Talk:Illegal immigration

Small error?

Source number 2 (http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=344) is cited as saying that "1 in roughly 20 Colombians now live abroad", when in fact the cited website says in the first sentence that "roughly one in 10" now live abroad. Am I missing something obvious, or should this be changed?

Causes of Illegal Immigration

Illegal Immigration is clearly encouraged by the prospect of a future illegal immigration amnesty and also Birth Right Citizenship. And these become particularly attractive when combined with a high average income country like the United States. I am happy for people to debate that there are benefits to illegal immigration for the host country which are similar to the arguments in favor of Free Immigration or Open Borders but not that amnesties and Birthright Citizenship are not important factors in illegal immigration. Perhaps a benefits section could added to the article. 124.169.119.101 (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Last Edit

I don't understand why this last edit was undone. Everything is referenced and neutral. EDIT DETAILS: 02:48, 30 October 2011‎ Seb az86556 (talk | contribs)‎ (75,217 bytes) (Reverted 7 edits by 130.130.37.13 (talk): Rv Kylelovesyou; please log in and use talkpage first. (TW)) (undo) - 130.130.37.13 (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You introduced the exact same changes as Kylelovesyou (talk · contribs), so I can't help thinking that's you. However that may be, please look at the above discussions on this page, including the reversal of the move some days ago. If you want to introduce those changes, you should discuss them here first. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. let's discuss them now. - Kylelovesyou (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you start? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the primary issue with Kyle's edits is the vagueness they introduce to the article. For example:

The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) suggests that "most experts today would agree that there are already inadequate legal channels for migration and especially for migration for work." In fact, many international organizations consider creating more channels for international immigration would be beneficial to the world economy. Others, however, suggest that removing immigration barriers threatens national sovereignty and creates political issues.

Notice that Kyle has used many when describing the "international organizations" that support creating more channels for international immigration. He then uses "other" to describe those who oppose it. This implies that there are more officials who support this kind of legislation. Where are the sources for this? Who are these "organizations" that support the channels? Even the quotation used is vague ("most experts today")

This vagueness can also be observed in this paragraph:

Many of these people who are forced to flee in an environmental emergency do not have time to file immigration documents or lack the means to do so. Others may emigrate from their country of origin to another due to environmental causes which prevent them from earning a livelihood. Others may choose to leave for economic reasons (i.e. environmental causes have limited their ability to earn money in their home country).

Notice again that Kyle has used "most" and "other". Yes, it is sourced, but statistics are needed to verify this claim.

The bottom line is that Kyle needs to be more clear. In addition to this, Kyle's abnormal behavior makes him difficult to trust. These behaviors are as follows:

• Generally aggresive nature when discussing (see above)
• Failure to participate in vote in issue which he started (I don't know is he was available, though still suspicious)
• Movement of article without consent of other editors
• Attempting to pass under the radar by editing as IP

That's my two cents. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC))

---

I'm not trying to be aggressive or anything else. I'm just trying to add constructive info for the article.

*Generally aggresive nature when discussing - I did not mean to do this at all. *Failure to participate in vote in issue which he started - I assumed that I already put in my reasons and had not much else to add *Movement of article without consent of other editors - I am sorry about this one. I introduced a section on the discussion page, I am not quite sure about the proper protocol for doing page moves. *Attempting to pass under the radar by editing as IP - I'm not trying to do that.

You clearly have problems with the few section you mentioned previous, however most of my edits are not controversial at all and have great sources:

• "It is officially called "illegal immigration" in the United States and by the European Union. Most International governmental and non-governmental organizations, such as the United Nations, the International Labour Organization (ILO), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and others use the term "irregular immigration"."
• "In 2010, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimated that 21.4 to 32.1 million people (or 10%–15%) of the world's total 214 million international immigrants are illegal immigrants, though the IOM notes that difficult to get accurate estimates. Other estimates put this number slightly higher. Furthermore, the IOM states that "most of these migrants enter legally but overstay the authorized stay." The majority of illegal immigrants are in the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimates that there were 11 million irregular immigrants in the US in 2008, while other estimates for the US range from 7 to 20 million. If these estimates are correct, it would mean that approximately half of the total irregular immigrants in the world are living in the US."
• It IS also called "irregular immigration" quite often. This should clearly be included in the article under the terminology section, and I would argue, at the beginning of the page as well.

