Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States

Archives
May 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – January 2007

Sex and bribes in return for entry

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 [1]. Several other news agencies have also reported known cases of the U.S. Border Patrol supporting trespassing of U.S. borders. . Agents have also been discovered to be illegal aliens themselves conspiring to smuggle illegal aliens.

A CNN report by Lou Dobbs aired on October 3, 2005 reads:

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.

Not only have charges been filed, in some cases, the Border Patrol agents have pled guilty (such as the case of Pablo Sergio Berry) 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, Michael Anthony Gilliland and Richard Elizalda.

The above is moved here for clean up.

Moving towards Feature Article status

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.

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.

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.

Limit the amount of direct quotes, and relay upon summaries instead.

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.

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;

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

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.

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.

5) Remove speculation. We should deal with things as they are; not as they could be, should be, or might be in the future.

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.

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

Brimba 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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.-Psychohistorian 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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.-Psychohistorian 02:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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.-Psychohistorian 02:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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.-Psychohistorian 03:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet another 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 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 here which disagree with the official word choice. he, thereby, pushes his POV.-Psychohistorian 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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.-Psychohistorian 03:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the POV you claim is being pushed by the listed editors? Terjen 03:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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.-Psychohistorian 03:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

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. 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 --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.-Psychohistorian 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal/illegal immigration problems

In the USA, there is currently great inequality in illegal immigration and legal immigration, with legal immigrants of high skill facing multi-year bureaucratic backlogs at 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 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 other then Somalia, has not ratified the convention guaranteeing children regular contact to parents. It can be argued that illegal immigration and immigration from Latin America needs to be balanced by highly skilled immigrants from developed countries. above moved here to rewite and merged into main page. 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... 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. 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 enforce the law 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

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. -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.-Psychohistorian 13:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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 Causes subsection of the Illegal immigration entry for a start. Much of this section is about reasons for illegal immigration to the USA.Terjen 10:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Civilian/Citizen

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. Princeton WordNet defines "Civilian" as "a nonmilitary citizen" 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.-Psychohistorian 15:33, 12 February 2007 (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. 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.-Psychohistorian 17:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I second Ramsey's edit. This is cherry picking from the dictionary.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.-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". 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.-Psychohistorian 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing is both frivilous and silly. You aren't even trying to be serious. --Ramsey2006 20:04, 12 February 2007 (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. -Will Beback · † · 23:35, 12 February 2007 (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.-Psychohistorian 11:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Stringing two dictionary definitions together into a novel conclusion is not a "source", it's "original research". -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.-Psychohistorian 12:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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.[2] -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." -Psychohistorian 12:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea that a resident alien is not a civilian is absurd. Stringing together mutliple dictionary definitions to arrive at that conclusion does not make it valid. -Will Beback · † · 22:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So, you don't have a source and, rather prefer to just violate the three pillars of Wikipedia and, instead, base what goes into this article on your personal opinion - like I said, POV pushing -Psychohistorian 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't have a source. You're engaging in original research. -Will Beback · † · 05:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So, now you're engaging in doublespeak. I point out two seperate dictionaries as sources and you reply that I don't have a source. You provide no source at all for your position and argue that a source isn't needed. You just keep making my case stronger that you are pushing POV.-Psychohistorian 16:55, 17 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychohistorian (talk • contribs) 19:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

It is a different point, not a clarification of the point you are pushing.Terjen 19:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"It is to a different point." What point is that?-Psychohistorian 19:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That there was a policy shift by the executive branch away from the posse comitatus doctrine.Terjen 20:11, 12 February 2007 (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 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).-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.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. -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."[3] 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.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.-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."[4] 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?-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.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.-Psychohistorian 13:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

More Pushing of POV

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.-Psychohistorian 12:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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." [5] Terjen 15:42, 13 February 2007 (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.-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.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.-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. 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.-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. -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".-Psychohistorian 12:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the following passage, from the History of border security section? If so, you should note that it is no longer in the article.

After Mexico's second president and first afromexican president Vicente Guerrero officially abolished slavery in 1829, Mexico became a sanctuary for escaped African slaves from the US. According to estimates, as many as 4,000 to 5,000 African slaves had escaped across the border into Mexico by 1855. In an attempt to prevent further illegal border crossings by escaped African slaves, approximately one fifth of the standing US Army was deployed along the border between Texas and Mexico. Mexico continued providing assistence to fugitive slaves, and refused to force their return. --Ramsey2006 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the Illegal emigration entry some time ago. Terjen 18:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not referring to that section. As I said earlier, "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." That's what I'm talking about.-Psychohistorian 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Crime table removal

All the data found in 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.-Psychohistorian 12:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If they are in there, where? Or simple not there, as appears to be the case. Brimba 20:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the words "criminal" or "crime" in either source. Also, we shouldn't merge two sets of information, collected with different methodologies for different purposes, into one table. -Will Beback · † · 22:01, 16 February 2007 (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. [6][7] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychohistorian (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

They seem to have properly summarized the source. Is there a sourced rebuttal to the LvMI position that we can include? -Will Beback · † · 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Its already in the links I provided above, but here it is again, "However, a free migration argument consistent with the free market would require us to first have a free market - to remove the welfare system.[8][9]"-Psychohistorian 02:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

The following edits have been reverted for the following reasons

• Regarding the alleged controversty with Time magazine, no such controversy has been sourced and even if it had, the way to handle disputes between sources is to provide both sources, not to remove one. Therefore, the Time poll has been readded and the Time comment on ecological devastation has been readded.
• "However, it is notable that all of the hijackers entered the U.S. from Canada and not from Mexico" I was going to replace this with "all of the hijackers enterd the U.S. from Canada" as saying it is "notable" is POV, but there is no source provided, so I just removed it entirely.
• "==Causes of Migration=="

has been reverted to "==Causes==" as "==Causes of Illegal Immigration ==" is implicit in the article's topic

• "The net growth rate of the native population in the United States without immigration has been close to a stable plateau since 1972 [10]. " had been removed without explanation. It has been restored.

