Jump to content

Talk:DREAM Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 170.178.156.22 (talk) at 01:28, 27 September 2017 (→Terminology -- "illegal" vs. "undocumented"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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): Blackhawk archer (article contribs).

Terminology -- "illegal" vs. "undocumented"

This edit caught my eye. Out of curiosity, I checked the text of the bill reported by the Senate.

IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2), notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney General may cancel the removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States, if the alien applies for such cancellation and adjustment of status and demonstrates that ...

As I read this, the bill would enable the AG to adjust the status of aliens with inadmissible or deportable status to a status described as "lawfully admitted for permanent residence". It seems to me that this is better characterized as an adjustment

  • from unlawful to lawful
  • from illegal to legal

than as

  • from undocumented to documented.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur. It was changed again today [1]. As this is a likely polarizing sticking point, changing the language away from the text of the bill should achieve some consensus here on the talk page. I am reverting. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued use of offensive terms such as 'illegal immigrant' diminishes the quality, accuracy and objectivity of this article. People who lack proper documentation or a current visa do not deserve to be dehumanized by tawdry insults. AmboyBeacon (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But see WP:Offensive material and WP:Euphemism. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the legally correct term, "Illegal Alien" is neither tawdry, inaccurate, nonobjective, insulting or dehumanizing, it is simply being accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.178.156.22 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources overwhelmingly use the term "undocumented immigrant" or "illegal immigrant". It's mostly unreliable sources and fringe websites that use the term "illegal alien". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you consider the federal immigration statues unreliable. If you read the law, and not the liberal politically correct web sites, you will see the terms "Illegal Alien" and "Resident Alien". The term "undocumented immigrant" is a relatively recent creation used to imply the problem is a lack of paperwork and not the fact that the illegal alien has broken federal law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.178.156.22 (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current, common terminology in reliable sources is what we prefer - and the law is, at most, just one source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We should also note that the AP style guide eschews describing people as "illegal", and that avoidance has been embraced by a fair number of publications, although not uniformly. While we don't directly embrace the AP guide, the writing of Wikipedia should have more in common with news coverage than with laws, which is what one editor has been using as their argument for recently trying to edit war this in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However Wikipedia rules WP:EUPHEMISM are to be avoided. This is contrary to using the common terminology in many cases. While "undocumented" is common, it is a WP:EUPHEMISM. Even Wikipedia itself, redirects "undocumented immigrant" to "Illegal immigration". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.31.87.150 (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"undocumented immigrant" is a WP:Euphemism for an "illegal alien" used to imply that the issue is the lack of paperwork, not the fact that the person has violated immigration law. Saying that people can not be illegal is to imply that they cannot violate immigration law which is contrary to fact.

Note that a proposal to use only "Undocumented Immigrant" was overwhelmingly defeated on NPOV Notice Board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.178.156.22 (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. The proposal was to ALWAYS use "undocumented immigrant". There was no consensus for that. That doesn't mean we cannot use "undocumented migrant" - it means we decide on case by case, article by article basis. And this is one article where "undocumented migrant" makes much more sense. Volunteer Marek  05:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this context "use only" and "always use" mean the same thing. If you "use only" a given phrase, that is the exact same thing as "always use"ing a given phrase, so your statement is false. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What??? Dude. Basic logic. We have an article on it: logic. Volunteer Marek  01:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you're evading your block. Volunteer Marek  01:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Back with the insults that you have been warned about numerous time. Second, the block has expired. Also if you "use only" a given phrase, the means you use it in every instance, ie. you "always use" the given phrase. Hence they are logically, and semantically identical. Hence your additional statements, in addition to your original statement on 26 September 2017 are false.

requirement section

The requirement section makes it seem like the dreamers can choose to get permanent residence or conditional residency. Also you should site where you got the fact that says they do criminal background checks.Josep345 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall all the whole article

Reliable information gave us a lot of details and made the topic understandable but some of the wording was difficult to understand for example the word was to difficult to pronounce. In my opinion young kids who will read this article would have difficulty reading and understanding some of the words over all this Article was helpful to understand the topic Daisyrios20 (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Drios (talk) 23:18 16 April 2017[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DREAM Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:DREAM_Act&oldid=802572561"