Can anyone find any fault with any of these at all??

- 130.130.37.13 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC) (kylelovesyou)

Kylelovesyou, log in to your account when you make talk page comments. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that "irregular immigration" should be mentioned in the article's terminology section, though it should not dominate it. Still unsure about its inclusion in the lead. While it is an alternative to illegal immigration, it is not widely used by national governments or the media. An alternative word is usually included in a lead if there is an equally if not more popular term used or if there are different terms for dialects (ex. Automobile, Truck, Semi-trailer truck). Irregular immigration is neither more popular nor from a different dialect. Frankly, it is politically correct diplomat jargon.

• Don't see any immediate issues with the second edit. Again, try to limit your use of "many" and "other". We'll see what others think.

• Definitely issues with those other edits. You'll have to specify and verify facts if you want to include them.

Apologies if I seemed too assuming. You can never be too careful in Wikipedia. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC))

CIS does not seem unreliable per se

Someone flagged two citations as being of questionable reliability based on the fact the source is an advocacy group. I could find no policy which states that being an advocacy group, or not, makes a source unreliable. Therefore, one has to take each reference on a case-by-case basis. I looked at the two references and the second one is certainly reliable for the claims made about birthright citizenship. I can't make out what the first source is being used to support, and it has the tone of an editorial column and should be replaced with something better. I'm going to remove that ref, remove the tag from the second ref and add a {{citation needed}} tag to the first part of the paragraph. If anyone disagrees, let's discuss it here. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You can check the NPOV notice board for sections like this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_101#Catholic_League "I Agree... as an advocacy group, the Catholic League is reliable for attributed statements of opinion... but not for unattributed statements of fact. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)" -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We aren't discussing the Catholic League. Feel free to take any of the sources to the NPOV noticeboard. When I have done that in the past, there have been some POV warriors who want to blacklist publications they disagree with, but mostly they want to know what the claim is which is being supported by the source. Many of the sources used here are from sites which advocate a position on one side or the other of the issue. Some provide reliable data regardless, some do not and every one needs to be taken on it's own merits. Celestra (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You asked about the standard treatment of content from advocacy organizations. The above is Blueboar's (one of the most knowledgeable source reviewers) advice on how to treat advocacy organizations: dont use as a source for facts. if applicable, their opinions may be used if cited to them. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I stated that there was no policy. Even the label of "advocacy organization" is entirely POV. Rather than pick on one site which you apparently find biased, why don't you simply evaluate the individual citations? For instance, I don't see how any reasonable person can disregard this reference out of hand.:Feere, John (August 2010). "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison". Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved 2012-03-04.

It is a piece of research which include 70-80 reference documents. The fact that the author is a legal analyst for CIS does not disqualify the research. Celestra (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is incredibly easy to take items from other papers and present and combine them in ways that are faulty, so simply having cites to other data does not make a paper from an organization "reliable". I am perfectly fine with CIS content being represented as content from CIS.

