{{Banner holder |text=This article is the subject of several educational assignments. Click [show] for details. |collapsed=yes |1=
<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|-
! align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br />[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
# [[Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 1|May 2006 – August 2006]]
# <!--[[Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 1|August 2006]]-->
#
# [[Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 2|August 2006 – January 2007]]
# <!--[[Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 2|January 2007]]-->
#
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->
}}
==Sex and bribes in return for entry==
{{User:MiszaBot/config
In September 2005, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service reported that there were over 2,500 cases of their employees facing misconduct charges involving exchanging immigration benefits for sex, bribery, and influences by foreign governments to assist in violations of U.S. border security. In addition, another 50 such cases are being added weekly. These include cases turned over to the CIS and might not be the complete list according to sources speaking to the Washington Times [http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051003-122319-3501r.htm].
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Several other news agencies have also reported known cases of the U.S. Border Patrol supporting trespassing of U.S. borders.
|maxarchivesize = 100K
<ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/81082.php Border agent accused of hiding an illegal entrant]</ref>
|counter = 13
<ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/65117.php U.S. border agent indicted]</ref>. Agents have also been discovered to be illegal aliens themselves conspiring to smuggle illegal aliens.<ref>[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20050805-9999-7m5agent.html Border agent said to also be smuggler]</ref>
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
== Edits Needed for Grammar, Clarity ==
A [[CNN]] report by [[Lou Dobbs]] aired on October 3, 2005 reads: <ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/03/ldt.01.html Transcript, Lou Dobb Tonight] Retrieved Auf 2006</ref>
I don't meet the requirements for editing a semi-protected article. Can someone please fix this for me?
<blockquote>Alarming charges are being leveled tonight against the agency that makes key national security decisions about just who wins U.S. citizenship. Critics say the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service is plagued by employee misconduct, corruption, and may be giving green cards to foreigners who threaten our national security.</blockquote>
In the overview (the first section, before the comments), the second-to-last sentence reads:
Not only have charges been filed, in some cases, the Border Patrol agents have pled guilty (such as the case of Pablo Sergio Berry<ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/94491.php Border agent pleads guilty to harboring illegal entrant]</ref>) or been found guilty in a court of law (such as the case of Oscar Antonio Ortiz who was found to have smuggled more than 100 aliens across the border<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2249419 Border Agent Gets 5 Years for Smuggling] ABC News. July 28, 2006</ref>, Michael Anthony Gilliland<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215757,00.html?sPage=fnc.specialsections/immigration Border Inspector Pleads Guilty to Accepting Cash from Immigrant Smuggling Ring]</ref> and Richard Elizalda<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213904,00.html?sPage=fnc.specialsections/immigration Border Agent Pleads Guilty to Accepting Cash to Allow Illegal Immigrant Smuggling]</ref>.
"Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being in the country illegally – have no statistically meaningful impact on crime or reduce the crime rate."
The above is moved here for clean up.
Logically speaking, it's redundant to say they have no statistically meaningful impact on crime and also that they don't reduce the crime rates. But first, just grammatically speaking, it should read:
==Moving towards Feature Article status==
"Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being in the country illegally – have no statistically meaningful impact on crime, nor do they reduce the crime rate."
Here are seven steps that can be taken to move this page towards Featured Article status.
They are simply a starting point. Once completed, there will still be a need for some additional work. Some of this is copied from various policies and guidelines directly, some is simply what I think will be required to obtained FA. This is the path I am purposing that we take, and that I am hoping to build a consensus around.
This is still syntactically incorrect though, because as-written, this sentence means sanctuary cities reduce the crime rate, which isn't what the author was trying to say, because that is either incomplete or nonsensical. I'm pretty sure they were trying to indicate that sanctuary cities do not have different crime rates or lower crime rates (again, redundant) solely by dint of being sanctuary cities. Also, "statistically meaningful" is a weird way to say "statistically significant", so I changed that too. Finally, "designed to not prosecute" is a) awkwardly worded and b) confusing, so I fixed that too. All told, if I am interpreting the author correctly, a better way to put this is:
1) Improve readability: a lot of the text is incoherent and reads like a cut-and-paste job. The quality of write and prose is poor, with a number of run-on sentences and run-on paragraphs.
"Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to prevent the prosecution of people solely for being in the country illegally – do not have statistically significant differences in crime rates when compared to non-sanctuary cities with comparable traits."
Limit sections to no more than 4 paragraphs. In some cases we currently have paragraphs that are really multiple paragraphs forced together into one long run-on paragraph.
'''BUT!''' If I'm wrong about what the original author meant and they were trying to say that sanctuary cities don't impact crime rates in the larger region they are in, though, it should be:
Limit the amount of direct quotes, and relay upon summaries instead.
"Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to prevent the prosecution of people solely for being in the country illegally – do not have any statistically significant impact on regional crime rates."
2) Fulfill the "Factually accurate" requirement, which means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the ''cited sources''. All material in Wikipedia must be '''attributable''' to a '''reliable''', published source, including this page. Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, if used at all. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources.
AN ADDENDUM FROM ANOTHER VIEWER: I would like to know what type of statistical test and the significance level being employed to determine 'statistical significance/ non-significance'. Were the data employed fulfilling the assumptions of randomness, normal distribution and equal variances? If not, were they appropriately transformed? Simply failing to reject the alternative hypothesis does not necessarily mean the null hypothesis is correct - in conducting the test in this case, one has simply failed to reject the null hypothesis.
3) Revise and expand the lead section; create a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
Please stop abusing inferential statistics to make political cases. The references provided are not academic, peer-reviewed papers. They are linked to think-tank and news agencies that have had political connections for decades and often employ poor statistical rigour or none at all.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:104.145.95.151|104.145.95.151]] ([[User talk:104.145.95.151#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/104.145.95.151|contribs]]) 18:05, November 30, 2018 (UTC)</small>
The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article. Small details that appear in the full article should be avoided in favor a synthesis of the article. [[Wikipedia:Lead section]]
== Need to add the specific causes that push migrants and asylum seekers to enter the United States illegally ==
4) Cap the article size at 50kb. For FA statues the readable text should be no more than 32kb, this does not include HTML markups, sections such as References, See also, External Links, or photos and graphs. I purpose a working cap of 50kb for the entire page as this would seem to bring us into the 32kb range for readable text. Somewhere down the road when the article becomes stable we can worry about the exactness of the size of the readable text.
I think that the page on illegal immigration to the United States doesn't do a good job of explaining why do migrants enter the country illegally instead of taking a legal path. Although it does explain the pull factors on why many people would want to go to United States, whether it be economic opportunities, family ties or even to escape terrible situations, the fact remains that an abnormally large amount of people aren't coming through the legal path, and there's a reason for that: basically, the US immigration system is clogged up, because it has strict caps on how many people of any specific profession, whether it be tech entrepreneurs, workers or students can come in, and this means that waiting times can be prohibitively long, literally stretching back decades.
The main problem in doing this will be in not creating multiple “child” articles of this page. This article should be able to stand on its own, without sending the reader to multiple pages spread throughout Wikipedia. One obvious exception would be proposed legislation. That should clearly have a page of its own as it will by definition never be “stable” but always changing.
Here's two great videos that explain the situation, that have collected a lot of data from different sources that allows to paint the picture:
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTIDCA7mjZs&t=617s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTIDCA7mjZs&t=617s (Wendover Productions Video, September 9th 2020. The narrator doesn't get involved with politicians, and is more neutral as he storytells the facts and data.)
* [https://youtube.com/tXqnRMU1fTs?si=6zOvJ5tX9t4urDoz]https://youtube.com/tXqnRMU1fTs?si=6zOvJ5tX9t4urDoz (Comedy News segment from [[Last Week Tonight with John Oliver]], September 16th 2019. For those who want to learn what he's explaining, just ignore the initial jokes from the host, who himself passed through the immigration system when he migrated to the United States.)
Watch these, and come to your own conclusion. I would like to hear your opinions on their takes, and if the main page should feature the reasons that drives people to migrate to the United States illegally. [[User:GabMen20|GabMen20]] ([[User talk:GabMen20|talk]]) 01:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
:first link is not available and the second one is unreliable as it comes from an anonymous source.
5) Remove speculation. We should deal with things as they are; not as they could be, should be, or might be in the future.
:also, Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss opinions. [[User:Eldaniay|Eldaniay]] ([[User talk:Eldaniay|talk]]) 23:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
:: I don't think a late-night comedy show segment qualifies as a reputable source on factors relating to immigration to the United States. An equivalent practice to that would be citing a Monty Python sketch as a serious source into the causes behind the Spanish Inquisition. For such a nuanced and specific topic, citing mass media, especially media designed for a comedy show, would be inappropriate, I believe. Late night television is not exactly a valuable trove of knowledge. An additional problem is that John Oliver obviously does not use in-text citations or publish a bibliography in the credits of his show, so many of the claims made would be impossible to independently verify.
