Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pedrogaytan12 (article contribs).

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Josep345, Vanessa1113 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Vanessa1113. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jose2495 (article contribs).

Conflation of terms legal & illegal

The article addresses a memorandum which grants protected status to illegal-immigrant children because legal immigrant children do not need such a policy due to their adherence to immigration law.

As a result, I have clarified the status of the individuals addressed instead of allowing vagueness and conflation to obscure the article's topic. SumaiyaJ (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

Merge Proposal and / or Redirect. Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of Trail of Dreams 2010 into this talk page's article was:

Consensus Reached–Awaiting Merge.

— — — — —

Request received to merge Trail of Dreams 2010 with/into Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals; November 2015 tagged. Discuss here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Strong Merge

Merge Trail of Dreams 2010 with/into Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, as it was a supportive campaign/activity by four people in support of DACA and serves to help identify the continued efforts to pass DACA, which activists hope will lead to permanent residency and eventually citizenship. TalkAbout (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If there is such a strong connection, then why is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals not even mentioned in the Trail of Dreams 2010 article? Indeed, how can a walk in the year 2010 have been in support of a memorandum authored by the Obama administration on June 15, 2012? – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

STRONG Merge or Delete!

The activities were directed towards the goal of Deferred Action by Homeland Security/ICE so that children brought here as children would receive protection which eventually led to DACA (which was worked on by many organization). If this one activity by four people was that significant there would be a Trail of Dreams 2010 ACT, which there is not. Also, the article denotes the Trail of Tears as 'another journey' which it was not, it was forced relocation/genocide 'causing the expulsion or death of a substantial part of the Native Americans then living in the southeastern United States.' PEACE OUT TalkAbout (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@TalkAbout: I don't understand why you want to merge this article, which appears to be about a walk to support the passing of the DREAM Act, into something that seems a bit unrelated—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals—rather than into the DREAM Act article. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge into Dream Act or Deletion. I am fine with merger into the Dream Act under activities by Famous Dream Act Activists -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Act#Famous_DREAM_Act_Activists The legislation that passed was DACA (White House way to offer relief), the legislation for the Dream Act may continue to gain some traction/support by House Speaker John Boehner in recent days and ultimately see passage:" A Republican version of the Dream Act has the support of House Speaker John Boehner, who said Wednesday the bill is "about basic fairness" for children brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents, The Hill reported."'Trail of Dreams 2010' is a campaign within a movement and only by four people, that in many places list themselves as 'famous'. There is already a place here: Famous DREAM Act Activists via article on Dream Act.

TalkAbout (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wbm1058 Thanks for pointing out the Dream Act as being more relevant, stand corrected, especially as it is a bill that is still in process and not dead. Peace Out TalkAbout (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I tagged the articles. But if you want to propose deletion, see WP:AFD. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wbm1058 Thank you, Merge seems the most sensible way, under the Dream Act with its own heading or into another appropriate one. Peace Out

TalkAbout (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 01:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

A copy of this template can be found here.

• Note: it seems like the consensus is that a merge between Trail of Dreams 2010 and DREAM Act makes more sense -- which I agree with -- so I'm going to remove the merge tag from this page. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Additions

Hello! I just wanted to add some information to this article such as renewal stats, advance parole information and possibly rearrange some of the format. Pedrogaytan12 (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"Illegal" vs. "undocumented"

Here's a place to discuss the frequent back-and-forth changes between "illegal aliens" and "undocumented workers." Joyous! | Talk 18:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be free of policial bias, and call things what they are. Everybody knows that undocumented is the word for illegal alien. Wikipedia acknowledges this too by redirecting undocumented alien -> illegal immigration. So why should the article text be different? 24.6.186.56 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

When you find yourself typing the phrase "everybody knows", apparently they don't. 24.182.239.225 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If people can't be illegal, they can certainly be criminal.67.8.239.238 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Around half of undocumented immigrants did not illegally immigrate and are therefore not guilty of a crime, only a civil violation of over-staying their visas. That is why calling undocumented people "illegal aliens" is wrong.Lucanio (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Lucanio

Over-staying their visa is still a crime. A "civil violation" is still a crime, and they do not have legal status, therefore they are illegal. Saying that they are just "undocumented" is like calling a shoplifter a "undocumented shopper". After all, they only lack a receipt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.178.156.22 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

References

People who have over stayed their visa lack legal status to be in the US. Hence they are unlawfully present. While having a DACA stops them accumulating more "unlawful presence" time, it does not give them legal status. Therefore it is correct to say that they are illegal. Using the term 'undocumented' only serves to give the article a particular political slant, and takes away from it's objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.221.8.40 (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2017‎