If you think that organizations with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy use and trust data from CIS, then we can have a discussion about whether we need to attribute to CIS their claims. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you seem to require specific third party feedback, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Center_for_Immigration_Studies_as_a_source_for_Illegal_immigration. You may provide any context you feel necessary. You may wish to view Center_for_Immigration_Studies#Reception before you make any claims as to their objectivity. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is basically a lobby group and their conclusions should be attributed to them, preferably with a statement that they are an anti-immigration lobby group.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that conclusions should be attributed, with a neutral presentation of who they are the first time they are mentioned. It is the attribution and tagging of uncontroversial facts which I find objectionable. That and the fact that the recent changes to the article are focused on a single source, rather than to all of the sources in an unbiased manner. And the fact that those changes seem to have been made without regard to how those changes impacted the appearance of the article. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Appearnce counts more than neutrality? And if you are concerned about the improper presentation of comments by advocacy groups, it seems very counter productive to revert back to the bad version for one instead of building on that correction. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Our only goal should be the improvement of the article and Wikipedia in general. Removing poor references or making sure reader is not misled should be done in a way that improves the article, not simply in a way which detracts from the message of one group. An editor who is interested in improving the article would shape the content in a readable manner while making sure the reader understands that the source may be biased. For instance, "CIS says..." could be blended into the content by adding an intelligent lead-in sentence followed by the attributed assertion or conclusion. For a paragraph in "causes", something like "Opponents of illegal immigration believe lax enforcement is one of the causes of illegal immigration. One such group, the Center for Immegration Studies, says..." would improve things. Likewise, the paragraph which begins, out of the blue, with "Douglas Massey argues ..." should have a lead-in to explain to the reader what the paragraph is about and who Mr Massey is. Oh, and the bold and italics need to go. Clearly this article is a magnet for POV warriors and this is a good opportunity for neutral editors to actually improve it. You are welcome to participate in that effort. Celestra (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Undocumented Immigration

I'm wondering if this should change it's language focusing on the derogatory term "illegal" to a more neutral term like "undocumented" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.186.22 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Lets change it. Having a page about undocumented immigrants titled "illegal immigrants" is like having a page on African Americans and titling it "N*ggers" Its derogatory and unacceptable especially in 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.189.195 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in many jurisdictions, "illegal" is still an accurate term, reflecting the criminal nature of unauthorized immigration to that jurisdiction. For example, unauthorized immigration to Mexico is a felony offense and therefore illegal. 24.165.15.189 (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent massive overhaul/deletion of most content

I'm wondering if anyone else has any concerns about this series of edits: [1]. I'm tempted to revert them all; I think a discussion should have probably taken place before a change to the whole scope of the article like this. My concerns follow.

• Information about all countries other than the USA has been removed without explanation. There is an article on Illegal immigration to the United States, but Illegal immigration should represent a worldwide overview, I think. These sections on other countries were generally well sourced and neutral. The editor who deleted them wrote in the edit-summary that they were not notable, but I disagree and think that's at least worthy of discussion.

• Much of the information about causes and methods of illegal immigration, though that information was well sourced and neutral. No explanation was offered for this deletion.

• Much of the text that was added is incoherent. Here's the lead section, for example, in its entirety:

"Illegal Immigration from a global perspective in highly industrial countries like; the Americas, Continental Europe, and North, South, and East Asian countries are considered to be the same definition, in general terms, but all countries have specifics on what defines a citizen as in a legal citizen, recognized by a lawful central authority such as; a National Government or Union."

That doesn't make a lot of sense; it certainly doesn't tell me what illegal immigration is, which is what a lead section should do.

• The new version of the article makes several major unsourced claims, for example:

• "Those immigrants who deliberately enter an highly industrialized country without going through the proper and necessary process to becoming a recognized citizen in that country; it has been observed in observational studies that these types of immigrants typically are granting more economic opportunity than immigrants who were granted citizenship."

If there's a study to cite, it should be cited, if not, this information probably shoudn't be in the article. The grammar needs a cleanup here, too.

