of WP:OR. Some sections are clearly POV minefields and read as such. I have added the {{noncompliant}} tag, accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's another attempt to remove content which doesn't agree with your politics.

The standard approach here is to mark content with the [citation needed] tag and give people a chance to provide sources, then, if they don't do so (typically within a week), the content is removed. -Psychohistorian 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Before you accuse anyone about their politics, look in the mirror. The approach of {{fact}} is useful when the article has a few sentences that require citations. But when the whole article, or large portions of it is unattributed to reliable sources, the article needs to be tagged. Any article in Wikipedia that is misused to advance a position, that is not properly sourced, whose language and tone is not encyclopedic, deserves such a tag. As you can see, the article is now protected, as requested by me a few hours ago. This is an opportunity for reflection, and an opportunity to discuss and agree on how to resolve the issues I have stated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you for your politics. We've all got politics. I want the best for the poor (both American and Mexican) and am convinced that, in the long run, illegal immigraton hurts both. But while I've, regretfully, let my politics get in the way of writing a good article from time to time, the kind of dedicated and ongoing effort you've made in this article to make it confirm to your politics is something that should be avoided. And I'm still waiting for you to tell us what specifically is unreferenced in this article. Instead, you keep making vague criticisms so noone can respond. That's not productive. Saying that the U.S. section is unsourced, but not telling us what specfically about it is unsourced is a weak argument, Jossi. There are sources all through it.-Psychohistorian 20:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"I want the best for the poor" -- That is the problem: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for advocating any viewpoints, as noble as you may think these viewpoints are. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a soapbox" then stop trying to use it as one. My point earlier was that noone is perfect and we will fail and politics will slip in. The fact that your politics have slipped into your edits ("you" meaning you, Jossi) is only a problem because you are intent on having your politics continue to do so.-Psychohistorian 10:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to be civil it'd be best if you didn't accuse your fellow editors of political bias. Let's focus on the edits, not the editors. Thanks, -Will Beback 11:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced and not NPOV

Fully unreferenced sections
  • Causes of illegal immigration flux
  • Classification
  • Legal and political status
  • Economic and social involvement
  • European Union
Partially referenced sections
  • Methods
Not NPOV sections
  • United States


I propose stubbing the article to the bare minimum, i.e. keeping only material that is fully referenced. Those editors that wanty to find sources for the material that is unattributed to a reliable source, can look for it and re-add it. Note that the burden is on the editor wanting to add or keep material, not on the editor challenging text that is unattributed.

As for the United States section, it needs to provide an NPOV general summary of the subject and the controversy. Adding specific opinions from specific individuals are better left to the main article were these can be fully explored in an NPOV fashion.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Since we have an entire article on the U.S., perhaps we should delete this section and just leave a link to it. -Will Beback 20:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The last time I removed content and left a link was in the Illegal immigration in the United States article. Jossi burried the link at the bottom of the page on the grounds that it had no content. Some sort of summary content should remain in place to act as an anchor.

The question both of you are avoiding answering is what -specifically- is wrong with the current content.-Psychohistorian 20:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The "See also" section is not a burial ground. It is the appropriate location for listing related articles. -Will Beback 21:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is well below size limits. This section is an appropriate summary (noone has pointed out exactly what they see wrong with it). It is balanced with the global perspective (being the same length as the sections on the other parts of the world). In short, I see no reason to remove content. Until someone can point out what they think is specifically wrong with it, the article needs to stay the way it is.-Psychohistorian 23:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
There's too much duplication already between this article and the U.S. article. That can be fixed by eliminating the U.S.-specific material, both the section and the other material scattered throughout. -Will Beback 23:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Its a summary, that's why there's duplication. A summary which is all new content isn't a summary. -Psychohistorian 23:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I propse we make it a very short summary, if we need one at all. Let's draft a paragraph we can all agree on. Something not much more than, "Illegal immigration is a mjaor politicla and social issue in the United States." And then let's move out all of the U.S.-specific into to the U.S. article. Others have ommetned that this article is too U.S.-speciic anyway. -Will Beback 00:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to do just that several times, but was reverted by Psychohistorian . See Diff]. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for compromise and working together, but it has to start with you and Jossi telling us what -specifically- you think is wrong with the current summary. Others did comment that the article was too U.S. specific, but that was before I rewrote the U.S. section into a shorter and more balanced summary. The summary as it is now is the same length as the sections on the other parts of the world. If we shorten it to the length you want, then it will be the opposite of U.S. focused. it will be focused towards the other parts of the world. That's not balanced either. And, as Jossi points out, he's tried to do that several times already. What you are calling a 'compromise' is doing what Jossi has been trying to do and what I object to. I don't understand how you can call that a compromise.-Psychohistorian 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not use "telling us", because you can only speak for yourself. I have already expresed my opinon about that section: It needs to be an NPOV, summary of the main article, presenting the controvery without specific quotes from partisans por or con. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
We are not the only editors who use this discussion board. When I say "telling us", I mean all editors using the discussion board.

You claim, "it needs..", but you give no reason for why "it needs.." Provide that reason, because what it needs to be is a summary and that means summarizing the controversies - which it does. -Psychohistorian 00:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with a clean slate.
  • Illegal immigration is a mjaor political and social issue in the United States.
What more do we need to say then that? -Will Beback 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess you don't have a specific complaint about the current content seeing as how you are unable to state one.-Psychohistorian 00:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"We guys" have explained in clear terms what is wrong with your edit. I guess that you do not want to understand it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Illegal immigration is a highly contentious issue, with competing viewpoints related to the demographic, economic and socio-political impact of illegal immigrants, that have triggered a vigorous debate on these issues. See Illegal immigration to the United States. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Psychohistorian - have you detailed your complaints with Jossi's version? -Will Beback 00:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have. It is much shorter than sections which focus on the other parts of the world and, so, results in unbalanced focus on those other parts of the world. Also, its generally a bad idea to delete content when there is no reason to delete it.-Psychohistorian 00:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The reasons for deletion are very simple: unattributed and unsourced. The burden to supply reliable sources is on the editor wanting to keep or add material. This applies to these sections that have no sources as outlined above. Regarding the US section, it was poorly written, it presented specific opinions of protagonists (that are better left in the main article) rather than describing the controversy in general terms, and it is not an NPOV summary of the main article, Am I repeating myself enough'? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You keep making that claim and I have no choice but to ignore it because you don't say what specifically is unattributed and unsourced. You claim the US section is poorly written, but you have not said -why- it is poorly written or in what way it is poorly written. Its going to be easy to repeat yourself as long as you aren't saying anything. I've asked you for specifics. You haven't provided them. Do I need to ask again? How many times do -I- need to repeat myself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychohistorian (talk • contribs) 01:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC).

AGAIN:

Fully unreferenced sections
  • Causes of illegal immigration flux
  • Classification
  • Legal and political status
  • Economic and social involvement
  • European Union
Partially referenced sections
  • Methods
Not NPOV sections
  • United States

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

list the specific claims which you feel are unattributed and unsourced. -Psychohistorian 01:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

US section poorly written:

It presented specific opinions of protagonists (that are better left in the main article) rather than describing the controversy in general terms, and it is not an NPOV summary of the main article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not mentioning specific opinions would make the claims unsourced. As for NPOV, provide for this discussion an alternative, sourced claim which you feel would balance whatever claim you feel is not NPOV. That would go a long way towards helping me understand your problem with the article.-Psychohistorian 01:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the article is that 9o% of it is not attributable to a reliable source. The sections outlined above are without any reference. As for the US section, I have already provided a summary that can be expanded by others:
Illegal immigration to the United States is a highly contentious issue, with competing viewpoints related to the demographic, economic and socio-political impact of illegal immigrants, and has triggered a vigorous debate on these issues. [....] See Illegal immigration to the United States
Feel free to add to this without adding specific opinions, as these are better discussed and described in full in the main article for NPOV reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You have not explained what specifically is wrong with the U.S.section, so we haven't even gotten to step one of working towards a compromise.-Psychohistorian 01:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't want to understand, it seems, I have clearly explained it already, but here is another attempt: As a summary to the main article, it is better to describe the controversy in general terms and avoid quoting specific viewpoints. The resason is that there are many, various ,and competing viewpoints that cannot be fully explored in a summary. Thus, it is needed that we keep the summary generic and without specifc examples, leaving the full discourse, examples and opinions to the main article. Capishe? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I've asked you to "provide for this discussion an alternative, sourced claim which you feel would balance whatever claim you feel is not NPOV. That would go a long way towards helping me understand your problem with the article." You've not done so. You have not explained what specifically is wrong with the U.S. section, so we haven't even gotten to step one of working towards a compromise.-Psychohistorian 01:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it looks like you aren't going to do any work towards a compromise without some help, so let me break it down for you.

You object to the causes of immigration section. Let's start with that and work our way down. Here's the claims in the first paragraph..

  1. The international migration of people is largely driven by persons who leave perceived relative poverty and poor living conditions in their own country in hope of either acquiring a better paying job and/or a much better living condition in a new country.
  2. Nations experiencing extremes of weather, high levels of unemployment, civil war or violent political conflict, will often experience short term spikes in emigration.
  3. Poor conditions may be a result of nations that lag in stability, security, technological skills, organizational ability, lack resources, knowledge, or political will or cohesion to build a better-educated work force or a better economy.