Note: A proposal to use "undocumented" instead of the more accurate illegal was voted down at NPOV Notice Board — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.200.144.47 (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not true. There was no consensus either way. To the extent that anything came out of that, it's that it should be decided on case by case basis. Neither term is "banned".Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No one but you (Volunteer Marek) ever said anything about banning words. However, the discussion at NPOV Notice Board overwhelmingly voted against always using "undocumented" in place of the more accurate illegal. Of the votes against banning "illegal", they were fairly evenly split between always using "illegal" and deciding on a case by case basis. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

illegal alien vs undocumented immigrant

Living the dream : new immigration policies and the lives of undocumented Latino youth Presidential executive action on immigration : overview and issues -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

please stop changing "illegal alien" to "undocumented immigrant" as illegal alien is the proper and legal term for someone is in the country without permission

Overall good article,but i think it would be good to add the consequences if president Trump would to end DACA under republican response.--Jose2495 (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be speculation and fall under WP:CRYSTAL. As for the term Illegal Alien, it appears that it has legal standing per the Hanen order, as written about in this Heritage Foundation article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether it has legal standing or not. It's more of a WP:MOS issue - which comes down to how reliable sources do it. (I think they're split).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not a question of style. Euphemisms like "undocumented" are contrary to wikipedia policy. Given reliable sources have used both, we should not use a Euphemism. The tern "undocumented" is also highly inaccurate, as many so called "undocumented" actually have lots of documentation. Visa's that they have over stayed, deportation orders, arrest records etc. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

"Policy"

As a reader, I'm confused about the status of this policy. If I understand the article correctly, then President Obama ordered "deferred action," which is sort of a euphemism for "a stay on deportations." Ok. Some people liked the policy, others didn't.

Fast forward. There was an inauguration and Trump became President. Again, some people like him and others don't. Regardless, is it sane to assume that a *policy* from the previous administration is still in effect following the transition of power? The article seems to allude to an expectation that President Obama's policies became President Trump's. Based on the few indicators we have, that's not the case.

65.154.106.61 (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the following content was from Secure Communities and administrative immigration policies as off-topic. Please review it for merging into the present article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

On June 15, 2012, the Obama administration announced a policy of partial relief for a specified category of young immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.

The qualifications have been designed to resemble those of the DREAM Act, a law proposed to provide a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants, which has been repeatedly rejected by Congress. Persons affected by the new policy, upon applying, will be protected from deportation for a two-year period, with possible extensions, and will be eligible for work permits. To qualify, an applicant must, among other requirements:

• have arrived in the United States before turning 16;
• have lived in the country for at least 5 years;
• be no more than 30 years old; and
• have completed a high school education or GED.

The new policy is imposed by executive order and therefore stops well short of what the DREAM Act would provide. No US citizenship, permanent residency or amnesty are offered and individual outcomes will be discretionary (on case by case basis). Up to 1.7 million people are estimated to be eligible.

The administration's decision reflects its growing awareness of the crucial importance of Latino voters in the upcoming presidential election. President Obama, who supports the passage of the DREAM Act by Congress, has not made it one of his legislative priorities, in part because pushing through the legislation has not been seen as a realistic goal. While some immigrants may be reluctant to bring themselves to the attention of government authorities without assurance of obtaining benefits, the Department of Homeland Security announced its intention to focus deportation efforts on individuals who pose a considerable public safety risk, which has been the Department's official policy a number of months.

This last objective has not been met, according to the critics of the administration's immigration policy, who say that many non-criminal persons who would be eligible for relief under the DREAM Act if it were passed have been continuously deported since John Morton's announcement of the policy change. The present executive order was demanded by Latino illegal immigrants and their supporters, who staged petitions, demonstrations and sit-ins.

The implementation of the new program officially began on August 15, 2012. Applications were being accepted upon a payment of a $465 fee; according to White House officials, expenses will be paid from fees, with no cost to the taxpayer. The administrative job of processing applications was entrusted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, to avoid involvement of enforcement agencies, which could discourage some wary potential applicants. The information gathered from applicants is promised not to be shared with enforcement agencies.

The initiative was expected to help the Obama administration with winning back Latino voters, many angered by the deportation of illegal immigrants. The Migration Policy Institute estimated about 1.2 million potential applicants to be immediately eligible, with further 500,000 reaching the eligibility age of 15 within the next few years.

If an applicant fulfills the requirements and is approved, he or she will be able to apply for a work permit, social security card, driver's license and college financial aid, among other government benefits funded by US taxpayers.

Because of the temporary nature of the benefits, the perceived risks (including revealing family members, such as parents, who may be undocumented) and other uncertainties, changing politics among them, many may choose not to apply, and the degree of eventual success and magnitude of the program are not being estimated yet.

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2017

Please change the term "illegal alien(s)" to "undocumented immigrant(s)" or at the very least change "illegal alien(s)" to "undocumented alien(s)" throughout the article.