Hoping we can discuss ways to improve the article. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with a complete reversion. It is not appropriate to remove over 70,000 kb of information, including over 100 references, on a fairly high profile article, with no discussion. Dawn Bard, your concerns are completely accurate. Dana boomer (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the sources that contributors provided for the other countries, and there overwhelming foreign web sites that is to be challenged by WP: Verified and Notability. Most of the countries that were present in the Article before I edited out were not expicitly talking about illegal immigration within that country as a controversial or important issue. They were simply just citing close to decade old news about a minor event that just happens to be in relation to illegal immigration. I'm totally open to bringing these back but only if there were a notable concern and notable information that is in strong relation with illegal immigration. The only country within the Article is the United States in which it is an important manner, and is notable across the world. The "Basic of Understand" under the Causes of Illegal Immigration is not original research, it's just revised from the previous causes of illegal immigration that I found on the Article before I contributed. The content within it is purely practical. The lead is necessary compared to the other lead which was entirely from the viewpoint in the United States, the Article "Illegal Immigration" is suppose to be of a worldview consisting of all countries, and by the data it is most likely going to be among high industrial countries. American Patriot J (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in the discussion. I still disagree with your changes, and I am a bit confused by what you are saying here. When you refer to "overwhelming foreign sites that is to be challenged by WP: Verified and Notability", do you mean non-American websites? Non-American sites are not considered inherently unverifiable or non-notable on Wikipedia. Also it doesn't matter if the information is a decade old - this is not meant to be a news article or to address current events exclusively. I'm not challenging the fact that the USA should be in the article, it should clearly be in the article, but I don't understand why it should be the only country referenced in an article about illegal immigration in general. As I said above, there is already an article on Illegal immigration to the United States, so this article should be more broad.

In spite of your explanation, I'm still not sure why you changed the lead section. The previous lead was not USA-specific, here it is:

"Illegal immigration is the migration into a country/state in violation of the immigration laws and sovereignty of that country/state. Illegal immigration raises many political, economic and social issues and has become a source of major controversy in developed countries and the more successful developing countries.

In 2010, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimated that 25.5 to 32.1 million people (or 10%–15%) of the world's total 214 million international immigrants are illegal immigrants, though the IOM notes that it is difficult to make accurate estimates."

It specifically mentions worldwide migration in the second sentence, and the first sentence is a neutral, non-country-specific definition of illegal immigration.

I still don't understand why you felt all of the information about the problems with and methods of illegal immigration, and most of the information about the causes of illegal immigration, needed to be deleted without discussion. It seemed sourced and neutral, and if it maybe needed improvement, that doesn't mean it needed to be deleted. Also, I notice that you deleted the contents of this talk page before I posted my initial comment, and I strongly suggest you restore them, or create an archive for them. We aren't supposed to delete other users' comments from talk pages, except to archive them. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I restored the deleted comments, and struck the section of my comment that dealt with the issue. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And I reverted the edits to the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you even check the sources by actually clicking them before I contributed? Most of them were foreign-language sites, literally. The lead that was present before my contributions were not addressing the actual definition of it; it was just addressing political rhetoric or discussions surrounding it.American Patriot J (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

American Patriot J, please quit removing large amounts of information from the page. You have been shown that your edits are controversial - therefore, discuss them before making more. It doesn't matter if sources are in other languages - those are fine, as long as they are reliable. English sources are not required by Wikipedia's sourcing standards. If sources are unreliable, the next step is to try to find reliable sources for the information, not just remove it wholesale. The information on the US may need to be trimmed but, again, not just removed wholesale, and completely removing all of the information on other countries (as you did in your first set of edits) is completely the opposite of making the article have a broader worldview. The way to improve the article is through improving sourcing and coverage, not removing over 70,000 kb of information and over 100 references. Dana boomer (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia's barrier

The reason of building the Saudi-Iraq barrier isn't the control of immigration but to prevent the militias from moving freely to and from Saudi Arabia and " to protect itself against Saudi insurgents returning from Iraq." , so I think it it shouldn't be mentioned in this article.

see http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/iraq/article1994220.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdurra7man (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Recommend to Remove Racist Language

People are not "illegal" because they continue to breath air in a country without documentation while "looking foreign".

The language used in this article has the effect of altering how people vote in elections, which violates charity laws in the United States.

The article fails to mention that the term "illegal immigrant" only applies to people found guilty of a misdemeanor or felony in a court of law. You are "undocumented" if you lack documentation, not "illegal".

Example: People born outside the United States are not automatically categorized as criminals by US law. It is not a misdemeanor or felony to be born outside the US. It is not a misdemeanor or felony to lack documentation.

Only a judge and jury can determine if someone is "illegal" by establishing guilt involving a felony or misdemeanor in a court of law.