6) Limit tables and bullet points, replacing these where possible with written text (paragraphs) instead. Currently we have six tables containing information related to the page subject. Three of these have widths that span the entire page, breaking up the page, and disrupting the reading process. These should be cut to the two or three most important, and then edited so that none break the page apart.
::The second video has already been discussed by Eldaniay. It's an amateur-produced video published anonymously, with no citations or verifiable basis for its claims. Perhaps interesting as a rough primer on the issue, not exactly a reputable source.
7) Convert non-readable text headings to this sequence:
a) See also
b)Notes
c)References (or combined with "Notes" into Notes and references)
d)Further reading (or Bibliography)
e)External links
::And just overall, the question of "What causes illegal immigrants to immigrant illegally as opposed to the traditional, legal means of doing so" seems too attenuated to be worth discussing in this article. Such a specific, nuanced question probably is best left to the scientific journals and academics studying the field (See [[WP:NOTTEXTBOOK]]). Or perhaps if deemed important enough, contained in it's own article. But in any case, I would hope any inclusion of said topic would use real sources, not youtube videos, when discussing the issue. [[User:BabbleOnto|BabbleOnto]] ([[User talk:BabbleOnto|talk]]) 03:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Brimba|Brimba]] 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:::This is a good approach to my proposition, and I get your point.
:::In any case, the point of me showing those videos isn't to use them as sources for the entire article, but to use the very sources that they used to illustrate the situation with the legal migration system (the same reason that people shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source, but rather the original sources that are linked in the articles).
:::As you said, Last Week Tonight's videos don't provide a bibliography for their sources, however they're still shown on-screen, and can be searched up; I've done this myself several times. Besides, Last Week Tonight can't be compared with Monty Python (having watched both extensively), as the former is from a genre known as 'comedy news', in which comedians report on real-life news and events; this is drastically different from something like a full blown comedy skit show like 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' or 'The Benny Hill Show'.
:::Even though John Oliver has historically defended his program as a comedy show, many independent analysts and commentators have identified his work as a form of journalism or even investigative journalism, [[Last Week Tonight with John Oliver#Reception|the sources in which you can find in the 'Critical Response' chapter in the Wikipedia page of the program]]. Even John Oliver himself admitted that although he claims his show is 'technically a comedy show', he is 'better at hiding it than most'.
:::As for the Wendover Productions video, while sometimes relying on speculation, this is overwhelmingly guided by raw data and tendencies that can connect the dots; in other words, it does have references, that are located at the bottom of it's descriptions: it has a bibliography. Besides, [[Sam Denby|it's narrator is well known]], and his team is credited in the description of the video. The video's still amateurish in some ways, but the references are there, and they can be used to back several claims about the causes and trajectories of illegal immigrants.
:::I'm not saying that you should use the videos as ''the'' sources for the causes of illegal migration, but instead use the original sources that those channels used to make their point. [[User:GabMen20|GabMen20]] ([[User talk:GabMen20|talk]]) 21:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't find much weight in someone describing their own work as "definitely reputable" as a meaningful determination of what sources we should be trusting. Also, saying "many independent analysts and commentators have identified his work as a form of journalism" are just weasel words. You cite to the Wikipedia article for Last Week Tonight, as evidence for this contention, which has two problems. One, we shouldn't rely on ourselves for verification of who is trustworthy, that is circular reasoning. We should trust X person's assertions, because they are on Wikipedia as a trustworthy person. And they are on Wikipedia as a trustworthy person because we can trust their assertions.
::::Additionally the "independent analysts and commentators" featured in that article are all entertainment, television, and mass-media journalists. These people are not qualified to speak on the scientific accuracy of the show's substantive assertions. Second, even if they were, they are only speaking the the show's content in general, not this specific episode. Therefore, even if they were qualified to speak to the scientific accuracy of the content, they're not specifically endorsing the data you want to cite, so that's irrelevant. Broad praise towards the overall reporting in a show does not render any given point in any given episode an incontrovertible fact.
::::As for your contention that Last Week Tonight sometimes includes citations for some of their claims; the video you want to use does not cite all but a handful of their factual assertions, and the few that are cited at all are not to Wikipedia's standards, so I find that contention moot. Even if every other John Oliver video has cited all their claims perfectly, this one doesn't, so it's not really relevant.
::::The same problems arise for the second author. Again, it doesn't really matter if the narrator is well-known and their team is credited. That's not what determines what facts and statistics we rely on. Being well-known does not prevent you from ever possibly lying or misunderstanding something.
::::You correctly point out that the Wendover video does list a bibliography for their claims. I'm all for using those sources, if they are relevant and necessary. They seem to be from reputable sources with good controls. But what need do we have for an amateur reporter's retelling of those facts? Are we really including as one of the most important things this article needs one particular youtuber's retelling of the facts? Why cannot we include the facts as they lie, incorporate them as necessary, and present the sources themselves? The youtuber is more or less just retelling what the facts say in different words; not substantively adding or deviating from them with research of their own. We should not be relying on the reputation of a youtuber compiling sources, we should turn to the sources themselves and the reliability of the institutions producing them.
::::So in short, I'm all for incorporating any and all relevant sources those two youtube videos talk about. The youtube videos themselves, however, are not substantive, scholarly, or reliable enough to be worth citation to directly. Happy to discuss it further, though, if needed. [[User:BabbleOnto|BabbleOnto]] ([[User talk:BabbleOnto|talk]]) 06:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2024 ==
::Thanks to intensive efforts by Terjen, Brimba, Will Breback, Jossi, and others, this article is far from neutral in its POV. It has, in fact, become a political mouthpiece of the pro-illegal immigration minority in the USA. The question I am waiting to see answered is whether this article can become a featured article without first correcting this bias.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|Illegal immigration to the United States|answered=yes}}
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=106201095&oldid=106198470 This] is an example of what I'm talking about. A Harvard professor and economist who has spent his life studying the economics of immigration is summarizing the findings of his research in the New York Times and Brimba deletes it claiming it is POV. Of course this has two problems, 1.) Sources are judged by whether they are reliable, not whether they are POV. From the perspective of postmodernism, all social research is POV. Removing a source in which a noted Harvard economist is discussing his research because it is POV would justify all sources on social science being removed from all articles on Wikipedia on the same grounds without exception. 2.) Which is why POV is meant to apply to Wikipedia articles, not to sources used on Wikipedia. Sources are judged by whether they are reliable sources.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 02:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[[User:WikiIntellectuals|WikiIntellectuals]] ([[User talk:WikiIntellectuals|talk]]) 00:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Why describing the fact of immigrants from different countries Mexico is not a subcontinent but Asia is a subcontinent. So describing Mexican immigrants and Asian immigrants and Honduras immigrants are wrong this it be clearly defined as Mexican immigrants Indian immigrants Pakistani immigrants Chinese immigrants but not Asian immigrants as a whole.
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 02:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
== Very long ==
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=106002535&oldid=106001856 This] is another example of what I am talking about. Despite the fact that the content has three seperate sources provided, Brimba deletes it rhetorically asking if there is any source for it.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 02:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This article may be [[Wikipedia:Article size|too long]] to read and navigate comfortably. When the tag was added, its [[Wikipedia:SIZERULE|readable prose size]] was 13,351 words. Consider [[Wikipedia:Splitting|splitting]] content into sub-article or [[Wikipedia:Summary style|condensing]] it. The article size impacts usability in multiple ways: Reader issues, such as [[attention span]], readability, organization, information saturation, etc. (when articles are large). Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections or mobile devices or who have slow computer loading. Some large articles exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size are [[Wikipedia:SPLIT|split]] into two or more smaller articles.{{pb}}
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=105635024&oldid=105531406 This] is yet another example of what I'm talking about. He moved it and deserted it. He's made no further comment on it, just buried it in the talk pages. One would think that if he thought there was a problem with it, he would identify and clarify exactly what he thought the problem was. He did not and has, in the meantime, made a substantial number of edits so its not like he hasn't had the time.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 03:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Yet another [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=105846440&oldid=105844472 example]. Brimba removes the content regarding definitions used by the US Government (the US Government ''defines'' these people as illegal aliens, though it also refers to them in tertiary sources (picture captions, news articles, etc.) with other terms). He does so on the grounds that he is responding to the objections stated [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIllegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=104542073&oldid=104021081 here]. The objection being raised is that the section is too long and in the wrong place (so Brimba removes content in order to shorten it). But he does not remove content added by Terjen [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=105877358&oldid=105847705 here] which disagree with the official word choice. he, thereby, pushes his POV.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
! Word count
! scope="col" | What to do
This really goes on and on and on and I can provide a ton of other examples (not just of Brimba, but of all the editors I mentioned above). The POV pushing is now documented.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 03:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
|-
| > 15,000 words || Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.