Which of these do you dispute and what exactly do you dispute about them? -Psychohistorian 01:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Are we discussing the "Causes of immigration section"? if so, (1), (2) and (3) are unattributed to a reliable source. Find a reliable source that describes the causes of immigration to be such and you can keep that material. If no sources are provided that describe the causes of immgration in these terms, then they have to be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all content needs to have a reliable source. Do you believe these three statements are wrong? -Psychohistorian 10:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:V. All content must be verifiable from reliable sources. If material can't be verified it may be removed by any editor. -Will Beback 11:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, "Do not, however, remove statements that you believe to be both true and common knowledge, simply because they aren't sourced. Don't, for instance, remove a reference to "earth's elliptical orbit" simply because the writer has not supported the assertion that planetary orbits are elliptical." So, not all content needs to have a reliable source quoted. Which of these statements do you believe isn't common knowledge? -Psychohistorian 11:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This being a highly contentious and controversial topic, and views so widely different, that material can subtly support a specific viewpoint. To avoid these problems, we use in these case not our opinions (or what we believe to be common knowledge), but the opinion of reputable experts that have been published in reliable sources. If these points are indeed common knowledge, as you assert, then there will be not one but many sources that describe the causes of immigration to be such. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Wait, first in your list, you didn't list this particular section as being one that you think has POV problems. Now, you say, "that material can subtly support a specific viewpoint", so you think it does have POV problems? As you've done above, you are bouncing objections all over the place and your objections are inconsistent. I want to work towards compromise, but how can I do that when you aren't even consistent in what you think is wrong with the article (other than some vague criticism)? -Psychohistorian 16:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Straw man arguments will not help here. The problems with this article an specifically with the US section, have been explained clearly. If there is anything you do not understand about these objections, you can ask. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
First you didn't include this section as haviing POV problems, then you said it does. That's not a straw man argument (unless you are creating your own definition for a word to make it fit the way you want to use it again?) If anything is becoming more and more clear here, its not what your objection is to the current content. -Psychohistorian 20:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There are TWO issues: the lack of sources for the sections stated above, and the summary article issue about the US section. Don't mix these. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged POV in the U.S. section

Again, to move the discussion forward, we'll break this section down so that you can pinpoint where the bias is. We'll start with the first paragraph.

"Illegal immigration issue has been a longstanding issue in the United States spewing immense controversy."

Do you think that's biased? -Psychohistorian 11:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will not take this path, of you asking me to assess each sentence in your edit to assess if it is neutral or not. That would be the same if I asked you this:
To move the discussion forward, please pinpoint were the bias is in my proposed wording: "Illegal immigration to the United States is a highly contentious issue, with competing viewpoints related to the demographic, economic and socio-political impact of illegal immigrants, and has triggered a vigorous debate on these issues. [....]
So, the resolution is, yet again, in summarizing the main article Illegal immigration to the United States into one or two sentences. I think that what I started above is good, you can help by adding a second sentence and we will be done. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You mean, your proposed resolution is to summarize it into one or two sentences. I've already stated that that would unbalance the article towards parts of the world other than the U.S. The U.S. section needs to be equal in length to the sections on the other parts of the world for the sake of balance. See, I've pinpointed the problem with your proposed version. Again, you've not pinpointed the problem with the article as it is now.

If we don't compromise and work together, the article will stay locked and we won't be able to edit it. Since neither one of us wants that, the question is are you going to start compromising or are you going to pretend to compromise by proposing versions which are exactly what you've always wanted and which I've objected to all along? And are you going to start stating what you specifically object to or are you going to continue to make vague complaints? I'm trying to help you pin down your objection, but, as you've said, "I will not take this path". So, I think your unwillingness to work together here is clear.-Psychohistorian 16:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If compromise is "do it my way", then I am not game. I have proposed alternatives, but you have rejected these. I have eloquently stated my objections, to which you are only responding with straw man arguments. Anyone reading this exchange will clearly see what the problem is with this article: lack of sources, lack of attribution, non-encyclopedic tone, and original research in many sections ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


And if you actually read my proposal, you would see that I have left it open for you. I provided one sentence for the US section, and asked you to add another one or two. You may want to check the main article and find material that can be used in these additional sentenced for the summary in this article. Note that these need to be generic enough to provide a summary of the article, without asserting any particular viewpoint. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"asked you to add another one or two" One or two would not result in equal weight in the article being given to the U.S. as is given to the other parts of the world. We are reaching an impasse. You won't tell me what you think is specificaly wrong with this article and you keep chaning what you claim is wrong with this article and you aren't processing my statement that the U.S. section needs to be equal in weight to the sections on the other parts of the world. Further, you keep proposing as a 'compromise' a version which is exactly what I've been against from the beginning and which you've wanted from the beginning.-Psychohistorian 13:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The argument of "weight" is not valid, as we have a full article on the subject. Other countries' sections, if they have a main article, can be reduced. If they do not have a main article, then these sections can be more substantial than the others. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Also note that "compromise" is not an appropriate path to resolve this dispute. There are basic principles that this article is violating, as profusely described above, and there is no editor's compromise or consensus that can be negotiated to supersede these principles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jossi. It isn't necessary to have the U.S. section equal to the others because we have an entire article on the U.S. Furthermore, as it is currently written, much of the article deals with U.S. issues, which I hope we can corrected once the protection is lifted. -Will Beback 18:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Will, that's not how I interpret policy. The way I interpret policy is that we should strive for the content to be balanced at each level of detail. Please link to the policy statement which supports your claim.

Jossi, so you don't want to compromise and you can't point out how this article violates policy without either being either vague or being inconsistent. I was hoping you'd make an effort towards dispute resolution.-Psychohistorian 11:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Straw-man arguments seldom work, Psychohistorian. I have made several proposals for moving forward and explained in detail what is wrong with this article. Just read above, there is no need to repeat these arguments, but just in case: (a) Most sections in the article are un attributed to reliable sources and (b) the US section, as we have a full article on the subject, needs to be of two or three sentences that summarizes that article, without asserting one viewpoint or another. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
And, as I have pointed out consistently, what you have pointed out as problems with the article are very vague and change whenever you are pressed to be specific (for example, you said that the problem with one section was that it was all unsourced, then when pressed, were unable to say that a specific part of that section required a source and, instead, changed your complaint to saying that the section had POV problems). The only times your are specific about your objections lead to you contradicting yourself, so, instead, you try to be as vague as possible. You can't reasonably expect what you perceive as problems to be resolved when you are deliberatly vague about what you think those problems are.-Psychohistorian 14:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

AGAIN:

Fully unreferenced sections

These sections are in their entirety not attributed to a reliable source. Unless sources are provided to support the statements contained in this section in a reasonable time period, these sections will be deleted. See WP:V

  • Causes of illegal immigration flux
  • Classification
  • Legal and political status
  • Economic and social involvement
  • European Union
Partially referenced sections

This section is partially referenced an partially not. Unless sources are provided to support these statements a reasonable time period, the unreferenced statements in this section will be deleted. See WP:V

  • Methods
Sections that have a main article

This section is about a subject that has a full article in Wikipedia. As per Wikipedia:Content forking, this section needs to provide a summary of the main article, without asserting any specific view points. The mmain article's lead can be a good start. If the lead of the main article is not a good summary (it should), then a summary can be written

  • United States

This is as specific as needed at this stage. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

AGAIN: As per WP: Reliable sources, not all claims require sources. Scroll back. We've been over this material. I already quoted this policy. You can't delete the content before the question of which policy is going to be used is settled unless you plan to abuse your admin priveleges as you have in the past. "this section needs to provide a summary of the main article, without asserting any specific view points", it doesn't assert any specific view point, so there's no problem there. -Psychohistorian 11:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Another reason why a simple link to the other article is not sufficient is in the policy quoted below starting with "Summary style is based on the premise.."

The length of content in a summary is explained in the policy below which states, "..and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place." The structure of a summary article is explained below in the policy which states, "every main section of the article is reduced in size". The way to resolve POV disputes is listed in the policy quoted below saying "..The remedy is to add to the article - not to subtract from it." Whether suppressing facts outright (as you want to do) is a viable means of resolving POV disputes is stated in the policy below which states, "Many groups would prefer that certain facts be..suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to." -Psychohistorian 14:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

More straw man arguments? These are useless. No one is arguing for "supressing facts". All what is being asked is that sources need to be found for large portions of the article. Do that, and all the material can stay. Cannot/would not do that, the m aterial will be indeed deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You wrote on October 13th..
Not NPOV sections
  • United States

Now you write "All what is being asked is that sources need to be found for large portions of the article" and "All of that is good, but the dispute is not about that, but about the lack of attribution to reliable sources to large portions of this article." This is another example of you being inconsistent. You said before that the problem was with POV, now you say that's not the problem - that the problem is lack of sources. So, which is it? Again, we can't address your problems with this article if you are unable to consistently and specifically state what they are. I ask you once more to state specifically what you think the problem with this article is. Once you've done that, we can start to address your concerns.-Psychohistorian 14:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming very tedious. I have stated several times what are are the problems with this article. For the nth time, here it is, in case that you missed it, or did not pay attention:
Fully unreferenced sections
These sections are in their entirety not attributed to a reliable source. Unless sources are provided to support the statements contained in this section in a reasonable time period, these sections will be deleted. See WP:V
  • Causes of illegal immigration flux
  • Classification
  • Legal and political status
  • Economic and social involvement
  • European Union
Partially referenced sections

This section is partially referenced an partially not. Unless sources are provided to support these statements a reasonable time period, the unreferenced statements in this section will be deleted. See WP:V