-Psychohistorian 12:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the sentence stating that all of the hijackers entered from Canada. This seems to be a widespread perception[11], and false. The Canadian Ambassador has claimed it is a fact that "none of the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States through Canada", reciting Ashcroft stating that after considerable work to trace their activities, to his knowledge all of them came to the United States directly [[12]], also supported by the 9/11 Commission Report [13]. Terjen 01:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I spoke too soon: you had removed a sentence in the middle of a quote, so I reinstated it and added some of the information mentioned above. Terjen 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, if you had taken the time to review the source before editing my edit, you would have discovered that the original quote didn't include that statement.-Psychohistorian 12:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Some earlier editor apparently inserted the sentence about entering from Canada in the middle of the quote. This demonstrates the problem of including a multi-sentence quote like that though, suggesting that it perhaps should be paraphrased or shortened. Terjen 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Or just demarcate it for easier identification as I've now done.-Psychohistorian 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits 2.21.2007

==Move to viewpoints "Put in its proper context however, polls have continually shown that a majority of Americans do, in fact, favor a Guest Worker Program. This is significant because any Guest Worker program would inevitably deal with the political status of the estimated 11 million undocumented workers in the U.S." is unsourced.

"A recent Zogby poll found that 61% of Americans were less sympathetic to undocumented workers as a result of the protests. [14]" moved to viewpoints

==

• ==== March for Immigrant Rights ====

change to ====Protests==== as the current title is heavily POV and confusing - the topic is illegal immigration, not immigration in general

• "back in 2000" changed to "in 2000" in conformance with Wikipedia policy

• In 2006, Phoenix talk show host Brian James suggested on the air that a solution to the immigration problem in Arizona would be to kill illegal immigrants on random nights as they cross the border. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton called the remarks "irresponsible and dangerous". Also in 2006, Nashville radio talk show host Phil Valentine said during Demagnetize America, an anti-immigrant meeting, that he thought the U.S. Border Patrol Agents should consider shooting undocumented immigrants as they come across the border. In 2005, New Jersey radio talk show host Hal Turner encouraged to "Kill illegal aliens as they cross into the U.S. When the stench of rotting corpses gets bad enough, the rest will stay away."

may be hate speech, but its not terrorism terrorism is defined as ""the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." Offering a bounty falls under that definition, saying "its a good idea" does not. If you'd like to readd the content in some other location (after thinking about it a bit more, I suggest "viewpoints"), that would be fine. Honestly, I should have gone ahead and put it there (I just didn't think about it at the time) and will do so now.

• "==Causes of Migration==" changed to "==Causes==" for reasons already stated

-Psychohistorian 13:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing the paragraph on radio hosts enticing killing border crossers while keeping the paragraph on the retired worker offering a bounty to kill a border patrol demonstrates a double standard. Terjen 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I didn't remove it. I moved it to viewpoints. Second, he said basically "I think we should". That's not "unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- forces or violence.." Offering a bounty, however, does fall under that description. The exercise of free speech is not terrorism - while it may be hate speech. Offering to reward someone if they kill someone for political reasons is terrorism. If he had offered a bounty to people who kill illegal aliens, you'd have a point.-Psychohistorian 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this analogy will make the distinction clearer. If I say "I think its a good idea to bomb abortion clinics", that's very different than if I actually pay you $10,000 to bomb an abortion clinic.-Psychohistorian 18:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to just interpret the definition as you see fit. How convenient. I assume then, that you won't oppose us documenting in the terrorism section any offers of bounties to kill or hurt illegal immigrants?Terjen 19:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I already said, "If he had offered a bounty to people who kill illegal aliens, you'd have a point". Why then are you asking if I would oppose your documenting in the terrorism section any offers of bounties to kill or hurt illegal aliens? Seems to me, I already answered that question. But let me be more clear, barring any unforeseen side issues and assuming that the sources for such things abide by Wikipedia policy (NPOV, OR, Verifiability), NPOV would require including documentation of bounties offered to kill illegal aliens if we are going to include bounties to offered to kill members of the border patrol.

Now, having said that, you claim that I am interpreting the definition as I see fit. So, answer this question..do you see a difference between saying "abortion clinics should be bombed" and actually paying someone $10,000 dollars to bomb abortion clinics?-Psychohistorian 19:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't see a relevant difference between if say Jerry Falwell encouraged his audience to bomb abortion clincics for Jesus vs if Falwell offered them a monetary reward for the same. Terjen 23:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As I undertsand it, the guy said "I think we should", not "you go right now and start shooting illegal aliens". And I sure as hell see the difference so does the American legal system. I can say "I think someone should shoot you, Terjen" and I won't have legal proceedings brought against me. If I say "here's $10,000 which is yours if you shoot Terjen" I will.-Psychohistorian 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)