What exactly is the POV you claim is being pushed by the listed editors? [[User:Terjen|Terjen]] 03:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
|-
|style="background: #ffffcc;"|> 13,351 words{{br}}<small>(this article)</small> ||style="background: #ffffcc;"|Probably should be divided or trimmed
:The POV that these people are immigrants. There are other terms and other views to describe hundreds of thousands of people entering a country in mass every day waving foreign flags with no respect for the nation's sovereignty, disrupting public services, committing gross levels of crime, destroying the environment and represented by people who believe that the country they've entered should be forced to surrender its land to them.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 03:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
|-
| > 9,000 words || Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.
1) I suppose that you never noticed where it says right there “Op-ED”, yes that’s right, right there in Wikipedia itself, it said that the text comes from an Op-ed piece. Suppose you missed that part. WOW, OP-ED imagine that.
|}
[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 22:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
2) The CDC says that Polio has been eradicated from the US since 1979 and from the Western Hemisphere since 1991. So much for your source. “Despite the fact that the content has three seperate sources provided” Three, I count one.
3) “2,500 cases of their employees facing misconduct charges involving exchanging immigration benefits for sex, bribery, and influences by foreign governments” sorry, 2,500 case of all types, could just as easily be steeling paper-clips.
“Several other news agencies have also reported known cases of the U.S. Border Patrol supporting trespassing of U.S. borders.” Not what it says here, the guy harbored an illegal immigrant for 4 years, his GIRLFREIND, and they where together prior to his ever joining the BP. Yes, he did plead guilty to harboring an illegal immigrant…ETC, ETC
4) this has been hashed out for several months, nothing more needs to be said. [[User:Brimba|Brimba]] 03:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
:In addition, the source in question in (2) is highly questionable: [[Talk:Illegal_immigration#Phoney_Medical_Journals_as_sources]] --[[User:Ramsey2006|Ramsey2006]] 03:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
1.) No, I didn't miss it. I was the one who wrote it. The fact that it is an Op-Ed, however, does not make it an unreliable source. It is a Harvard professor of economics who has spent his life studying the economics of immigration discussing the economics of immigration in one of the most prestigious newspapers in the United States.
2.) There were three (I can only assume that two of them were removed while I was away). Further, the fact that different sources are disagree does not mean that one shat tould be removed. It means that both should be listed. In addition, while an objection was made to the medical journal in question, that objection was never substantiated. Making an unsubstantiated objection to a source you disagree (and which you support with blogs) is not the same as "highly questionable".
3.) steeling paper-clips is not "exchanging immigration benefits for sex, bribery, an influences by the foreign government". The guy pled guilty. What exactly is your argument here?
4.) Debate on this is useless. You are pushing a POV. I don't expect you to stop. I'm only recording it so it can be easily identified.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
==Legal/illegal immigration problems==
In the [[United States|USA]], there is currently great inequality in [[illegal immigrant|illegal immigration]] and legal immigration, with legal immigrants of high skill facing multi-year bureaucratic backlogs at [[USCIS|USCIS]]. With family and employment - based immigration, errors can result in tragic mistreatments of immigrants, spouses and children, even affecting US citizens. After divorce or death of a family member [[deportation|deportation]] also can occur. In order to avoid slipping into illegality, family members can be forced indirectly or directly to abandon their families. Unfortunately, the United States, as the only signee of the UN [[Convention on the Rights of the Child|Convention on the Rights of the Child]] other then [[Somalia|Somalia]], has not ratified the convention guaranteeing children regular contact to parents. It can be argued that illegal immigration and immigration from [[Latin America|Latin America]] needs to be balanced by highly skilled immigrants from developed countries.
above moved here to rewite and merged into main page. [[User:Brimba|Brimba]] 19:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==Why?==
The article is lacking in why people immigrate to the United States. I'm trying to find an article listing statistically the reasons that the illegal immigrants say -but finding this article is difficult. One could speculate that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are trying to improve their economic status -which again begs the question of what is the quality of their own country which makes it so hard to "earn a living".
One legal immigrant told me that in Mexico it is near impossible to run a business because of what he described as "extrememly high taxes". I am finding little documentation of this here or elsewhere... [[User:Astrocloud|Astrocloud]] 01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
:I agree, the whole question of “Why” needs to be in here, it’s a pretty glaring omission atm, but one that should be rectified in the not to distant future. [[User:Brimba|Brimba]] 02:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Its very easy to find out one of the main reasons why; just look at the poverty statistics and average wages in Mexico, Haiti, Central America etc. Poverty statistics are horrific--these economies and governments are in very bad shape and have been for decades or even centuries. In Mexico 40-50% barely earn the minimum wage $5/day or less. Until recently most education ceased at the 9th grade and the education given was lousy as judged by international tests. Taxes in Mexico are incredibly low NOT high and are widely evaded even at their low levels. The governments take about 18% out of the economy to pay for all its programs, and gets about 5% (~1/3) of this from oil severance taxes. A good share of the collected taxes are spent on graft and corruption which are extremely wide spread in all layers of society. The other illegal immigrant source countries you can basically say ditto for conditions. [Tax takes are about 36% total in the U.S. and 40+% in the E.U. not that total taxes mean anything if they are not used effectively.]
The other main reason why is because the U.S. lets them get away with illegal immigration. Laws to stop it are typical ignored, penalties laughable, enforcement minimal, government comlicity in avoiding prosecution wide spread. Democrats are perfectly willing to buy votes by looking the other way and Republicans think low cost labor is a good idea. Nobody wants to be the bad guy and actually <b>enforce the law</b> even though the average illegal immigrant family costs all levels of government over $5,000/yr. each. There are a lot of liars and lawyers who dispute these numbers but they all (without known or demonstrated exception) "conviently forget" to include all the costs.
Those in favor of more illegal immigration seem to forget that their are about 5 billion people in the world who live poorer than us in the U.S. and given the chance a significant fraction of them would love to come here. We can't afford it, its not a good idea for our environment or standard of living and its about time to start putting the stopper back in the open immigration bottle.
Cheers
[[User:D'lin|D'lin]] 02:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
::Please remember that we aren't here to conduct original research. We need to find reliable sources for information, then summarize them using the neutral point of view. If you have such sources this would be interesting to add. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 03:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
::Astrocloud, there's a real simple answer to your question - money. The Mexican government will do what's best for the Mexican government. The number one reason the power holders in a country take care of those without power is to keep those without power from having a revolution (this is straight out of Marxist theory). Mexico gains no benefit from taking care of its poor. Those poor who could potentially fight for equality in their own country, instead, cross the border into the United States (and those poor who are too old, too sick, etc. aren't a threat, so noone cares about their suffering). In fact, Mexico ''benefits'' from not taking care of its poor (Mexico received $16 '''billion''' in remittances in 2004). The current system actually ''encourages'' Mexico to not take care of its poor and, so, its poor try to come to the United States by any means necessary (really, who can blame them in that case?) from where they can put more money into the pockets of the Mexican government who mistreated them in the first place. That's why Mexico produced a comic book to educate people on how to illegally cross the border (it enables the Mexican rich to continue to feed off the backs of the Mexican poor at an otherwise unsustainable level). What's really sad is that the parasites in the United States (the liberals who are looking for votes and the conservatives who are looking for cheap labor for the short term) are also benefitting from harming the Mexican poor and, so, want to push the idea that we should be morally supportive of the system that is hurting the Mexican poor. In fact, the Catholic church has pushed for protecting Mexican illegals in the United States claiming it is the moral thing to do (I guess they hope we're suppossed to overlook the fact that many Mexicans are Catholic and, so, will put money in Catholic coffers - the more money the illegals make, the more money the Church makes, but then the more it hurts the Mexican poor left behind in Mexico).