  • Methods
Sections that have a main article
This section is about a subject that has a full article in Wikipedia. As per Wikipedia:Content forking, this section needs to provide a summary of the main article, without asserting any specific view points. The mmain article's lead can be a good start. If the lead of the main article is not a good summary (it should), then a summary can be written
  • United States

These are the concerns raised. Rather than repeating straw man arguments, please address these and we can move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Its going to get a lot more tedious unless you start actually answering the question, by which I mean you stop moving the goal posts and stop being vague. What you just cut and pasted (that is, :;Sections that have a main article
This section is about a subject that has a full article in Wikipedia. As per Wikipedia:Content forking, this section needs to provide a summary of the main article, without asserting any specific view points. The mmain article's lead can be a good start. If the lead of the main article is not a good summary (it should), then a summary can be written
  • United States

) directly contradicts your statement that "the dispute is not about that, but about the lack of attribution to reliable sources to large portions of this article." Your incessant unwillingness to specify what your objection is is only proving my point that you don't have a legitimate problem with the article and are just throwing up vague objections in the hope that something sticks.-Psychohistorian 15:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My objection is very clearly stated. Please make an effor to understand. The material in the sections outlined above lack references for all the text in the section (one section is parially referrenced) The material in thes sections needs to be attributed to a reliable source. If it can be attributed to a reliable source, it can stay. If it does not, it canot stay, as per WP:V. That do you do not understand about that simple statement? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Your objection is very clearly repeated, but has never been clearly stated. I've been making an effort to understand, please make an effort to express your specific objection and to do so consistently. So, now you are saying that when you said, "All what is being asked is that sources need to be found for large portions of the article", you didn't actually mean "All what is being asked" and when you wrote, "All of that is good, but the dispute is not about that.." you didn't actually mean there was no dispute about that. Is that right?-Psychohistorian 15:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two issues:
  1. Sections that are not based/attributed/sourced to a reliable source. These are outlined above. Sources need to be provided within a reasonable period of time, otherwise the material will be deleted as per WP:V
  2. The US section (or any other sections) that have a main article in Wikipedia. These sections need to provide a good summary in several paragraphs. The summary needs to be a good one, and it needs to avoid asserting a specific viewpoint, as that is better done in the related main article.
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let's address your objections to the US section first.

Specifically,

  1. this section needs to be several paragraphs in length (can we agree, as a rule of thumb, it should be the same length as the other sections on the other parts of the world - which are also several paragraphs in length?),
  2. this section needs to describe the different subsections of the main article (as per policy, "every main section of the article is reduced in size, keeping to the 'space and balance' principle"),
  3. this section needs to avoid asserting any specific viewpoint.

Are there any other qualities you think are required for this section?-Psychohistorian 16:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding (1), no. The section needs to be of several paragraphs summarizing the article and in no relation to the size of other sections, as these sections may not have a main article. If there is a main article for any of these sections, it needs to be summarized in several paragraphs as well.
Regarding (2), no. The summary needs to be a summary of the article in broad terms, not necessarily a section by section summary. Describe in a few paragraphs the controversy and main points explored in the main article. Note that the main article is also tagged as POV, so it may be better to fix that first.
Regarding (3). Yes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have specific policy which you can quote which supports your position regarding (1)? Your position on (2) appears to directly contradict the 'space and balance' principle for writing summaries? -Psychohistorian 16:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll take your silence as a response in the negative on points 1 and 2. So, I must presume that your issue with the article is not whether it adheres to policy, but that you just don't like the style in which it is written. As for 3, I agree that this section needs to avoid asserting any viewpoint. Fortunately, it doesn't assert any viewpoint, so that's a dead issue. -Psychohistorian 18:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant policies

It is my hope that this section will contain only references to Wiki policy so that we can have some basic framework on which to build our resolution of our dispute.

  • Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs;[Wikipedia:Summary style]
  • When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place.[Wikipedia:Summary style]
  • An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial]
  • The NPOV way of splitting articles is explained in Wikipedia:Content forking: every main section of the article is reduced in size, keeping to the "space and balance" principle as explained above, and an equal number of sub-pages is created using a technique as explained in Wikipedia:Summary style.[]
  • Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to. [Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial] -Psychohistorian 14:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
All of that is good, but the dispute is not about that, but about the lack of attribution to reliable sources to large portions of this article. As fo the references to summary article, we are in agreement: Several paragraphs summarizing the main article are needed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The relevant policies are WP:V, that reads Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources.. The summary article issue is not a policy but a guideline, based on common sense: summary articles can be created and these should contain a summary of the main article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Native Mexicans


Something that most white people tend to forget when talking about illegal immigration is that ALL white people were at one point illegal immigrants. White people are not indigenous to the Americans and therefore deserve NO CLAIM on the land. Mexicans are the other hand, are BY DEFINITION a mix of Native American (or Indian as they call themselves) and Spanish. Mexicans are BY DEFINITION 50% Native American (the American term here referring to the continent) and 50% Spanish and thereby predate any White or Anglo Saxon immigration. If white people, who have no claim to the land now known as the United States, can cross an ocean of more than 2,000 miles and not only slaughter the indigenous people (trail of tears anyone? General Custer?) who is to say that Mexicans, who are by definition the children of indigenous people have absolutely no right to cross an imaginary line drawn by people who have no claim to the land.

Technically, even Native Mexicans were immigrants at one point. But that's beside the point now. Things were not the same then as they are now. This argument gets more into the semantics of what defines 'property' and who owns it. The fact is, the US government is who says that Mexicans 'have absolutely no right to cross an imaginary line'. They control the land and therefore can dictate who can or cannot enter, regardless of who was 'there first'. Otterboy 09:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Something that many people in your camp tend to forget, Otterboy, is that the Mexican people tend to treat the actual natives far far worse than the US does (why do people find it so hard to believe that a nation which speaks a European language, practices a European religion, whose ancestors decimated the original people in one of the most brutal campaigns in the history of the new world, and has a European style of government which continues to persecute the indigenous people isn't native?). Sure, the Aztlan types like to pretend that they have a cultural heritage which goes back to before the Spanish invasion, but if you actually look at what their culture is, you see very little of that (certainly no more than you see in the United States). If you look at the people who do retain that cultural heritage within Mexico, you see them suffering discrimination at a level which makes the US look downright holy by comparison[15]. The Aztlan claim is pure crap and completely unjustified.-Psychohistorian 11:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, if the line is purely imaginary, as you claim, then maybe the US should ignore it and move troops into Mexico to ensure that the indigenous peoples' human rights are respected. -Psychohistorian 12:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
On the levels that Republican congressmen have voted to fund border security, the line might as well be imaginary. Someone had to pay people to come here, no one is going to emigrate to a place where they don't get paid. Someone had to look the other way and underfund immigration enforcement, and those someones were people that you and I voted into office. It's our border, if we don't respect our own border, who the hell else will? This has been going on for years, and now the same people who ignored this problem want to make an issue of it? We're going to adopt Nazi-style forced deportations for people that our businessmen paid, no, practically bribed, to evade the laws we didn't want to pay to enforce? Puh-leeze. Ain't happening.
if you actually look at what their culture is, you see very little of that How far have you been inside Mexico, Ensenada? The last time I went, I had problems communicating in some places I visited because a lot of the people where I went were speaking Tarascan. You're just getting your information off web pages if you imagine that there's little indigenous culture left in Mexico. Mexico is about as Spanish as the US is English. The 50% native american figure given above is BS, it's more like 75%, and a lot of the rest is Arab and Asian. Tubezone 13:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the CIA fact book[16]. The primary language is Spanish, the primary religion is Roman Catholic followed distantly by Protestant, the primary ethnic group is Mestizo (which is a mixture of European, African, and indigenous), its legal system is western, its political system is western, its economic system is western. That's all -western- culture. Sure, there are some areas where the native culture is still present, but if you've been to those areas (such as Chiapas), then you know how Mexicans treat the actual indigenous isn't humane.-Psychohistorian 13:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I originally meant people in general. Land bridge kind of thing. And the first paragraph wasn't me. I was responding to it. Otterboy 14:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
And people wonder why the CIA has so many intelligence failures. They can't even get Mexico right ,or at least in proper detail. Mexico's legal system and land laws specifically respect traditional indigenous practices. See: Constitution of Mexico, which in its original 1857 version was written mostly by Benito Juarez, a full-blood Zapotec . Tianguis and Ejidos are not western traditions. Spanish was imposed on Mexico as it was on the Phillipines, it's not the native language and at least 10% of Mexicans speak native languages. (I speak English, but I'm hardly an Englishman, fact is, I'm a bit proud that some of my ancestors pillaged Yorkshire) Mestizo in the Mexican context is mostly Native American. African? Perhaps a little, Vicente Guerrero was part African, but that's not common. Most Mexicans are Catholics, no doubt, but the practice of Catholicism in Mexico certainly has features to it that are unique to Mexico. See: Virgin of Guadalupe. (The practice of Judaism in Mexico has unique features, too, but I digress) The Asian and Arab influence in Mexico shouldn't be discounted, the richest guy in Mexico, Carlos Slim is Lebanese, so's Salma Hayek, and it's hard to find a decent size Mexican city without a Chinese restaurant. Rather than speculating based on web info, y'awta practice a little Spanish and do some original research, it's fun and indecently cheap. There's like 300,000 expatriate Americans living in Mexico, go to San Miguel de Allende and hang out with a few. I'm sure the experience would broaden your perspective. Yes, I've been to plenty of places where native culture is prevalent, like Oaxaca, Guerrero and Michoacan. then you know how Mexicans treat the actual indigenous Oxymoron. Mexicans are indigenous. Tubezone 15:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is that we should ignore what authorities such as the CIA have to say about the subject and just listen to someone who claims to have an emic perspective? Other than that, everything you wrote just supports what I've been writing and which actual verifiable authorities have wrote - that Mexico is primarily culturally European. -Psychohistorian 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I promised ≈ jossi ≈ I'd shut up, but, yes, a bit of emic perspective is a good thing. The CIA has been known to f--- up on occasion, and they're not going to put the juicy stuff or anything besides very barebones information on their web site. If you want believe Mexican culture is primarily European, or even Hispanic, go ahead, it's a free country. Isn't it? Tubezone 17:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll believe verifiable sources. You can believe whatever you want to.-Psychohistorian 17:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a political affair

The indigenous affair is obviously a political one, so that stupid people don't have resources for make a census properly. see.

   http://cdi.gob.mx/index.php?id_seccion=660

They get the picture for say "Hey, see us!! we love our indigenous!" btw. they add something like "yeah, we are proud of our spanish heritage, but <somos más mexicanos que el nopal>" and lasting whith sounding "no somos como estos pinches indios rascuaches, da vergüenza verlos".