A person is not (and can never be) illegal, the act of coming to the United States without proper paperwork is an illegal act. To use the comparison some users have stated in the revision history - a person who shoplifts is not an illegal shopper. They are a shopper who has committed an illegal act. Therefore, someone who comes to the United States is not an illegal alien. They are an immigrant who has committed an illegal act. It is important to use people first language. Thank you. PDeckard (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Today's development

We're learning now that the Trump admin. is reportedly set to strike down some or all of DACA. It seems that we're going to want to update the article in some respect before Sept. 3? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Request to reduce to semi-protected

I agree. I have asked the administrator who protected the article to reduce it to semi-protection. --Chris Howard (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Chris Howard: I do not find your characterisation of the edit warring to be accurate. You can get consensus and then make one or several edit requests, as required, for changes needed to this article. Samsara 23:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Samsara: I stated that the edit warring was performed only by IP's or very recent "new users". Indeed the article has been edited, since its protection expiry on 17 Aug 2017, by IP's and by new User:Ajpd090, and – apart from an initial adding of two "see also" links – confirmed editors did nothing other than revert (most or all of) the IP changes. Therefore, there is no edit war among confirmed editors. Semi-protection should thus suffice. --Chris Howard (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Chris Howard: The edit war goes all the way back to July and also involves three autoconfirmed users. Now, do you actually have an edit to make, or are you just arguing for the sake of it? Samsara 11:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No need for WP:PA. I am of the view that @Shawn in Montreal:'s statement needs a follow-up, whoever does the edits. Also the edit war up to July is not the point here, as my request does not put into question the protection of July. My request simply takes note that mere semi-protection would be sufficient now, as mere semi-protection would have been sufficient to avoid the edit war that subsequently ensued since Aug 17. --Chris Howard (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Also fail to see need for full protection. Semi - definitely. Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

As expected since you are one of the three parties referred to above. Maybe we can substitute a community revert ban or some similar arrangement. Samsara 12:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we can get an admin who doesn't see it as their mission to enable disruptive IP accounts? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because you do not agree with someone, does not make them disruptive. I see no consensus on this page for your position. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

What for? Since the lapse of the semi-protection of July 27 (and indeed in fact since even the beginning of July), there were only the following types of edits, apart from protection settings:

(1.) IP's repeatedly changed "undocumented" to "illegal" without consensus on the discussion page,

(2.) new user User:Ajpd09 performed wording changes without consensus,

(3.) these changes were reverted by a confirmed user, and

(4.) a confirmed user inserted two "see also" links.

The full protection (of Aug 10 and Aug 24) has effectively stopped confirmed users from editing the article without need. There has been no edit war among confirmed users, not even in July. In fact your characterisation "The edit war goes all the way back to July and also involves three autoconfirmed users" is misleading in that the three confirmed users did nothing other than to revert changes by IPs or new users that had no consensus. Thus both decisions of 10 Aug and of 24 Aug to fully protect the article were suboptimal in the sense that the protection was stonger than necessary (full rather than semi), and apparently also shorter than necessary (2 weeks only, but the EW appears to flare up immediately at every lapse). In summary: Please, I request you again @Samsara: to – please – change your protection of Aug 24 to semi-protection. Preferably, with prolonged semi-protection, but that's your judgement. --Chris Howard (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Chris. This is incompetence bordering on abuse of tools, particularly when the admin in questions starts threatening long standing users over nothing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Samsara: Is there even a single disruptive edit of a confirmed user in all of August/July? --Chris Howard (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Protection was for edit warring. Samsara 19:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

"Edit warring" between long standing confirmed users and a bunch of throw away accounts and IP addresses.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It's still edit warring. There is no consensus on this page for using "undocumented" 170.178.156.22 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek the majority consensus on the talk page is for Illegal. The only points given in opposition are, the AP style guide, vague assertions that using the term "illegal alien" is somehow derogatory, and misrepresentations that the word illegal in "illegal alien" somehow refers to the person themselves instead of their status. None of these look like strong enough reasons to use a euphemism contrary to wikipedia policy. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Maryland

The section about Maryland has inaccuracies. I request to change it to the following.

Baltimore's mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, has stated that Baltimore's city police will not check the citizenship status of people with whom they interact.

Maryland residents are eligible for in-state public tuition rates regardless of immigration status if they attended Maryland high schools for at least three of the previous twelve years; graduated from a Maryland high school or received a Maryland GED within the previous ten years; registered at a Maryland public college within four years of high school graduation or receiving a Maryland GED; registered for Selective Service, if male; and filed Maryland income tax returns.

~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Quackslikeaduck: That second paragraph loses its clarity towards the end. Would it be more succinct if you made several shorter sentences? Thanks. Samsara 00:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Samsara: How is this?

Maryland residents are eligible for in-state public tuition rates regardless of immigration status under certain conditions. A Maryland resident is eligible if they attended Maryland high schools for at least three of the previous twelve years and they graduated from a Maryland high school or received a Maryland GED within the previous ten years. They must have registered at a Maryland public college within four years of high school graduation or receiving a Maryland GED. They must have registered for Selective Service if male, and they must have filed Maryland income tax returns.

~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Added and credited to you. I made a small amendment to reflect the fact that, as the original text stated, Rawlings-Blake is not currently the mayor. Samsara 12:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Science study

Remind me to add this Science study when the page is no longer locked: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/08/30/science.aan5893 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)