This is why I've tried to get editors here to actually educate themselves on the issue (I really strongly suspect that I'm the only one here who has actually studied the models - for example, does anyone else here even know what Carneiro's model of economic circumscription is and how it applies here??), but they have bought into their party line and are trying to pass it on as the only legitimate view.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 13:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
== Proposed new chart ==
Reasons why people immigrate to the United States should preferably be covered in the [[Immigration to the United States]] entry. This entry should rather focus on reasons that are different for the unauthorized immigrants. See the [[Illegal immigration#Causes|Causes subsection]] of the [[Illegal immigration]] entry for a start. Much of this section is about reasons for illegal immigration to the USA.[[User:Terjen|Terjen]] 10:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
|image2= 1892- Immigration Enforcement Actions - Department of Homeland Security.svg|caption2= 1892- Immigration Enforcement Actions - Department of Homeland Security.svg
}}
This chart was reverted for being 'cumulative' - what is the issue with that exactly @[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]]? [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
: {{reply|Superb Owl}} "Cumulative" in my edit comment (used a quasi-legal term, sorry) means repetitive of what's already there. The content of your chart is a subset of the information contained in [[:File:1892- Immigration Enforcement Actions - Department of Homeland Security.svg]] which is already in the article (someone else moved it from the lead down further in the text). Separately, as I mentioned earlier on the Wiki<u>m</u>edia Talk Page of your chart, charts should be placed into articles at most appropriate specific points (specific sections, etc.). Placing a chart at or near the very top of an article (sometimes called a "lead graphic") is justified only if it summarizes the content of entire article. Actually, the 1- to 4-year border encounters chart probably shouldn't be so near the top, either. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 16:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::There is nothing wrong with having a more recent snapshot of a chart especially when the one you offered is over 100 years of overlapping data with a color scheme that is difficult to parse, especially in recent years. I wanted to make sure that there was not some technical issue with the chart before adding back. [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 16:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::: {{reply|Superb Owl}} It's not "overlapping" data. It is stacked data. It is not "difficult to parse". It's an editorial problem, not a technical issue. See [[WP:BRD]] before you take further action. There is a lot to learn about editing before plunging forth. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 16:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I see the stacking now - it looked like overlapping from the thumbnail image. That is another reason why a recent snapshot is relevant and not undue, in my opinion given how difficult it is to see recent data [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 16:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::: Users can click. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 20:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I still think the colors need work and there needs to be a more focused version on just the 21st century at most. I respectfully disagree that this disqualifies anything that addresses these concerns [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 20:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I agree with @[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]]; I also reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1245165631] the chart that was added showing only 2024 monthly data and replaced it with a monthly chart of 2020 through 2024. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 12:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
: In addition to checking if a chart that's already in an article covers what you want to cover, you can avoid wasted time if you investigate relevant Wikimedia categories to see if a desired chart is already uploaded. That's another reason to categorize your own charts. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 16:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::Ambivalent on this, but one approach to this would be to change one of the charts to show an overall trend in enforcement actions (i.e. not stacked). Then we'd have one long-term and one short-term, with one showing types of enforcement and one showing an overall trend. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 21:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I think stacked is important because they are all interchangeable and that is how they are displayed in the Economist and other reliable sources. Below is a version of stacked that is not a bar chart that might be easier to read. I still am confused by the 100+year one that looks like it is overlaid on top of itself. [[File:Removals, Returns and Expulsions from the U.S.png|thumb|2012-2022]] [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 00:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:::: The stacked chart is most comprehensive, and shows recent trends in illuminating historical context. It is not "overlaid on itself". Readers presumably know to click to enlarge to zoom in. There is almost certainly no general Wikipedia policy against having both a short-term and long-term chart in the same article, but to do so is editorially unnecessary and a wasteful practice in bloating a 22-year-old encyclopedia. Purely formal issues (like "colors need work") will never be resolved, since fifty editors will have fifty preferred color schemes; this is an encyclopedia and we should focus on concise content rather than personal stylistic preferences. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 03:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
== Request for comment: which chart to use? ==
''Editors: Please briefly state your reasoned preference for which chart should be included in this encyclopedia. Avoid mere subjective personal stylistic preferences.''
==Civilian/Citizen==
{{multiple image |total_width=500
I'm going to let Ramsey's edit sit as is until tomorrow. But I will point out that it is based on his OR.
| image1= 2020- Title 42 expulsions - southwest U.S. border.svg | caption1= '''Chart A:''' 2020- Title 42 expulsions - southwest U.S. border.svg
Princeton WordNet defines "Civilian" as "a nonmilitary citizen"
| image2= Title 42 Expulsions.png | caption2= '''Chart B:''' Title 42 Expulsions.png
and "Citizen" as "a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community". A Civilian is a nonmilitary native or naturalized member of a state or other political community. Illegal immigrants don't meet that definition.
}}
As he is basing his edit on his OR, his edit will be reverted tomorrow.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 15:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
* '''Chart A:''' Clearer representation of quantity being shown (that's what quantitative charts are for). Larger text on vertical axis labels. Meaningful labels on time axis. Explanatory bottom text, for serious readers, provides context that future editors may forget when writing a caption in future articles. For an encyclopedia, Chart B is oversimplified (dumbed down; less analytical). —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 13:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
: That combination of definitions seems highly questionable to me. But even if accepted, this line of reasoning does '''not''' allow one to conclude that all non-citizens are "military" by definition. [[User:Richwales|Richwales]] 16:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
::Then its fortunate that '''noone''' has said that "all non-citizens are 'military' by definition" isn't it? Just because a civilian is non-military doesn't mean that a non-citizen must be military. Nowhere in the definitions above does an "if and only if" statement appear.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 17:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:::: I second Ramsey's edit. This is cherry picking from the dictionary.[[User:Terjen|Terjen]] 17:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::You do not have the power as a Wikipedia editor to question whether third party sources are accurate, you only have the power to judge whether or not they are reliable sources.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 17:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::It seems to me that the real question is not whether some particular dictionary definition (or sequence of definitions) would classify non-citizens as "military". Instead, we should ask what the relevant '''laws''' say. The context of the disputed edit here, I believe, is the proper interpretation of the [[Posse Comitatus Act]], which — as I understand it — does '''not''' use the term "civilian" or anything like it, but refers simply to the use of the armed forces to "execute the laws". [[User:Richwales|Richwales]] 19:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Okay, there seems to be a couple of points of confusion here.
One, you are basing part of your claim on what you believe to be true (e.g., where you say "-as I understand it-"). If you take a step back for a moment, though, I'm sure you will agree that "-as I understand it-" should be of no consequence to what goes into the article. The article needs to abide by the three pillars of Wikipedia - those pillars have nothing at all to do with "-as I understand it-". If you believe that the law means something other than what Trebilock (a policy expert and lawyer) says it means, then you need to find a reliable source which agrees with you.
Two, where you write, "the real question is not whether some particular dictionary definition (or sequence of definitions) would classify non-citizens as 'military'", you are implying that someone has argued that non-citizens must be military. '''I challenge you to show where anyone has done so.''' The definitions which have been sourced make allowances for people who are BOTH non-citizens AND non-military at the same time. Hopefully this has cleared up your confusion.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
: This whole thing is both frivilous and silly. You aren't even trying to be serious. --[[User:Ramsey2006|Ramsey2006]] 20:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Chart A ''' is significantly better/easier to read [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 14:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
::This indeed silly and even disruptive. Unless someone can fund a reliable source that says only citizens can be civilians this discussion is a waste of time. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 23:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Chart B''' - Chart A, in my opinion, uses too many guidelines (people aren't tracing these charts for specific figures, but looking at trends). Also ''avoid mere subjective personal stylistic preferences''? Style matters with charts as that is how we know it is legible or not. Considering @[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] created Chart A (and I Chart B), I think a discussion of style is not irrelevant as we can both make stylistic changes based on the feedback here.<br>'''Update:''' Chart A is the same color as the border encounters and apprehensions charts. This seems very confusing. I like the 'Ended 11 May' note but think that the color should be different to not confuse readers [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 14:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:: Trends are qualitative, but, again, ''this chart is quantitative''. I initiated this RfC to confirm which is the favored presentation in an adult encyclopedia, not flyspeck re number of gridlines which I have shown you on Wikimedia are used in abundance by most charts on Google images, Wikimedia charts, and even ''The Economist''. My approach is the result of dozens of extended discussions over years with other editors, and I am willing to learn and change from reasoned discussion; it's not just my personal preference. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
== There should be a graph that shows number of illegal immigrants that entered USA per year ==
Why is there no graph of this in the article? Especially say for the last 20 years which is discussed heavily in the introduction.[[Special:Contributions/110.174.139.15|110.174.139.15]] ([[User talk:110.174.139.15|talk]]) 15:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
::"Unless someone can find a reliable source.." That's already been done. What has not been done is to provide a reliable source which says that other than citizens can be civilians. Instead of abiding by Wikipedia policy by responding to reliable sources with reliable sources, you all have responded to reliable sources by calling the point "frivolous and silly" and "even disruptive". If you believe that the point is truly disruptive (that is, if you aren't just trying to use a rhetorical trick), I -encourage- you to report it and see what third parties have to say. Of course, I suspect you won't because you know I'm not being disruptive but rather trying to enforce Wikipedia policy whereas you all are pushing a POV.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 11:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
: Actually, that's a good point. Sources I've seen relate to people who are "encountered" or "apprehended" or "expelled/returned/removed". It would be good if there were a singe authoritative source showing the total number of those who enter, and the fraction who stay and the fraction who don't stay (good for a stacked bar chart). Because of confusingly described datasets from various agencies, for a Wikipedia editor to merge this information would probably violate [[WP:ORIGINAL]] and/or [[WP:SYNTH]]. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 19:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Stringing two dictionary definitions together into a novel conclusion is not a "source", it's "original research". -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 12:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Stating "Note, Princeton WordNet defines "Civilian" as "a nonmilitary ''citizen''" and "Citizen" as "a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community" is not OR - the source is clearly identifiable.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 12:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
== Request for comment on chart content and form ==
:::::That'd be fine if we listed all of the other definitions of "civilian". To pick one in order to make a point is OR. For reference, the " American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition" definition doesn't mention citizenship.[http://www.answers.com/topic/civilian] -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 19:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::"alternative definitions"? This issue would be resolved in a flat second if any of you could provide a reliable source which doesn't tie "civilian" to "citizen". The American Heritage Dictionary defines "Civilian" as "A person following the pursuits of ''civil'' life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group." and "civil" as "Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens: civil duties." -[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 12:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
==Relevance of Trebilock extension??==
What is the relevance of this comment?