[edit] Talk-page discipline

Please discuss the article and not the subject. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I've said my dos centavos and will shut up. Tubezone 15:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. As long as people don't come in here and try to pass off unverifiable content which directly contradicts verifiable claims by experts, I see no need to reply to them. -Psychohistorian 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On illegal immigration and illegal immigrants

Legality is a property of acts, not of people, just as much as moisture level is a property of objects, not of ideas.

Thus:

  • unauthorized acts, such as crossing a border in a manner not permitted by law, may be illegal acts, and even crimes; but
  • people cannot be ilegal

In other words, the phenomenon we refer to as illegal immigration can definitely be called "illegal immigration", because it's immigration and it's illegal. But extending those words to label people who commit illegal immigration "illegal aliens" is not, I think, even a "feature" supported by the English language. It's a perversion of concept.

Even if you're breaking 25 laws at the same time, that doesn't make you an "illegal" whatever, it just makes you a criminal, felon, or trespasser. Not illegal.

This, I think, is a distinction that goes a long way toward helping this article being NPOV.

A burglar is a person who has committed an illegal act so do you propose calling him or her an uninvited house guest? The analogy is exactly the same as opposition to "illegal person." The basis for no person being illegal is merely the tenuous fact that presence of an illegal alien is a civil, not criminal, act. Law may well change in the near future to criminalize illegal presence. The 'no illegal person' argument is a tremendous overreach. Should our police policy be "You are free to go Mr. Bank Robber because the police only saw you in the bank vault at 2 AM, they did not see you break in." It's goofy, of course, but that is the analogy as it relates to immigration law. To base the controversy over illegal immigration terminology on such a distinctive overreach is a huge injustice to the English language.

I also want to make two small (and politically biased) contributions here:

  • A similar perversion of concepts happens in the domain of ideas: It's just the same when interested parties equate "downloading MP3" with "robbing". No matter how much information monopolists would want us to believe that copying music is robbing, it just will never be, because for a robbery to take place, the original owner of the property must no longer have it in his possession.
  • The compound term "illegal alien" most definitely exists and was invented to promote hatred and fear of foreigners (xenophobia). Anyone who disagrees is freely welcome to disagree with me -- just leave it as a comment. But, if you think I'm wrong, that I already think you live in la-la-land, so you better make sure to write up a knowledgeable response.
Please focus on the article, not on your uninformed opinion of law and history. What is important here is what is verifiable, not what you think the law is or what you think the English language should be.-Psychohistorian 11:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I am glad you are learning the ropes, Psychohistorian. Just remember that civility is also expected from editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, by all means, likewise you should just remember that "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another" is an example of what not to do. -Psychohistorian 14:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OWN?

The article just came of of protection and you are already edit warring. The US section needs to be a summary of the main article. Go fix that article first and then come back and write a summary for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It just came out of protection and you immediately edited it to a disputed version. If you want to argue that anyone is violating the WP:OWN, I can make a suggestion where the finger should be pointed. The content which has been on this page for weeks is a summary and you've never been able to argue coherently for why it isn't.-Psychohistorian 16:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ther is no agreed status quo. Go fix the US article and then summarize it here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The issue is 'what is wrong with the summary of the US in this article?'

We can discuss the US article in its own discussion page.-Psychohistorian 17:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rm copy edit tag?

I've just done extensive copy editing, you may want to look at the page to determine whether the copy edit tag should come off. I suspect there are still problems that I didn't catch, though. Thanks, delldot | talk 07:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I find a number of issues with your copy edit. I haven't reviewed your entire copy edit in detail, but what follows are my first impressions. One, the first part seems to focus on immigrants instead of illegal aliens. Immigrants are a much broader scope and what is true for immigrants may not be true for illegal aliens. The article needs to be refocused onto illegal aliens. Two, several times in the US section you mark something with [citation needed] when the source is right there. Three, "Third world countries also have higher incidences of various serious communicable diseases" and "illegal aliens do not undergo health screenings before entering the U.S" are these statements really in question?-Psychohistorian 20:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that about how that section mainly talks about plain old immigration too. I didn't add that material, I was mainly just copy editing. Though i did add a sentence or two into that section. Maybe that material needs to be changed or removed and merged into immigration. About the {{fact}} templates, any edits I made that you don't like feel free to change, and then we can discuss it if there's some serious disagreement about what should be done. I'd tend to err on the side of finding a source for something though, rather than just assuming it's common knowledge. But it's up to you and other interested folks. Peace, delldot | talk 00:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borjas removed

I remove the material attributed to Borjas. That is better suited for the main article. This section needs to provide a concise summary of that article, and not advance a specific viewpoint of one person or another. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that they need to be readded as the statements by the two economists whom you removed did a good job of succinctly describing the heart of the debate (which is "who benefits/who is harmed"). I'll wait until tomorrow to readd them as I'd like to see some feedback from others.-Psychohistorian 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
No need to have a specifc viewpoint in the summary. List the controvery and let the main article explore the different viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
These two quotes succinctly describe the controversy without pushing a viewpoint -Psychohistorian 17:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
They certainly push the POV of Mr. Borjas. The summary needs to be a summary. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jossi. We shouldn't have any direct quotes or attributed viewpoints in a summary. All we need to indicate is the range of opinion and the principle issues. -Will Beback 11:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
"We shouldn't have any direct quotes or attributed viewpoints in a summary." There's no policy which states that. It would have been more accurate for you to say "I don't like that quote". And, again, there's no viewpoint being expressed. Borjas is describing why the issue is so socially charged, that's all. -Psychohistorian 12:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
There are no polices for every detail, but we have some good guidelines such as Wikipedia:Content forking. Borjas is describing his viewpoint, and this is a summary of the main article, in which the viewpoints on many people and institutions are described. This summary needs to be an overview, and not the space to assert one viewpoint or another. You may want to consult other editors, if you wish, but that is the expected approach on a section that summarizes a main article, in particuar one such as this. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Show me an opinion/viewpoint of a highly respected authority (it doesn't have to be a Harvard economist, but something like that) which contradicts Borjas' viewpoint. That will help me identify what you think Borjas' viewpoint is and, thereby, help me see your point.-Psychohistorian 15:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You are missing the poin (pun not intended). I am not judging Borjas' viewpoint to be this or that. Simply, given that we have a pretty substantial main article, the summary contained in this article should be simply that: a summary, that does not assert any specific viewpoint, or any one formulation of these viewpoints. Just a good summary. Summary: "a brief statement that presents the main points in a concise form." See what Will is saying above.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you are the one missing the point. The point is that these quotes succinctly summarize the debate in society wrt illegal immigration. As its better, in the interest of avoiding OR, to use quotes, quotes which succinctly summarize the issue are good for a summary to have. Since noone is able to provide a contrasting POV from an equally notable source, POV isn't even an issue.-Psychohistorian 16:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

<<<Nope, I do not buy that, for the arguments already presented. If you cannot write a summary of the debate, that does not mean that it cannot be done. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It -has- been done. It has been done by a couple of highly respected economists one of whom has the name Borjas. But you seem to prefer original research to using a quote from a noted authority on the issue. -Psychohistorian 19:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, the issue we are discussing is not the reputability of Mr. Borjas. What we are discussing is how to summarize the controversy surrounding Illegal immigration to the United States. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this is becoming really tedious. Consider listening to two fellow editors that agree that your idea of citing Borjas in this summary is not the best way to do it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In writing an encyclopedia, our job is to summarize information, not to cut and paste quotations. Summaries are not original research, they are the opposite. The need to summarize is particularly accute in sections which summarize another article. -Will Beback 22:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In writing an encyclopedia, especially Wikipedia, our number one job is to abide by the three core policies. Quotes abide by those three core policies. The further we move from quotes, the more we are using original research. That's against the three core policies. And, Jossi, I consider you and Will to be compromised in your ability to write NPOV on this subject. That's why I'm hammering this issue. -Psychohistorian 12:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you considered the possibility that you may be compromised as much as anyone elase? We all have our points of view. But that is not what is being discussed here (and I would kindly suggest you drop discussing your assessemnt of editors POVs). The issue here is that you are not listening. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, I've considered it. The difference is, I actually provide reasons for my position which are grounded in policy. You two don't.-Psychohistorian 15:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You may want to read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. That may be what you are doing here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you aren't intentially trying to violate NOR and NPOV. Maybe you are just ignorant of those policies. You may want to read them.-Psychohistorian 18:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
What violations of NOR and NPOV have occurred, specifically? -Will Beback 22:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I am not ignorant of policies. I know these policies almost by heart, afer 2 1/2 years in Wikipedia and and tens of thousands of edits. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
So, then, do you insinuate that anyone who points out that you aren't abiding by policy may be wikilawyering or does it have to be in an article that you are biased about?-Psychohistorian 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Psychohistorian, can you please specificy which material in the section violates NOR and NPOV? Thanks, -Will Beback 01:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