Lacking immigration documentation or a birth certificate is not a felony or misdemeanor in the US.

Immigration law is supposed to comply with international treaties, so the same is true for most other countries. That is why it is unconstitutional for individual states to control US immigration.

"Illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" are being used in this article to describe foreign citizens that are not criminals. This derogatory and racist language is an attempt to alter voting patterns of people that lack experience regarding immigration and employment. It is a violation of federal tax law for a US charitable institution to engage in political activity. The terms "illegal immigration" cannot be used in Wikipedia to describe an entire class of people that have not engaged in any misdemeanor or felony activity. "Encyclopedic" content is intended for students that will eventually vote. The use of "illegal" to describe a race or nationality is political activism intended to alter election outcomes. Taxes could be owed starting on the date when charity status was first compromised with that kind of language.

The correct word used to describe a person that lacks documentation is "undocumented". The correct non-racist terminology is "undocumented tourist" for visitors with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born worker" when the employer failed to pay the documentation fee for a foreign born worker, "undocumented foreign born student" for exchange students with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born resident" for people living in the US with an expired visa, etc.

The term "illegal immigrant" is only applicable to foreign born citizens found guilty of a crime, but the term is being used in this article to describe people that "look foreign" and lack documentation.

Many people born before 1959 in Hawaii and Alaska are undocumented because they cannot obtain a valid US birth certificate. Most people born before 1940 in places like Arizona and Oklahoma are undocumented because valid US birth certificate were not issued. Descendants of over 1 million US citizens deported to Mexico in the 1930s are also US citizens. All are undocumented. None of those people are "illegal", but the article implies that they are all criminals.

"Illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" would only be acceptable in a quote:

Arizona’s Conservative White Legislators: Illiterate and Racist on Immigration

SB 1070 is at best an inflammatory law and will surely come to serve as a rationale to justify violent attacks by the misguided against persons who appear to “look illegal.” ... Indeed, it is this ecology of fear that led to the murder of a young legal Ecuadorian immigrant in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn on December 7, 2008. The perpetrators of this crime were white youth who, like those convicted last month on Long Island for a similar crime, were out “Beaner hopping” or hunting for “illegal aliens.”

The difficulty is that the language used in this article is being used to encourage genocidal behavior, which obviously makes Wikipedia a political organization.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The text of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

"Undocumented foreign born worker", "undocumented foreign born students", and "undocumented foreign born residents" become documented by obtaining documentation.

Non-academic examples of how the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" communicate racism help to illustrate how this article compromises the intellectual integrity and charity status of Wikipedia.

• The anti-illegal immigrant agenda is about promoting xenophobia and nativism that has surfaced at various times in our history.
• Those who agree with Mr. Vargas say “illegal” should be banned because it suggests that “illegal immigrants” are criminals, which often isn’t true.
• Texas trooper in chopper shoots, kills 2 suspected illegal immigrants
• TEXAS ASKS FBI TO INVESTIGATE HELICOPTER SHOOTING
• Colorado Gas Station Caught Selling “Illegal Immigrant Hunting Permit” Sticker
• Gas Station Pulls Racist 'Illegal Immigrant Hunting Permit' Bumper Stickers
• Oops! You're racist.
• Taco Cid ... in Columbia, S.C., .. produced ... the T-shirt includes an image of a wooden trap with tacos used as bait and a caption that reads: “How to catch an illegal immigrant.”
• Charles Garcia created a stir among many conservatives recently when he defended and parroted allegations that using the term “illegal immigrant” is a racist slur.
• Mexican Restaurant Causes Commotion over “Racist T-shirt”
• Hundreds Protest NYU Republicans’ Racist “Illegal Immigrant” Hunt
• Immigrant tuition petition drive is all about bigotry

Remember:

• if it's clear vandalism and you can't fix it, please email info-en-vwikimedia.org and include the address or title of the article and a description of the issue.
• if it's an error or omission, please leave a note at the talk page of the article explaining the problem.

Regards, nanoatzin (talk).