"Military lawyer Craig T. Trebilock argues that "the fact that armed military troops were placed in a position with the mere possibility that they would have to use force to subdue civilian criminal activity reflects a significant policy shift by the executive branch away from the posse comitatus doctrine."
How is this suppossed to clarify his position?
Adding it without context leaves one to believe that Trebilock is against using the military in country - when his article is to the point that he supports use of military in country. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] ([[User talk:Psychohistorian|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Psychohistorian|contribs]]) 19:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:It is a different point, not a clarification of the point you are pushing.[[User:Terjen|Terjen]] 19:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
::"It is to a different point." What point is that?-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 19:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:::That there was a policy shift by the executive branch away from the posse comitatus doctrine.[[User:Terjen|Terjen]] 20:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
{{closed rfc top|result= Clear consensus to favor Versions A, acknowledged by the creator of Versions B. Minor cooperative suggestions for improvement can be made separately, outside this RfC. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 06:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC) }}
==More evidence of POV pushing==
As was pointed out before, editors on Wikipedia are not given the power to say whether sources are accurate or not (doing so would constitute original research).
That means that deleting sources because you think that they are wrong is against policy (such a statement is an example of original research).
Yet, that is exactly what was done [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=107614911&oldid=107609959 here].
Because a statement by an expert in the field disagrees with Terjen's politics, Terjen takes it upon himself to impose original research to push his politics (POV).-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:Earlier on this page you claimed I was pushing the POV that people illegally immigrating are immigrants. What POV is it that you think I am pushing this time? Anyway, I suggest the opening statement about the [[Posse Comitatus Act]] simply states the generally accepted interpretation of the act rather than alternative interpretations, and thus that a link to the [[Posse Comitatus Act]] is sufficient to support it, rather than references to articles promoting alternative interpretations of the statute. Besides, a general discussion of different interpretations of the [[Posse Comitatus Act]] is better covered by that entry, so I suggest you dish it out there rather than here.[[User:Terjen|Terjen]] 20:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
::You are seeking to replace a link to an expert discussing the act with a link to a bunch of laymen discussing it. What's more, you tried to justify it by claiming that the expert was actually a layman (he is, in fact, a lawyer and highly experienced policy analyst). Further, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and Wikipedia policy specifically states that Wikipedia articles can't be used as a source for other Wikipedia articles.
The POV you are seeking to push is the same as it was before - pro-illegal immigration. -[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:Brinkhoff himself seems to be well aware that he is promoting an alternative interpretation of the [[Posse Comitatus Act]], writing "Somehow, in the past 125 years, the meaning of the Posse Comitatus Act has been stood on its head."[http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Articles/brinkerhoffpossecomitatus.htm] The bio of John R. Brinkerhoff in the article does not say he's a lawyer as you claim. Where is your source? PS: you apparently have no idea what my POV is, which I take as a compliment.[[User:Terjen|Terjen]] 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
::There are many examples where the common understanding of something isn't the same as the understanding of experts. That doesn't mean that the understanding of the point by experts is wrong when it disagrees with the common understanding. Its typically the case that the opposite is true. That's why we should cite experts (such as Brinkhoff), not Wikipedia.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 21:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Brinkhoff even disagrees with Trebilock's interpretation: "Sinnreich, Trebilcock, Bolduc, and most commentators who opine on this law are wrong. The Posse Comitatus Act was not, as they assert and as most people believe, enacted to prevent members of military services from acting as a national police force." His disagreement clearly goes beyond the ''common understanding'' of the statute: "The lawyers have had a hand in transforming the Posse Comitatus Act from its original intent to what it may or may not be today. A substantial body of case law and judicial decisions pertaining to the use of military personnel to enforce the laws has been created. A casual review of these cases reveals confusion, inconsistency, and downright perversion of the original intent of the law."[http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Articles/brinkerhoffpossecomitatus.htm] [[User:Terjen|Terjen]] 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
::::You really don't have a point here. Bolduc is a Provost Marshall. He's neither a lawyer nor a policy analyst. "Commentators" is referring to the common understanding. All you are pointing out is that two experts (Trebilock and Brinkhoff) disagree on the policy regarding a point that has nothing to do with the point that we are discussing. Okay, so you've managed to highlight the obvious - that lawyers and policy analysts can disagree. Now, can you actually make it relevant to the article by providing a cite of an expert who disagrees with Brinkhoff on the point relevant to this article?-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 12:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::The Brinkhoff article doesn't discuss Posse Comitatus in the context of illegal immigration, so I don't see a reason to include it. His recommendation is that "It is time to rescind the existing Posse Comitatus Act and replace it with a new law." I suggest you take your alternative interpretations to the [[Posse Comitatus Act]] entry instead.[[User:Terjen|Terjen]] 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::Their articles discuss whether the military can be used in the US and for what purposes. "For what purposes" provides guidelines on whether they can be used to enforce immigration law. If you think that you (who have no background in law and are not a legal expert by any stretch) are able to judge whether they (who are experts) are misinterpreting the law or misrepresenting it, well, I just don't have words to describe that level of arrogance. But I will point out that your assumption is based on OR.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 13:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
{{multiple image | total_width=450
==More Pushing of POV==
| image1= 2020- Encounters at U.S. southwest border.svg | caption1= Encounters version A
The case of the goatherd and Trebilock's comments were obfuscated. While it is clear that what he's talking about having changed is the policy regarding active vs. passive roles, the statement "regarding active vs. passive support." was dropped and, thereby, obfuscates that fact. The current version implies that what has changed is the policy of Posse Comitatus, not specifically the concept of "active" vs. "passive" roles. Thereby, the current version suggests that the source is saying that Posse Comitatus inhibits the domestic use of the armed forces whereas even a casual reading of the source shows that the author's point is the opposite.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 12:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
| image2= US_Southwest_Border_Encounters.png | caption2=Encounters version B
}}
{{multiple image | total_width=450
| image1= 2020- Title 42 expulsions - southwest U.S. border.svg | caption1= Expulsions version A
| image2= Title 42 Expulsions.png | caption2= Expulsions version B
}}
{{multiple image | total_width=450
| image1= 1892- Immigration Enforcement Actions - Department of Homeland Security.svg | caption1= EA version A
| image2= Expulsions Returns Removals.png | caption2= EA version B
}}
Please provide your preference for '''Versions A''' or '''Versions B''' for immigration-related Wikipedia articles, and beyond. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Disclosure: I ([https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RCraig09 uploads]) am creator of Versions A which are result of many discussions (mostly in the climate change area).
Even Brinkhoff, in his article promoting his alternative interpretation of the [[Posse Comitatus Act]], seems to understand Trebilcock as saying that Posse Comitatus inhibits the domestic use of the armed forces: "Trebilcock [...] and most commentators who opine on this law are wrong. The Posse Comitatus Act was not, as they assert and as most people believe, enacted to prevent members of military services from acting as a national police force." [http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Articles/brinkerhoffpossecomitatus.htm] [[User:Terjen|Terjen]] 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
<br>Newer editor [[User:Superb Owl]] ([https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Superb_Owl uploads]) is creator of Versions B (which are more his personal preference) and peppers articles with them, sometimes replacing Versions A. Despite various interchanges (including [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:US_Southwest_Border_Encounters.png this]), Superb Owl remains unconvinced. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::Brinkhoff is very specific about his issue with Trebiloff. In fact, he quotes the specific place where he believes Trebiloff goes wrong, "The Posse Comitatus Act was passed to remove the Army from civilian law enforcement and to return it to its role of defending the borders of the United States." This is over ''civilian'' law enforcement, not ilegal immigration.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::That's right, both the Brinkerhoff and Trebilcock articles are not about illegal immigration. Including them only serves to push a POV.[[User:Terjen|Terjen]] 17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::::They are both about whether the military can be used in the United States and for what purposes.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Hence you should take a discussion of these articles to the [[Posse Comitatus Act]] entry rather than here. [[User:Terjen|Terjen]] 19:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::It belongs here because, by explaining for what purposes the military can be used in the United States, they explain whether it can be used to enforce illegal immigration.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 13:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::Unless the sources mention using the military for border patrol then we should not extrapolate on our own. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 17:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Your argument is like "Sure, the article says that the military can be used to patrol illegal activity on the border, but since it doesn't actually mention slavery, its not relevant to whether or not the military can be used along the border for slavery".-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 12:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
* '''Versions A''', for at least the following reasons:
==Crime table removal==
:::— More comprehensive timescale — not cherry-picked, better quantifies the data, and provides context
All the data found in [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=107970518&oldid=107965877 this] table is in the cited sources, although not in that format. Then again, whether or not it is in the same format has no bearing since none of the data anywhere in this article is in the same format as in the original source, but is included. Wikipedia articles, by their very nature, create their own format for all collected data. This isn't a synthesis of data. It is the same data in a new format.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 12:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::— Division of time axis into segments that are meaningful to humans
:::— Judicious use of horizontal gridlines to make it easier for people to gauge height of bars (no need to label each gridline)
:::— Larger font for readability on par with surrounding prose text
:::— Inclusion of vertical axis, per most common chart formats
:::— More formal presentation for an adult encyclopedia article
:::— SVG is preferred over PNG
:: Prior indications:
:::— [[Talk:Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Request_for_comment:_which_chart_to_use?|Here]], [[User:JSwift49]] favored Expulsions Version A.