From the thread of discussion above, Psychohistorian (talk • contribs) is (a) not willing to accept the fact thathe has a strong POV on the subject, but sees the oppposing POV on any other editor that does not concurr with him; and (b) He is not willing to listen and respond to well presented arguments, and rather prefers to engage in endless discussions while acussing other editors of bias, while ignoring his. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Then you aren't reading the discussion above (no surprise, really). I know I have a bias. I've mentioned my bias in other discussion pages. The difference between you and I is that when its pointed out that I'm not abiding by policy, I correct it. When its pointed out to you that you aren't abiding by policy, you bring up wikilawyering. And I will listen to well presented arguments, you just have never presented one. In fact, you seem to refuse to present one. Repeating your point, Jossi, isn't the same as presenting it well.-Psychohistorian 21:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somthing to Remember

Somthing needs to be said about the difference between the "coyotes" who take people across the Mexican-US border for a fee and the Mexicans who come over to make money. There is a bit of dirt in the whole coyote business since it's both difficult and dangerous. Many Mexicans die even before they see the Rio Grande. The desert kills them by the lack of water and food. They usually hire a guide (the coyote is an experienced Mexican who knows tricks of survival) who will help them across the border into the US. I guess its a lot like the people who helped the slaves escape were vilified by the law. In some sense this is almost the same thing, this persecution of those who help the Mexicans cross the border. One thing is still true:Not every chicano is an illegal and not every chicano is legal resident. Keep this in mind.

Please see the Chicano article. Chicano or Chicana is a term one uses to self-identify, not a label that can be placed on a person by someone else. In the United States, most of those who self identify as Chicano or Chicana are U.S. Citizens. The term has a different meaning in Mexico. - Chicaneo 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FALSE "FACTS" AND POOR ANALYSIS IN THIS ARTICLE

This account of illegal migration is quite frankly so inadequate that I think it should be deleted. It is predominantly ethnocentric [i.e. USA + Western European opinion] and full of false information -- suich as Spain has 1m African illegal immigrants. Furthermore, the causes of illegal immigration into the developed woirld are not linked with malfunctioning labour markets and other issues of global capitalism. Most illegal immigrants find work, which is why they risk their lives sometimes, as in crossing seas and rivers. However, the majority of illegal immigrants are actually legal immigrants, who work illegally. In other words, they are technically tourists. All of the major scientific research concludes this: where is your discussion of tourism as a problem?? --62.103.147.55 13:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I respect your opinion and agree with almost all of what you posted, but the goal here is to transition the article into a "NPOV", not deleted. This topic has been a "hot" one. --Moreau36 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Health consequences / US section

I though that is has been cleary explained: that the section on the US needs o be a summary of the main article. Instead, editors are adding specific viewpoints. That is not acceptable for all the reasons already discussed. We can have a paragraph that says "the controversy about illegal immigration to the US include assertions that such immigration has hidden medical consequences, which some sources describe as serious" and leave it at that. then, in the main article, explore all viewpoints related to illegal immigration and health. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a reliable source which says something counter to the provided article, the "controversy" doesn't exist. The attempt to say it does is an attempt to add a "specific viewpoint" (mainly, that such a controvery exists) and, what's more, a specific viewpoint which seems to be based on original research. Editors need to not be doing that.-Psychohistorian 19:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
That can be explored in the main article. We need to avoid maing a specif case in this summary. We could say: "Issues related to illegal immigration to the US include assertionsthat such immigration has hidden medical consequences, which somesources describe as serious". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with "Issues related to illegal immigration to the US include research showing that such immigration has hidden medical consequences including diseases such as polio, the plague, and drug-resistant tb, which some sources describe as serious". That statement is precise, backed by reseach (instead of just an assertion - the guy sitting next to you at a bar can make an assertion, there's a difference between him and several researchers stating similar findings in peer reviewed medical journal), and most importantly does not obfuscate verifiable facts.-Psychohistorian 12:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See Also Section

Psychohistorian, from reviewing the history tab, it appears that you are currently the primary editor of the illegal immigration article. So in light of this observation I want to discuss a few things before I make corrections.

(1) Why is "Rule of Law" a link? What relevance does it have to this article?

(2) Why is "Filibuster (military)" a link? What relevance does it have to this article?

(3) Why is "Mexico" a link in this section? There is already a link to Mexico in the text of the article, and the link is probably more appropriate in the text anyway.

If there aren't good reasons for these links to be in the "See Also" Section, then they are unsuitable, and for the sake of this article's integrity, they should be removed. Agree?

(4) Regarding my Elvira Arellano edit, I stand corrected.

-- Chicaneo 20:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add any of those links and I hadn't looked at them until you just brought them up. I think they're problematic (in the sense that I can kinda see a reason for them being there and see a reason for them not to be there - not that I necessarily agree with either side). I think the problem with linking every possible article, no matter how tenuous, to the article is that you end up with a very long list of articles and the ones which are more tightly relevant get lost in the weeds. As such, I believe that all three links can be removed from that section as their respective content is already referenced in the body of the article and their respective links should more properly be there as well (the filibuster topic doesn't have its own subheading, but probably should). But that's just my opinion. While I'm flattered by you directing that question to me, this article is a collaborative work grounded on policy and collective opinion. Mine is only one such opinion. -Psychohistorian 12:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Very well then, I'll remove the discussed links from this collaborative effort. — Chicaneo 14:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Racism

Victor Davis Hanson, neo-conservative historian and author of "Mexifornia: A State of Becoming" has argued that "undocumented worker" is a euphemism or politically correct term for "illegal alien." He states: "'undocumented worker,' for example, is the politically correct synonym for ‘illegal alien.’ [2]. David Ray, of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) a proponent of immigration reduction, has also criticized the use of the phrase “undocumented immigrant”. He states: “referring to an illegal alien as an ‘undocumented immigrant’ is "like calling a bank robbery an 'unauthorized withdrawal.'" [3]

That was on the actual Wikipedia page, but when removed the racist comment went with it, being totally new to Wikipedia I'm not quite sure what just happened.

Please explain your case for this being racist before removing it. It has been in the article for awhile and I, personally, (as apparently do the majority of editors) see nothing wrong with it. You might have a valid point, but please make it before deleting sourced content.-Psychohistorian 19:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
While up there it said something a lot different, I'm actually not quite sure why that happened, to tell you the truth. I didn't save exactly what was seen on the page, though.
Hey User:KyleAshcraft don't worry about it. **it happens. Just remember to sign your posts. You can do this by clicking on the four tildes in the box underneath the "Save Page" button. Also, leave a message on the talk page if you believe that justification for your changes will be necessary, for instance if you believe that someone will challenge them. If any major changes are made, it's always polite to initate a discussion on the talk page prior to making the changes so that a general consensus can be reached and any issues can be hashed out before a stupid editing/reverting/editing/reverting/editing war ensues. - Chicaneo 02:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I am told that this is a collaborative project. I am not aware that Psychohistorian has been given free license to speak for a majority of the editors. He certainly does not speak for me. Perhaps he assumes that silence means agreement. Sometimes though, silence means "I'm just too busy to jack with it right now." Establishing and maintaining the ingetrity of all WikiPedia articles is extremely important. So if you notice something that jeopardizes that integrity, by all means, please speak up. Thanks for your contributions. - Chicaneo 02:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Silence may not mean consensus, but it is often the closests measure we've got. Chicaneo, I'm confused as to why you feel it necessary to post "I am not aware that Psychohistorian has been given free license to speak for a majority of the editors. He certainly does not speak for me." It implies that I did say that I speak for you, which makes no sense given my last post to you.-Psychohistorian 13:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You stated in your post to User:KyleAshcraft "I, personally, (as apparently do the majority of editors) see nothing wrong with it." This implies that you are aware of the opinions of, and speak for, the majority of the editors. Silence can mean many things, and no, it is not the closest measure to consensus that we've got. Open discussion of the issues, and a subsequent agreement or compromise is. - Chicaneo 20:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, in the United States, "apparently" means "appears to". It doesn't mean "definitely is". In fact, it is common in the United States to use "apparently" to make the distinction between certainty and appearances. What country do you live in, by the way? I'm curious because of the regional difference here which has caused this confusion. -Psychohistorian 20:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I am very familiar with U.S. culture. If you would have bothered to look at my user page you would know where I live. By the way, both of my parents were born in Texas. There is no confusion here. And our disagreement can not be attributed to regional differences, but instead to Marriam-Webster, which defines "apparently" as "manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid". To even justify your actions by declaring that the majority of the editors "apparently" concur with you is simply wrong. If you want to play semantic games do it with someone else. My goal with WikiPedia is to help establish and maintain the integrity of Wiki's articles. If that is not at least one of your goals, then perhaps you should move on to a different forum. Oh, and take your pompous attitude with you. It does not belong on this page. - Chicaneo 02:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand what the point is that you are trying to make. You are saying that when I use a word which means that something "may or may not be factually valid", that I am, in fact, claiming that something is a fact? -Psychohistorian 11:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this dialogue over to my user talk page. This discussion is taking up space and is not relevant to the article. If you care to continue or follow the discusson you may do so at my talk page. Psychohistorian, I will answer your question there shortly. Chicaneo 13:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Solution.