:::— [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28technical%29&diff=1252979081&oldid=1252967726 Here], [[User:Izno]] even suggested taking the creator of Encounters Version B straight to ANI.
:: I'm hoping to show Superb Owl how Wikipedia consensus works, what the consensus here is, and specifically to stop their replacement of Versions A with their Versions B. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::'''Encounters: '''I only replaced the last version after you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=1251038649 seemed to complain] about maintaining it each month with updated data. If you are happy to continue to maintain it, then by all means replace it as it is the (very narrow) current consensus, but I would be curious to know if anyone else finds Craig09's gridlines overkill and choice of time scale redundant since there is already [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000-%20Border%20apprehensions%20at%20southwest%20border.svg an Encounters chart] covering FY 2020-2023, so the choice of a narrower time scale is to avoid redundancy. <br>'''EA version A''' also requires squinting to see 21st century trends and is confusing whether it is stacked or overlapping (otherwise I would prefer it) [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 04:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::*I think with the first two, '''Version A''' are clearly better. The data in Encounters Version B is cherry picked and only shows the part where there is a decrease. Expulsions Version B is harder to read (smaller font and no grid lines) and not otherwise an improvement.
::*I also support '''Version A''' with EA as I find it more informative re. historical trends and not confusing. There might however be a case for '''Version B''' in an article solely focused on that narrower timeframe. I think there should also be a chart showing the number of migrants released into the country if that data exists.
::[[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 10:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:* '''Definitely Version A''' because they provide a more complete picture chronologically. For the first graph, a single year is not very useful at all and smacks of recentism. (Bot summons) Cheers, [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 20:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:*'''Version A''' graphs are much higher quality. ~ [[User:HAL333|<span style="background:red; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''HAL'''</span>]][[User talk:HAL333|<span style="background:navy; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''333'''</span>]] '''(VOTE!)''' 05:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:* '''Mixed.''' I prefer Version A for encounters and expulsions, primarily because it's easier to attach the data to the applicable year. For enforcement actions, Version A gives a much broader picture in terms of the time frame, but the differently colored bars in Version B are easier to read for the years it covers. Maybe doing bars like that for every year since 1900 is unwieldy? If so, it would often be useful to include both versions in an article, to get the broader chronological perspective and to make it easier for the reader to absorb the data for the most recent years. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small> [[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] [[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 22:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:*'''Version A''' for all three. A few principles should be applied to these sort of visualizations:
::* '''Visual contrast for marks''': General guidance on mark contrast for accessibility and ease of viewing is to get the ratio above 4.5:1<sup>([https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G18.html])</sup>, and higher is better. Version A uses colors {{diagonal split color box|#fff|#de001c|font-size=0.5em}} with a contrast ratio of {{round|{{color contrast ratio|#fff|#de001c}}|2}}:1, meeting this standard. Version B uses colors {{diagonal split color box|#fff|#009efe|font-size=0.5em}} with a contrast ratio of {{round|{{color contrast ratio|#fff|#009efe}}|2}}:1, falling short of the standard.
::* '''Label legibility''': Version A uses a font size that is consistent and legible, even at small sizes (i.e. without expanding the image). Version B's font size is inconsistent, with the expulsions title overly large and the axis labels too small to read at small scale. Additionally, the label font color chosen for B does not meet the contrast standard ({{diagonal split color box|#fff|#ababab|font-size=0.5em}} {{round|{{color contrast ratio|#fff|#ababab}}|2}}:1).
::* '''Axis ticks and labels''': For expulsions and encounters, version A has clearly demarcated years and gridlines, which make it easy to perform a bar-to-year or bar-to-quantity lookup. Version B simply labels the extrema as "Oct 2023" and "Sept 2024" -- maybe some people can perform the interpolation in their head, but I cannot. For the vertical axes, abbreviations such as "10K" for 10,000 allow for a larger font size and a more readable graph. For year axes, axis labels are not needed.
::That said, while I'm offering comments, I shall say that while Enforcement Actions A is better than B, I might suggest a few changes. These are mostly nitpicky and just my personal taste, but I would remove the "million persons" label (unless there's a distinction being made -- do these numbers only count one action per person? But regardless that could be moved to the title), remove decimals and add "M" for million to the vertical axis ticks , and bring the title up out of the plot space. As for the X range of the plots as {{u|JamesMLane}} refers to above, that's gonna depend on the article in question. [[User:SreySros|<span style="color:#2B6EC4">Sr</span><span style="color:#EA3699">ey</span> <span style="color:#EA3699">Sr</span><span style="color:#2B6EC4">os</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:SreySros|talk]]</sup> 20:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, I should add, the first two version B plots look an awful lot like the default Google Sheets style, which, even if it the style was nice-looking (which I don't consider it to be), does not inspire confidence among readers (for better or worse, in my experience people tend to judge graph reliability at least partially by "production value"). [[User:SreySros|<span style="color:#2B6EC4">Sr</span><span style="color:#EA3699">ey</span> <span style="color:#EA3699">Sr</span><span style="color:#2B6EC4">os</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:SreySros|talk]]</sup> 21:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks everyone for weighing-in and helping to explain the various advantages to option A - there seems to be a '''clear consensus for option A across the board (except for some ongoing discussion on EA version A)'''. I also join JSwift49 and JamesMLane in advocating for keeping a version that only shows the years since (maybe ~2010 or so?) [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 08:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:: The two editors you, Superb Owl, mention, favored a shorter timeframe only if the article focused on that shorter timeframe. Though a 4-year timeframe might be appropriate for [[Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration]], that is not the case here. Clearly, there is no reason to maintain a '''''one'''''-year chart as it is cherry-picked, whether intentionally or not. It's sad that so many people had to be involved in this process, but I hope the time and energy expended will be learning experiences that you will put to use and that you will apply consensus rather than project your own personal preferences. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 22:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}
== Open the article for public editing ==
:If they are in there, where? Or simple not there, as appears to be the case. [[User:Brimba|Brimba]] 20:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is clearly written in a sympathizing tone by deliberately providing unnecessary, overtly forced information about the benefits and concerns of illegal immigration in the introduction section without adequate information about the harmful effects and law-violation nature in return. This is not neutral information, this is propaganda. [[Special:Contributions/1.55.108.22|1.55.108.22]] ([[User talk:1.55.108.22|talk]]) 02:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
==More POV pushing==
Terjen and Brimba have put forth an argument for the the free market and labor but insist on not providing both sides to that argument and, thereby, are pushing their POV yet again.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=107420281&oldid=107419361][http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=107976288&oldid=107970518] <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] ([[User talk:Psychohistorian|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Psychohistorian|contribs]]) 13:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
I don't meet the requirements for editing a semi-protected article. Can someone please fix this for me?
In the overview (the first section, before the comments), the second-to-last sentence reads:
"Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being in the country illegally – have no statistically meaningful impact on crime or reduce the crime rate."
Logically speaking, it's redundant to say they have no statistically meaningful impact on crime and also that they don't reduce the crime rates. But first, just grammatically speaking, it should read:
"Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being in the country illegally – have no statistically meaningful impact on crime, nor do they reduce the crime rate."
This is still syntactically incorrect though, because as-written, this sentence means sanctuary cities reduce the crime rate, which isn't what the author was trying to say, because that is either incomplete or nonsensical. I'm pretty sure they were trying to indicate that sanctuary cities do not have different crime rates or lower crime rates (again, redundant) solely by dint of being sanctuary cities. Also, "statistically meaningful" is a weird way to say "statistically significant", so I changed that too. Finally, "designed to not prosecute" is a) awkwardly worded and b) confusing, so I fixed that too. All told, if I am interpreting the author correctly, a better way to put this is:
"Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to prevent the prosecution of people solely for being in the country illegally – do not have statistically significant differences in crime rates when compared to non-sanctuary cities with comparable traits."
BUT! If I'm wrong about what the original author meant and they were trying to say that sanctuary cities don't impact crime rates in the larger region they are in, though, it should be:
"Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to prevent the prosecution of people solely for being in the country illegally – do not have any statistically significant impact on regional crime rates."