My questions is if there is a solution to Illegal Immigration. I know it can be viewed in many ways, but should there be a way for illegal Immigrants to become legal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonyleomargiotta (talk • contribs).

This page is here for the purposes of discussing the Illegal immigration article, not for our general musings. Please move your question to your own talk page, as I have done in the post before. Chicaneo 13:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ways for illegal immigrants to become legal already exist (for example, they may return to their country of origin and apply for legal immigration) and discussion of them might be a good thing to include in this article.-Psychohistorian 14:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please maintain talk-page discipline. For discussions about immigration join one of the many discussion forums off wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Legalization of illegal immigrants is a policy which has been practised by almost all countries of the developed world, especially in southern Europe since the 1980s. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to include in the article and even more reasonable to inlude on the discussion page. The above replies to your question, Jony, are imappropriate, uninformed and somewhat intolerant. There should also be a discussion of the other policy options currently in use in Europe and elsewhere, such as deportations. You can find European Commission policy papers and data on all of these things, but clearly nobody looked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.147.55 (talk • contribs).

The original question was a general musing about what should be or could be. This is not the place for such discussions. Edits are always welcomed and encouraged. New users are encouraged to "be bold" If either of you wish to add a relevant section to the article, then by all means, go for it. You do not need anyone's permission to make edits. It would also help if edits or discussusions about about potential edits were stated in positive terms, such as: Legalization of illegal immigrants is relevant to this topic and should be included in this article. This is just a suggestion, not a mandate, but it would help to avoid misunderstandings. Thank you for your contributions. Chicaneo 13:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation requests in the U.S. section

You all need to make up your minds. Jossi insisted on sources being removed from that section. Now, Chicana is insisting that they be added.-Psychohistorian 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Did I ever asked for sources being removed? Very unlikely. What I asked is not to use specific citations to summarize the article in that section. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't want "specific citations", but do want sources? Whats a "citation that isn't specific" - a statement saying that the source is available in english somewhere?? Citations, by their very nature, are specific. A "non specific citation" is a contradiction in terms. So, when you are pushing to remove specific citations in that section, you are pushing to remove all sources in that section. You two need to reach some sort of consensus. I have sources available for every statement in that section that needs to stay. I just need a consensus as to whether or not they should go back in.-Psychohistorian 18:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I, Chicaneo (not "Chicana"), haven't "insisted" on anything. I read the talk page history before making edits and I did not notice anything about citing sources. Chicaneo 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
A summary of the main article, can simply describe the controversy without getting into specifics. The problem is, that Psychohistorian, wants to add sepecific material. If we do so, we need citations, but if as requested ad nauseum already, we simply summarize in general terms the controversy around illegal immigration to the US and link to the main article on the subject, then we do not need citations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I see. Then what I did, which was to add [citation needed] tags would be consistent with the way the article is currently written. Chicaneo 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The current summary does summarize. Any more vague and the subsection will be something like, "Illegal immigration in the United States - link here". What Jossi has failed to do, despite being asked ad nauseum already, is state what specifically he feels is wrong with this subsection in a consistent manner. Okay, Jossi, show us, here in the talk pages, what your ideal version of the subsection would look like, specifically, and why, specifically, you think it would be better than what is already in the article.-Psychohistorian 21:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that is very simple: Step (1) go and fix Illegal immigration to the United States so that it is an article that complies with WP:NPOV and other content policies; Step (2) write a good lead for that article as per WP:LEAD; Step (3) use the lead or a variation of the lead as needed to create a summary for the section about the US. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh my god, Jossi! You've finally answered the question. I'm excited for you. Now, having said that, the fact that you focus so much of your energy on this article rather than on building that lead for the other article raises some doubt as to whether that is, in fact, the approach you desire.-Psychohistorian 22:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Before you can do that lead, the article itself needs to be NPOVed. Why don't we start there? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but are you going to be able to state specifically in what ways the article isn't NPOV this time or are we going to go through an endless repeat of you cutting and pasting some vague comments? In any event, as we are now discussing Illegal immigration in the United States, we should be doing so in that article's talk page.-Psychohistorian 12:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's stay focused on the tasks at hand. How much time Jossi spends on an article is none of our business. Who builds the lead is not important as long as it gets done. Questioning whether Jossi really desires the changes he just described is non-productive. Let's just get this thing done. Surely we can re-focus our energies toward a positive outcome. Chicaneo 00:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White supremacist websites as sources?

Are white supremacist websites acceptable a sources on wikipedia? I just noticed a citation that references www.vdare.com --Ramsey2006 02:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is a highly-biased, even "fringe" source. WP:RS and WP:ATT strongly discourage using sources of that type. -Will Beback · † · 05:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The last 23 edits have either been vandalism or reverts of vandalism. Are we going to have to start looking at possibly protecting this page?-Psychohistorian 17:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to do it preemptively, but the pattern, such as it is, looks like an attack. The problem is that much of the vandalism isn't coming from anon IPs, but from registered accounts. Maybe directing fire specifically towards those registered vandals, warning and blocking them might be more effective. If that fails, I'm in favor of full protection, at least temporarily. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal and Political Status

For the Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help! project, I changed the link to Quota in that section.
Should the link point to quota share or Emergency Quota Act?
Feel free to change it if you like. FirefoxRocks 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a reliable source?

This page was recently added as a reference: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060312_sampson.htm. I have doubts about whether it counts as a reliable source, since it doesn't have a references section and seems to state opinion as fact. However, I'm probably not a good judge of whether it should stay in, since I find the opinions in it to be highly offensive. Therefore, I'm leaving it up to you all to decide whether it should stay and what to do. delldot | talk 23:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

See above. VDARE is considered a fringe source, and so should only be used as a source for their own viewpoints, not for objective facts. -Will Beback · † · 03:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the redundant post, thanks for fixing this. delldot | talk 22:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rv

I have reverted these two revisions by Flashstar. I felt that they did not adhere to WP:NPOV, removed useful content, and were problematic according to WP:WEASEL (e.g. "Many people feel..."). They also removed content from the lead and another paragraph, and It seemed like good content to me. I'm glad to discuss these changes further, but I feel that a change this large should be discussed before being made. Thanks, delldot | talk 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Sure, I'm happy to talk about it. However, I came online and noticed that the first section did not cite its sources. Also, illegal emmigration is not relevant to the topic. The first paragraph clearly needs to be changed. Can't I just change what I said and repost it? Why did you disable my history? Illegal immigration is clearly a big problem. It seems that the majority of wikipedia users try to downplay the importance of recognizing the true problems of illegal immigration. I did cite my sources. Finally, there frankly isn't any justification for illegally entering another country. I am willing to compromise on the issue. --Flashstar 18:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, it sounds like we should be able to come to a compromise pretty easily in that case. For the unreferenced thing, I think you did fine by adding the {{unreferenced}} tag. You can also add {{fact}} templates to specific sentences you think especially need referencing. Of course, it would be great if you or someone else could find the sources (or if you find reliable sources saying something else, change the text and cite them).
I don't really mind removing the reference to illegal emmigration, though I guess I'd lean slightly toward leaving it in since someone might come to this article looking for an explanation of it, and it is somewhat related (you have to emmigrate from somewhere to immigrate somewhere, right?). But yeah, that's up to you and whoever else cares.
You mention that there are problems with the lead paragraph? My first suggestion would be to discuss them here, suggest changes, and we can come to an agreement about what to put. If that seems too much trouble, I don't have a problem with you being bold, so long as you are ok with others editing your edits. Also please be sure you've read and understood WP:NPOV.
Not sure what you mean when you say "why did you disable my history". Do you mean why did I change the version back to the one before you edited? Primarily because I felt that it was a violation of WP:NPOV, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. All articles should discuss their topic in a neutral manner, neither in favor or against it (Of course, that's very difficult with a topic as controversial as this, especially when we feel strongly about it. In that case I'd say it's important for all parties to keep our opinions in check). That's why I wasn't comfortable with wording such as "problem", "Many members of the public react negatively", "putting a strain on national health care". Of course, with some things (e.g. reducing jobs, straining healthcare), it might be objective fact that they are occurring; in that case it would be best to instead describe what exactly is occuring and cite a source, i.e. to be as specific as possible, rather than saying "this is a problem". Another thing I noticed was that you "hid" a sentence that cited its source, and I wasn't sure why you did that. If there's a problem with the source, it can be removed, or, better still, you can write an additional sentence and cite another, opposing source.
I did notice that you made an effort to keep your edit neutral by citing the other side, which I commend. Anyway, thanks for responding, I'm sure we can figure out something that works for us both. :) delldot | talk 19:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, Free Republic and American Patrol are not reliable sources. -Will Beback · † · 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am so harsh against illegal immigration in many people's views because a large percentage of hispanics in my area know no English even though many have been here for at least 4 years. In some areas near where I live, over 30% of the population is hispanic which isn't a problem. It's just that soon I feel like I am going to be required to learn Spanish since the non-English speaking population has exploded in the past 6 years. Also, my city has seen a spike in violence along with the increased hispanic population that seems to be coming from Mexico. Finally, illegal immigrants do put a huge strain on health care since my father is a surgeon and he is required to give charity to the 10% of his patients who are illegal immigrants let alone the medicare and medicaid patients who are usually not much better since he cannot refuse treatment in the ER. It's complicated, but I see first hand what illegal immigration is doing to our country. I just have a feeling that the average Joe on the street doesn't believe me since as of now, most of this is going on in the southern states and especially just outside large cities. This is one of the reasons why it is so hard to find many reliable sources of information on illegal immigration since most of the mainstream media likes to skirt this issue. Anyway, now that my ranting is over, feel free to flame me. :)

Btw: I didn't mean to hide a sentence that cited its source. --Flashstar 08:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I respect your opinions, though, to be open about my own biases, I disagree with them. But really I don't see that coming into the question here, since Wikipedia is explicitly not a place to put opinions. So as long as we're both sincerely editing the article to make it as objective as possible, we shouldn't have any problems :) delldot | talk 19:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I just got a warning for vandalism on my account. I did not do anything like that. The most that I did was try to improve an article that didn't cite its sources. I cited my sources. --Flashstar 03:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history and the date of the warning it looks like this was an edit made some time ago that you just noticed due to the fact that they accidentally left the warning on your user page rather than your talk page. Can you show the dif of the edit you think they were referring to? (I think it might be these edits). The other edit of yours that I reverted was, I felt, an NPOV violation, but that is not vandalism according to policy. So I think you're right that this message is not correct. I think this may be a new user who's doing their best but misunderstood the rules in this case. I'd suggest discussing it with them in a friendly manner or, if you don't mind, letting the issue drop. I think it would be fine for you to revert your user page if you like. delldot | talk 05:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phoney Medical Journals as sources

I noticed the following "journal article" used as a reference: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf

Even a cursory reading of the article reveals it to be a non-scholarly and quite biased article, even to the extreme of using demeaning and degrading epithets like "anchor baby" when referring to the US citizen children of undocumented immigrants. Browsing the contents of the so-called Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons reveals a rather unusually high number book reviews of books authored by Ann Coulter for a "medical journal". For example:

"We need leaders like Ann Coulter who will stand on principle, and who will not be moved by fear or greed. Unfortunately there are too few Ann Coulters." Book review for "Godless: the church of liberalism" by Ann Coulter http://www.jpands.org/vol11no4/bookreviews.pdf

--Ramsey2006 21:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

These book reviews are seperate from the academic articles which are written in the journal. They (the book reviews) appear to be written by the journal's readership. Further, the journal is published by the AAPS (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons--Ramsey2006 23:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)) which bills itself as a non-partisan medical association which has existed since the early 1940s. In other words, you seem to have mistakenly confused an ad hominem (i.e. "look at how some of its readers like Ann Coulter") with a valid argument.-Psychohistorian 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Do academic articles in reputable journals routinely engage in name calling and the use of epithets to describe people? I've never seen this in any mathematical journals that I read, and I strongly suspect that it is equally uncommon in medical journals. Forget the Coulter joke. All you have to do is actually read the article being referenced, and the bias and unprofessional tone will be obvious. http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf This is not a mainstream academic article, and it is dishonest for it to be presented as such. --Ramsey2006 23:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I assume by "epithet" you are referring to "anchor baby"? Many people, I happen to be one of them, do not consider "anchor baby" to be an epithet, although I recognize that some people (that's -some- people) do consider it as such. Remember, "anchor baby" is not synonymous with "children of illegal aliens" - it refers to a specific subgroup of children of illegal aliens and has a much more specific meaning.-Psychohistorian 00:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
"Illegal alien women come to the hospital in labor and drop their little anchors" No, it's not an epithet. It's a technical medical term, commonly used in academic medical journals. How many times would the author have to use the term (in an academic article!) before you suspect that it is intended as an epithet? Here's the first 4 paragraphs of the section titled (you guessed it!) Anchor Babies. I count 13 "anchors" in 4 paragraphs, not including the section title. How many do you count? Still want to maintain with a straight face that there's not a little name-calling going on in this supposedly academic medical article?
Anchor Babies
American hospitals welcome "anchor babies". Illegal alien women come to the hospital in labor and drop their little anchors, each of whom pulls its illegal alien mother, father, and siblings into permanent residency simply by being born within our borders. Anchor babies are, and instantly qualify for public welfare aid. Between 300,000 and 350,000 anchor babies annually become citizens because of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
In 2003 in Stockton, California, 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in San Joaquin General Hospital's maternity ward were anchor babies, and 45 percent of Stockton children under age six are Latino (up from 30 percent in 1993). In 1994, 74,987 anchor babies in California hospital maternity units cost $215 million and constituted 36 percent of all Medi-Cal births. Now they account for substantially more than half.
Consider the story of one illustrative family to show how reality is the sum of the seen and the unseen. The Silverios from Stockton, California, are illegal aliens seen as hard-laboring fruit-pickers with family values. Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12, and 8. Felipa, mother of the bride Lourdes (age 19), gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian.
Anchor babies are valuable. A disabled anchor baby is more valuable than a healthy one. The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies. This illegal alien family's annual income tops $30,000.
--Ramsey2006 04:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll repeat myself. I don't consider "anchor baby" to be an epithet. Obviously that means that no number exists where I'll start considering it to be.-Psychohistorian 09:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, since you're so gung ho on political correctness, what is the PC version of "anchor baby"? Is it "first child born with US citizenship by illegal aliens and, thus, serving to anchor those illegal aliens to the US"?

If so, are you saying you would have preferred her to write, for example, "American hospitals welcome "first child born with US citizenship by illegal aliens and, thus, serving to anchor those illegal aliens to the US". Illegal alien women come to the hospital in labor and drop their little first child born with US citizenship by illegal aliens and, thus, serving to anchor those illegal aliens to the US, each of whom pulls its illegal alien mother, father, and siblings into permanent residency simply by being born within our borders. first child born with US citizenship by illegal aliens and, thus, serving to anchor those illegal aliens to the US are, and instantly qualify for public welfare aid. Between 300,000 and 350,000 first child born with US citizenship by illegal aliens and, thus, serving to anchor those illegal aliens to the US annually become citizens because of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." That's really awkward. How about if people just focus on using terminology that almost eveyone knows the definition?-Psychohistorian 15:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the whole notion of women dropping babies strikes me as rather odd. Is this some sort of specialized technical term used in the medical literature? --Ramsey2006 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The article says "drop their little anchors". Its obviously a figure a speach - a turn of phrase. Personally, I don't think medical journal articles have to avoid figures of speach - especially not when the meaning is clear.-Psychohistorian 21:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
What purpose is served by the use of such demeaning and degrading "figures of speech" in a supposedly academic medical context, except to dehumanize the women and children under discussion? --Ramsey2006 21:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
What "figures of speech" were used that were dehumanizing, demeaning, or degrading? Again, many people do not consider "anchor baby" to be an epithet. That being the case, using a figure of speech which turns on that term isn't an epithet either.-Psychohistorian 21:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed above that you didn't have any difficulty above in picking out the epithet, dispite your disagreement. "I assume by "epithet" you are referring to "anchor baby"?" Likewise, I would imagine that authors and journal editors would find it equally easy, and that such use (whether you believe that it is an epithet or not) has a purpose. In this case, the purpose is quite obvious to anybody who actually bothers to read the text of the article. --Ramsey2006 22:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I'm aware that some people consider the term offensive. But it is not the job of academic journals to avoid topics or word choice because someone somewhere finds them offensive.-Psychohistorian 22:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
And as I said, the author and editors are likewise well aware of the fact (agreed upon by you and I) that many people consider the term offensive. Are you aware of the term being commonly used elsewhere in the academic medical literature? Talking about not avoiding certain word choices would seem to suggest that such use is a common practice in the medical literature, rather than having been specifically chosen because of its percieved negative conotations in this particular instance. --Ramsey2006 22:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I never said that many people consider the term offensive. I said -some- people consider it offensive. As for how often it is used elsewhere in academic medical literature, I have no idea and don't think its even relevant. You seem to be making a huge assumption that the word choice was made because of its perceived negative connotations. You're free to make that assumption, of course, but do you actually have any proof of it?-Psychohistorian 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard a mother call her child an "anchor baby"? I haven't. I wonder why not. --Ramsey2006 04:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Is the reason that you are no longer even trying to make a relevant argument that you have none to make?-Psychohistorian 13:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, so I guess that you've never heard a mother call her child an anchor baby, either. That's what I figured. Kind of odd, given how inoffensive the expression is, don't you think? You would think that at least one of us would have heard it used by some mother out there at some point in our lives. By the way, I tried googling, and I couldn't find any mention of any mother anywhere referring to her child as an anchor baby, so the google test seems to be consistent with both of our real life OR. --Ramsey2006 13:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
1.) I don't make it a practice to hang out with illegal aliens. The people I hang out with don't have anchor babies. 2.) When you are ready to start working towards relevant arguments, I'll be here to respond to them. Until then, go ahead and engage in all the sophistry you want. I can't stop you, but I can and will ignore you.-Psychohistorian 13:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
All those babies grow up. Do you ever make it a practice to hang out with US citizens? Have you ever heard a US citizen refer to himself or herself as an "anchor baby"? I'm just trying to figure out exactly where it is that you ever got the idea that the term "anchor baby" is anything but a derogotory epithet. --Ramsey2006 19:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out where you ever got the idea that everyone who uses that term must be using it in a derogatory manner.-Psychohistorian 20:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the question is not just whether the source uses a particular term or phrase, but whether it is in fact a reliable source, right? So we'd also need to look at the tone, the impartiality, how empirical the source is, how well respected it is among other journals. In my opinion, The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is billing itself as a medical journal by having that name, so it should be held to the same standards as other medical journals like JAMA. You'd expect it to cover medical topics in a scientific and empirical way (e.g. reporting results of experiments). In fact, it appears to write with a set of agendas, outlined here. So it seems to me (and apparently to others) to be misleading, which I see as a big problem as far as being a reliable source. Aside from its extremism, the journals methods seem to have come under criticism [17]. So I think the source should not be used, but if we can't agree on that, we can at least hopefully agree to give it a closer look to determine whether it's reliable. Maybe we can bring others into the discussion from other areas of WP. Peace, delldot | talk 21:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me say here that I'm not saying that the JAPS is on the same level as JAMA. I am saying that the argument that its not hasn't really been made all that well so far. So, while I'm open to the idea that the JAPS isn't on the same level as JAMA, I'm waiting for someone to post a better argument to support that point.