AN ADDENDUM FROM ANOTHER VIEWER: I would like to know what type of statistical test and the significance level being employed to determine 'statistical significance/ non-significance'. Were the data employed fulfilling the assumptions of randomness, normal distribution and equal variances? If not, were they appropriately transformed? Simply failing to reject the alternative hypothesis does not necessarily mean the null hypothesis is correct - in conducting the test in this case, one has simply failed to reject the null hypothesis.
Please stop abusing inferential statistics to make political cases. The references provided are not academic, peer-reviewed papers. They are linked to think-tank and news agencies that have had political connections for decades and often employ poor statistical rigour or none at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.145.95.151 (talk • contribs) 18:05, November 30, 2018 (UTC)
Need to add the specific causes that push migrants and asylum seekers to enter the United States illegally
I think that the page on illegal immigration to the United States doesn't do a good job of explaining why do migrants enter the country illegally instead of taking a legal path. Although it does explain the pull factors on why many people would want to go to United States, whether it be economic opportunities, family ties or even to escape terrible situations, the fact remains that an abnormally large amount of people aren't coming through the legal path, and there's a reason for that: basically, the US immigration system is clogged up, because it has strict caps on how many people of any specific profession, whether it be tech entrepreneurs, workers or students can come in, and this means that waiting times can be prohibitively long, literally stretching back decades.
Here's two great videos that explain the situation, that have collected a lot of data from different sources that allows to paint the picture:
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTIDCA7mjZs&t=617s (Wendover Productions Video, September 9th 2020. The narrator doesn't get involved with politicians, and is more neutral as he storytells the facts and data.)
Watch these, and come to your own conclusion. I would like to hear your opinions on their takes, and if the main page should feature the reasons that drives people to migrate to the United States illegally. GabMen20 (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
first link is not available and the second one is unreliable as it comes from an anonymous source.
I don't think a late-night comedy show segment qualifies as a reputable source on factors relating to immigration to the United States. An equivalent practice to that would be citing a Monty Python sketch as a serious source into the causes behind the Spanish Inquisition. For such a nuanced and specific topic, citing mass media, especially media designed for a comedy show, would be inappropriate, I believe. Late night television is not exactly a valuable trove of knowledge. An additional problem is that John Oliver obviously does not use in-text citations or publish a bibliography in the credits of his show, so many of the claims made would be impossible to independently verify.
The second video has already been discussed by Eldaniay. It's an amateur-produced video published anonymously, with no citations or verifiable basis for its claims. Perhaps interesting as a rough primer on the issue, not exactly a reputable source.
And just overall, the question of "What causes illegal immigrants to immigrant illegally as opposed to the traditional, legal means of doing so" seems too attenuated to be worth discussing in this article. Such a specific, nuanced question probably is best left to the scientific journals and academics studying the field (See WP:NOTTEXTBOOK). Or perhaps if deemed important enough, contained in it's own article. But in any case, I would hope any inclusion of said topic would use real sources, not youtube videos, when discussing the issue. BabbleOnto (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good approach to my proposition, and I get your point.
In any case, the point of me showing those videos isn't to use them as sources for the entire article, but to use the very sources that they used to illustrate the situation with the legal migration system (the same reason that people shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source, but rather the original sources that are linked in the articles).
As you said, Last Week Tonight's videos don't provide a bibliography for their sources, however they're still shown on-screen, and can be searched up; I've done this myself several times. Besides, Last Week Tonight can't be compared with Monty Python (having watched both extensively), as the former is from a genre known as 'comedy news', in which comedians report on real-life news and events; this is drastically different from something like a full blown comedy skit show like 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' or 'The Benny Hill Show'.
Even though John Oliver has historically defended his program as a comedy show, many independent analysts and commentators have identified his work as a form of journalism or even investigative journalism, the sources in which you can find in the 'Critical Response' chapter in the Wikipedia page of the program. Even John Oliver himself admitted that although he claims his show is 'technically a comedy show', he is 'better at hiding it than most'.
As for the Wendover Productions video, while sometimes relying on speculation, this is overwhelmingly guided by raw data and tendencies that can connect the dots; in other words, it does have references, that are located at the bottom of it's descriptions: it has a bibliography. Besides, it's narrator is well known, and his team is credited in the description of the video. The video's still amateurish in some ways, but the references are there, and they can be used to back several claims about the causes and trajectories of illegal immigrants.
I'm not saying that you should use the videos as the sources for the causes of illegal migration, but instead use the original sources that those channels used to make their point. GabMen20 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find much weight in someone describing their own work as "definitely reputable" as a meaningful determination of what sources we should be trusting. Also, saying "many independent analysts and commentators have identified his work as a form of journalism" are just weasel words. You cite to the Wikipedia article for Last Week Tonight, as evidence for this contention, which has two problems. One, we shouldn't rely on ourselves for verification of who is trustworthy, that is circular reasoning. We should trust X person's assertions, because they are on Wikipedia as a trustworthy person. And they are on Wikipedia as a trustworthy person because we can trust their assertions.
Additionally the "independent analysts and commentators" featured in that article are all entertainment, television, and mass-media journalists. These people are not qualified to speak on the scientific accuracy of the show's substantive assertions. Second, even if they were, they are only speaking the the show's content in general, not this specific episode. Therefore, even if they were qualified to speak to the scientific accuracy of the content, they're not specifically endorsing the data you want to cite, so that's irrelevant. Broad praise towards the overall reporting in a show does not render any given point in any given episode an incontrovertible fact.
As for your contention that Last Week Tonight sometimes includes citations for some of their claims; the video you want to use does not cite all but a handful of their factual assertions, and the few that are cited at all are not to Wikipedia's standards, so I find that contention moot. Even if every other John Oliver video has cited all their claims perfectly, this one doesn't, so it's not really relevant.
The same problems arise for the second author. Again, it doesn't really matter if the narrator is well-known and their team is credited. That's not what determines what facts and statistics we rely on. Being well-known does not prevent you from ever possibly lying or misunderstanding something.
You correctly point out that the Wendover video does list a bibliography for their claims. I'm all for using those sources, if they are relevant and necessary. They seem to be from reputable sources with good controls. But what need do we have for an amateur reporter's retelling of those facts? Are we really including as one of the most important things this article needs one particular youtuber's retelling of the facts? Why cannot we include the facts as they lie, incorporate them as necessary, and present the sources themselves? The youtuber is more or less just retelling what the facts say in different words; not substantively adding or deviating from them with research of their own. We should not be relying on the reputation of a youtuber compiling sources, we should turn to the sources themselves and the reliability of the institutions producing them.
So in short, I'm all for incorporating any and all relevant sources those two youtube videos talk about. The youtube videos themselves, however, are not substantive, scholarly, or reliable enough to be worth citation to directly. Happy to discuss it further, though, if needed. BabbleOnto (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why describing the fact of immigrants from different countries Mexico is not a subcontinent but Asia is a subcontinent. So describing Mexican immigrants and Asian immigrants and Honduras immigrants are wrong this it be clearly defined as Mexican immigrants Indian immigrants Pakistani immigrants Chinese immigrants but not Asian immigrants as a whole.
This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. When the tag was added, its readable prose size was 13,351 words. Consider splitting content into sub-article or condensing it. The article size impacts usability in multiple ways: Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc. (when articles are large). Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections or mobile devices or who have slow computer loading. Some large articles exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size are split into two or more smaller articles.
Word count
What to do
> 15,000 words
Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.
> 13,351 words (this article)
Probably should be divided or trimmed
> 9,000 words
Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.