Now, I'm not a medical doctor. I don't have training in medicine or experience reading a lot of medical journals. What I do know is that there are many academicians in other fields which do not hesitate to take a political stance, argue that all academicians have a political bias, and argue that a real problem occurs when, instead of identifying and being open about one's bias, one tries to claim neutrality. These academecians routinely publish and maintain academic journals. With that in mind, I don't think your argument is all that strong. In the spirit of these academicians, one could argue that beiing honest and open about their political views makes the JAPS less subject to abuse by bias, not more..-Psychohistorian 21:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Delldot, looking over your sources citing criticism of the JAPS, one of them is a liberal activist group - conwebwatch - which attempts to discredit the article through a string of ad hominems. It has about as much merit as the Discovery Institute attempting to discredit an article on evolutionary biology by lodging personal attacks against the people who wrote and published it. The other source you linked to, the blog, has someone requesting an editorial review and possible retraction of a completely different article. The fact is, other academic journals have been asked to review and possibly retract articles in the past - this is hardly unique of the JAPS. Like I said before, I'm not saying that the JAPS is on the same level as JAMA, but you guys really haven't made a good argument that its not - at least not yet.-Psychohistorian 21:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
That's true, the sources I cited questioning JAPS are not themselves reliable sources. That was just a short look at a google search, and I suggest that we all look at respected journals to see if there's any mention of JAPS. I'll do this myself when I get a bit of a chance, and I encourage you to, too. delldot | talk 23:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Pubmed does not carry JAPS [18] (look out, this takes a long time to load), which indicates to me that it's not a respected journal. Pubmed carries pretty much every respected medical journal, as far as I know. I realize this is not conclusive, I still need to do more research. But I figured I'd mention it. delldot | talk 06:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The author of the JAPS article in question, Madeleine Cosman, who is not even a medical doctor, aparently does have a page devoted to her in a Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report. [19] Honesty may not have been one of her strong points. The last paragraph of that report reads as follows: Cosman said she'd written more than a dozen books. Her most successful, she said, was Fabulous Feasts: Medieval Cookery and Ceremony, a 1976 volume that she claimed was "nominated" for both a Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award (these claims are repeated on the book's back cover). But Pulitzer officials say that there were no official "nominees" for the prize until 1980; before then, there were only "submissions" from writers or publishers. In the case of the National Book Award, prize publicist Camille McDuffie sent the Report complete lists of all past nominees and winners of the award; neither Cosman's name nor that of her book is anywhere on those lists. Immigrant-bashing, it appears, was not the only field in which Madeleine Cosman was prone to exaggeration. --Ramsey2006 02:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a character assassination. Madeleine Cosman, which died last March, had a law degree in addition to a PHD and MA; she taught medical students medical law, medical business and medical history [[20]][[21]].Terjen 03:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a MA and a PhD, too, but that doesn't qualify me to write a piece of garbage filled with hateful epithets, publish it in a phoney medical journal, and then have my article passed off as if it were a reliable source for medical information on wikipedia. Even if I have taught calculus to pre-med students. --Ramsey2006 04:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
As a lawyer with almost 30 years of teaching medical law and involvement in the issue, Madeleine Cosman was on face value well qualified to have an educated opinion on medical policy, perhaps even more than somebody with a medical degree (or a mathematician ;-). Yet that doesn't make the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons any more credible as an objective source. I have created an entry for it that redirects to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which now has a section for the journal. That way editors can link to it whenever referencing articles from the journal.Terjen 06:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Your argument against Cosman is that she's been criticized by the SPLC, an organization which does for social causes what Robert Tilton does for televangelism? How about legitimate, reliable sources (like the kind which have shown the SPLC as the joke it is - the Washington Post, Montgomery Advisor, and Harper's magazine (who was a Pulitzer Prize finalist for its expose showing the SPLC to be a money making machine driven by its campaign of misinformation). The only people who treat the SPLC as a reliable source are the foolish, the ignorant, and those seeking to cover up flaws in a radical liberal agenda.-Psychohistorian 13:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested_move

I have requested that this page be moved back to Illegal immigration, as it appears that the move to The History of Illegal immigration is an attempt at a POV fork. The user that did the move tried to insert a POV essay at Illegal immigration. Dave6 22:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Such a drastic change as moving this article should have been done only after discussing it and reaching a consensus. I agree. This change needs to be reverted.-Psychohistorian 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of deaths in border crossing

First, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Second, the Wikipedia article links to a dead source (so we can't verify it). That means that the statement in this article is supported by an unreliable source. So, its getting tagged with [citation needed] and will be removed in one week if a source is not found. Incidentally, I seem to remember that the Derechos site referred to border deaths not deaths of illegal border crossers. Border deaths would include anyone who died on the border. Even if they referred to people who were not unidentifiable who died on the border, deaths of illegal border crossers is only a subset of that (Native Americans in the area who are not registered by the government, corpses which have decomposed beyond recognition, etc. would also have to be factored in).-Psychohistorian 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advocates

  • Advocates for illegal immigration accuse much of the anti-illegal immigration sentiment on racism and/or xenophobia.

Who are the "advocates for illegal immigration" that we're referring to? -Will Beback · † · 06:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about this myself. --Ramsey2006 04:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll post more on this later, but I suggest that you do a search on "'illegal immigration' and 'xenophobia"'" on Google.-Psychohistorian 12:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you list some examples of Advocates for illegal immigration? Terjen 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said, "I'll post more on this later". However, I am curious as to what alternative wording you'd prefer. "Advocates for immigration" is wrong because there are so many advocates of immigration who are AGAINST illegal immigration and "some advocates of immigration" is wrong because it is weasel words.-Psychohistorian 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we find the folks who talk "the anti-illegal immigration sentiment on racism and/or xenophobia" and then decide how best to describe them? Many of them may simply be human rights advocates with no strong position on immigraition. -Will Beback · † · 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issues left unmentioned

Firstly, I think it's strange how there's no mention of the fact that this issue should have been put to rest way back in 1848. That's when the Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo was signed. This was in recognition of a legal purchase by U.S. of the lands covering Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and parts of Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming (the U.S. would get the rest of Arizona and New Mexico under the Gadsden Purchase of 1853). The U.S. government PAID the Mexican government USD$15 million for this land. They didn't STEAL the land from Mexico; they BOUGHT it from them. It was settled then. It's done. The land has belonged to the United States of America for 159 years. People who cross the border into the United States of America illegally need to be apprehended and returned to their home country. It's that simple.

Secondly, it's not racist to advocate border security. What the hell's the point of having a border if you're not going to enforce it? I find it highly hypocritical that the people who accuse secure border advocates of racism have no problem with Mexico enforcing an even tougher border policy. What's up with that? A border is there for a reason: to be secured.

Thirdly, before the lunatics out there accuse me of racism, know this: I'm not a racist. PERIOD. In addition to that, I'm not advocating rounding up 12 million people in the U.S. to be deported. As columnist George Will aptly put it, it would require some 200,000 buses nationwide to do that. It is a ridiculous idea. Those who are already in the U.S. can EARN American citizenship, rather than have it handed to them; they must pledge allegiance to the American Flag, not the Mexican Flag; and they must LEARN and USE English. That's fair. If you went to live in a Spanish-speaking country, the government there would expect you to learn and use Spanish. While this process of EARNED citizenship would be going on, tougher border security would be enforced to ensure that no illegal entry is made into the country from the southern border.

How is anything that I've proposed here unreasonable? Ericster08 06:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to make proposals, except those concerning the article. If you'd like to discuss immigration matters in general there are numerous forums and blogs. -Will Beback · † · 07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move without discussion?

The page was moved to Undocumented/Unauthorized immigration, apparently without discussion. (If it was discussed somewhere obvious and I missed it, sorry). I think it's a good idea to discuss a potentially controversial page move like this one, especially on a page about such a contentious subject. I think we should come to consensus about the name of the page and then move it. Further, I think the slash in the title is not so good, since slashes create subpages. And there's no need to have all the names of a subject in the page name, since plenty of subjects have more than one name. Therefore, I suggest a move to either Undocumented immigration or Unauthorized immigration. I'd also be OK with a move back to Illegal immigration, though I think the mover's concerns about the negative connotations of that are valid. So I favor 'unauthorized', which preserves the idea of illegal with maybe less negative connotations. What do others think? delldot talk 16:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the name change makes sense. I don't really have a strong preference between 'undocumented' and 'unauthorized'. --Ramsey2006 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

hello

[edit] Moved back to Illegal immigration

I moved this article back to its original title; let's all discuss the idea of a name change first and then work towards a consensus before we decide if a name change is appropriate. Perhaps it would be wise to Archive the above and start the talk page fresh with this discussion. ProfessorPaul 04:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/l/l/Talk%7EIllegal_immigration_bbcc.html"