@Superb Owl: "Cumulative" in my edit comment (used a quasi-legal term, sorry) means repetitive of what's already there. The content of your chart is a subset of the information contained in File:1892- Immigration Enforcement Actions - Department of Homeland Security.svg which is already in the article (someone else moved it from the lead down further in the text). Separately, as I mentioned earlier on the Wikimedia Talk Page of your chart, charts should be placed into articles at most appropriate specific points (specific sections, etc.). Placing a chart at or near the very top of an article (sometimes called a "lead graphic") is justified only if it summarizes the content of entire article. Actually, the 1- to 4-year border encounters chart probably shouldn't be so near the top, either. —RCraig09 (talk)16:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with having a more recent snapshot of a chart especially when the one you offered is over 100 years of overlapping data with a color scheme that is difficult to parse, especially in recent years. I wanted to make sure that there was not some technical issue with the chart before adding back. Superb Owl (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Superb Owl: It's not "overlapping" data. It is stacked data. It is not "difficult to parse". It's an editorial problem, not a technical issue. See WP:BRD before you take further action. There is a lot to learn about editing before plunging forth. —RCraig09 (talk)16:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the stacking now - it looked like overlapping from the thumbnail image. That is another reason why a recent snapshot is relevant and not undue, in my opinion given how difficult it is to see recent data Superb Owl (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the colors need work and there needs to be a more focused version on just the 21st century at most. I respectfully disagree that this disqualifies anything that addresses these concerns Superb Owl (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to checking if a chart that's already in an article covers what you want to cover, you can avoid wasted time if you investigate relevant Wikimedia categories to see if a desired chart is already uploaded. That's another reason to categorize your own charts. —RCraig09 (talk)16:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent on this, but one approach to this would be to change one of the charts to show an overall trend in enforcement actions (i.e. not stacked). Then we'd have one long-term and one short-term, with one showing types of enforcement and one showing an overall trend. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think stacked is important because they are all interchangeable and that is how they are displayed in the Economist and other reliable sources. Below is a version of stacked that is not a bar chart that might be easier to read. I still am confused by the 100+year one that looks like it is overlaid on top of itself. 2012-2022Superb Owl (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The stacked chart is most comprehensive, and shows recent trends in illuminating historical context. It is not "overlaid on itself". Readers presumably know to click to enlarge to zoom in. There is almost certainly no general Wikipedia policy against having both a short-term and long-term chart in the same article, but to do so is editorially unnecessary and a wasteful practice in bloating a 22-year-old encyclopedia. Purely formal issues (like "colors need work") will never be resolved, since fifty editors will have fifty preferred color schemes; this is an encyclopedia and we should focus on concise content rather than personal stylistic preferences. —RCraig09 (talk)03:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors: Please briefly state your reasoned preference for which chart should be included in this encyclopedia. Avoid mere subjective personal stylistic preferences.
Chart A: 2020- Title 42 expulsions - southwest U.S. border.svg
Chart B: Title 42 Expulsions.png
Chart A: Clearer representation of quantity being shown (that's what quantitative charts are for). Larger text on vertical axis labels. Meaningful labels on time axis. Explanatory bottom text, for serious readers, provides context that future editors may forget when writing a caption in future articles. For an encyclopedia, Chart B is oversimplified (dumbed down; less analytical). —RCraig09 (talk)13:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chart B - Chart A, in my opinion, uses too many guidelines (people aren't tracing these charts for specific figures, but looking at trends). Also avoid mere subjective personal stylistic preferences? Style matters with charts as that is how we know it is legible or not. Considering @RCraig09 created Chart A (and I Chart B), I think a discussion of style is not irrelevant as we can both make stylistic changes based on the feedback here. Update: Chart A is the same color as the border encounters and apprehensions charts. This seems very confusing. I like the 'Ended 11 May' note but think that the color should be different to not confuse readers Superb Owl (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trends are qualitative, but, again, this chart is quantitative. I initiated this RfC to confirm which is the favored presentation in an adult encyclopedia, not flyspeck re number of gridlines which I have shown you on Wikimedia are used in abundance by most charts on Google images, Wikimedia charts, and even The Economist. My approach is the result of dozens of extended discussions over years with other editors, and I am willing to learn and change from reasoned discussion; it's not just my personal preference. —RCraig09 (talk)19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a graph that shows number of illegal immigrants that entered USA per year
Actually, that's a good point. Sources I've seen relate to people who are "encountered" or "apprehended" or "expelled/returned/removed". It would be good if there were a singe authoritative source showing the total number of those who enter, and the fraction who stay and the fraction who don't stay (good for a stacked bar chart). Because of confusingly described datasets from various agencies, for a Wikipedia editor to merge this information would probably violate WP:ORIGINAL and/or WP:SYNTH. —RCraig09 (talk)19:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus to favor Versions A, acknowledged by the creator of Versions B. Minor cooperative suggestions for improvement can be made separately, outside this RfC. —RCraig09 (talk)06:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I (uploads) am creator of Versions A which are result of many discussions (mostly in the climate change area).
Newer editor User:Superb Owl (uploads) is creator of Versions B (which are more his personal preference) and peppers articles with them, sometimes replacing Versions A. Despite various interchanges (including this), Superb Owl remains unconvinced. —RCraig09 (talk)03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Versions A, for at least the following reasons:
— More comprehensive timescale — not cherry-picked, better quantifies the data, and provides context
— Division of time axis into segments that are meaningful to humans
— Judicious use of horizontal gridlines to make it easier for people to gauge height of bars (no need to label each gridline)
— Larger font for readability on par with surrounding prose text
— Inclusion of vertical axis, per most common chart formats
— More formal presentation for an adult encyclopedia article
— Here, User:Izno even suggested taking the creator of Encounters Version B straight to ANI.
I'm hoping to show Superb Owl how Wikipedia consensus works, what the consensus here is, and specifically to stop their replacement of Versions A with their Versions B. —RCraig09 (talk)03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Encounters: I only replaced the last version after you seemed to complain about maintaining it each month with updated data. If you are happy to continue to maintain it, then by all means replace it as it is the (very narrow) current consensus, but I would be curious to know if anyone else finds Craig09's gridlines overkill and choice of time scale redundant since there is already an Encounters chart covering FY 2020-2023, so the choice of a narrower time scale is to avoid redundancy. EA version A also requires squinting to see 21st century trends and is confusing whether it is stacked or overlapping (otherwise I would prefer it) Superb Owl (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think with the first two, Version A are clearly better. The data in Encounters Version B is cherry picked and only shows the part where there is a decrease. Expulsions Version B is harder to read (smaller font and no grid lines) and not otherwise an improvement.
I also support Version A with EA as I find it more informative re. historical trends and not confusing. There might however be a case for Version B in an article solely focused on that narrower timeframe. I think there should also be a chart showing the number of migrants released into the country if that data exists.
Definitely Version A because they provide a more complete picture chronologically. For the first graph, a single year is not very useful at all and smacks of recentism. (Bot summons) Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed. I prefer Version A for encounters and expulsions, primarily because it's easier to attach the data to the applicable year. For enforcement actions, Version A gives a much broader picture in terms of the time frame, but the differently colored bars in Version B are easier to read for the years it covers. Maybe doing bars like that for every year since 1900 is unwieldy? If so, it would often be useful to include both versions in an article, to get the broader chronological perspective and to make it easier for the reader to absorb the data for the most recent years. JamesMLanetc22:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Version A for all three. A few principles should be applied to these sort of visualizations:
Visual contrast for marks: General guidance on mark contrast for accessibility and ease of viewing is to get the ratio above 4.5:1([4]), and higher is better. Version A uses colors
with a contrast ratio of 5.09:1, meeting this standard. Version B uses colors
with a contrast ratio of 2.87:1, falling short of the standard.
Label legibility: Version A uses a font size that is consistent and legible, even at small sizes (i.e. without expanding the image). Version B's font size is inconsistent, with the expulsions title overly large and the axis labels too small to read at small scale. Additionally, the label font color chosen for B does not meet the contrast standard (
2.30:1).
Axis ticks and labels: For expulsions and encounters, version A has clearly demarcated years and gridlines, which make it easy to perform a bar-to-year or bar-to-quantity lookup. Version B simply labels the extrema as "Oct 2023" and "Sept 2024" -- maybe some people can perform the interpolation in their head, but I cannot. For the vertical axes, abbreviations such as "10K" for 10,000 allow for a larger font size and a more readable graph. For year axes, axis labels are not needed.
That said, while I'm offering comments, I shall say that while Enforcement Actions A is better than B, I might suggest a few changes. These are mostly nitpicky and just my personal taste, but I would remove the "million persons" label (unless there's a distinction being made -- do these numbers only count one action per person? But regardless that could be moved to the title), remove decimals and add "M" for million to the vertical axis ticks , and bring the title up out of the plot space. As for the X range of the plots as JamesMLane refers to above, that's gonna depend on the article in question. SreySrostalk20:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I should add, the first two version B plots look an awful lot like the default Google Sheets style, which, even if it the style was nice-looking (which I don't consider it to be), does not inspire confidence among readers (for better or worse, in my experience people tend to judge graph reliability at least partially by "production value"). SreySrostalk21:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for weighing-in and helping to explain the various advantages to option A - there seems to be a clear consensus for option A across the board (except for some ongoing discussion on EA version A). I also join JSwift49 and JamesMLane in advocating for keeping a version that only shows the years since (maybe ~2010 or so?) Superb Owl (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two editors you, Superb Owl, mention, favored a shorter timeframe only if the article focused on that shorter timeframe. Though a 4-year timeframe might be appropriate for Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration, that is not the case here. Clearly, there is no reason to maintain a one-year chart as it is cherry-picked, whether intentionally or not. It's sad that so many people had to be involved in this process, but I hope the time and energy expended will be learning experiences that you will put to use and that you will apply consensus rather than project your own personal preferences. —RCraig09 (talk)22:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is clearly written in a sympathizing tone by deliberately providing unnecessary, overtly forced information about the benefits and concerns of illegal immigration in the introduction section without adequate information about the harmful effects and law-violation nature in return. This is not neutral information, this is propaganda. 1.55.108.22 (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Left guide (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
