Jump to content

Talk:Immigration to the United States/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 27 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for any sort of mass-renaming on these topics. Jenks24 (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


– WP:NPOVTITLE with regards the reader's location, per WP:WORLDWIDE LeadSongDog come howl! 22:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, there are many other pages in the same pattern, these are just examples. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONCISE (which I find more compelling than the NPOV argument), and as an aid to non-native English speakers who may not be clear on the emigrate/immigrate distinction (hell, plenty of native speakers are not). As long as "to" or "from" is in the title, the prefix attached to "migration" is unneeded.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per SMcCandlish's WP:CONCISE argument. As noted, 'to' and 'from' is a simple and intuitive method for readers to establish who has moved where (...and, yes, I'll stop before this starts to sound more and more like an episode of "Get Smart"). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • These appear to be correct uses of the terms. People immigrate to countries and emigrate from countries. "Migration" more often applies to the internal or periodic movements of people or animals and is better used for articles like Migration in China or Migration in Japan, which states "This article focuses on internal migration as well as migration from and to Japan", or for articles like bird migration. Station1 (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I would suggest that "Migration within China" and "Migration within Japan" are far more intuitive than the current WP:TITLEs. Migration is used as both a geographical and sociological descriptor for human movement across nation-state borders, and is certainly not a term proscribed exclusively to other fauna. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • We need to keep the standard, established and official terms used:Immigration and Emigration.Immigrant and Emigrant. This is the USA, we speak American English here. The terms immigration and emigration are accepted but others are not, in official AND common parlance. So the use of other terms is what will confuse matters. Why would we use less-descriptive terms that are not specific? Immigration means something specific (in-migration of a permanent nature) and emigration means something specific (out-migration ). We do not need to degrade or change our language used in order to cater to those who are not proficient in our language. We should use our LANGUAGE as it is properly used.
The term "migrant" in Brit english has a different meaning than in the US. In American english, a migrant is a person who moves around inside the usa. For instance, a migrant worker is one who moves around to follow the crops or a seasonal type job. IT DOES NOT REFER TO FOREIGNERS PER SE. It used to be mostly Americans doing this MIGRANT work, they moved and "migrated" over the crop season to follow the fruit as it ripened, etc. SO KEEP THE AMERICAN ENGLISH TERMS or you will be trying to IMPOSE British english onto American language and subject matter, on an American wikipedia page. NO good reason to do that. Not justifiable in any way.We cannot allow the illiterate to confuse languages on a wiki article.
INSTEAD, you could just redirect/ link the term "migration" to the proper titled article on "Immigration" pertaining to the usa, in American english. Or something to that effect.
Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
"This is the USA, we speak American English here"? Really? Have you even read wp:WORLDWIDE? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
To clarify then, the terms "immigration" and "emigration" assume that the writer and reader are in the same place. "Migration" is neutral because it avoids that assumption.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually, having checked over a few other examples, there seems to be confusion and a lack of any standard pattern for the usage of 'migration' and 'immigration' for ancient historical human migration and the concept of 'emigrants' and recent 'immigration'. As an example, see Immigration to Australia (where Australian immigration policies was merged), and Immigration history of Australia. The rationale behind that move was that the White Australia Policy was, at that time (2013), deemed to be unimportant enough to merit an article of its own (I beg your pardon, but nothing could be further from the historical truth). There appears to be a conflation of disparate subject matter being applied to articles. 'Out of Africa' migration routes and recent history, the formation of nation-states that adopted legislation surrounding entry into that country/nation-state are not one and the same thing. I'm finding the principles being applied less and less intuitive as I delve in. The standard seems to be whatever two or three editors paying attention to an article/series of articles at any one moment in time to be the only rule of thumb. Does anyone have suggestions as to how to apply WP:COMMONSENSE to this issue? Ancient human migration, sociology, politics, etc. are not conducive to 'one rule fits all'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
      • "Immigration" and "emigration" are really legal terms; they're not properly used in absence of a jurisdiction with border controls, so they don't apply historically past a certain point (which varies by location).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack and Meat Eating Orchid. The proposed titles are more difficult to parse, and less natural. As a non-native English speaker, I'm not confused with them in the slightest, and the proposed rationale would be maybe appropriate for simple:, but not here. No such user (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose articles are about destination country .....as per normal usage.--Moxy (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blanket nomination. Immigration/emigration is the modern method of moving between political jurisdictions. "Migration" as a term is evocative of prehistorical or pre-nation/state movements of humans, such as migration to between the continents (Africa to Europe, Asia to the Americas). -- Netoholic @ 08:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose not needed. Non-native English speakers are not helped by oversimplification of standard terms --if they are unaware of "immigration" and "emigration" they should consult their dictionary. Rjensen (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Proposed titles are more confusing and inappropriately broaden the scope. Migration seems to imply any type of migration, including ancient migrations. Immigration and emigration are common enough terms. However I would support creating redirects such as Emigration to the United States, which exists or Immigration from the United States, which doesn't, which would help address the location bias issue.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immigration to the United States. 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) 08:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Public opinion

I would recommend mentioning the different sides of the topic, both for and against it. The article should include distinct examples of those, for and against. More examples of the different views from real life perspectives would create a better comprehension of the topic and how people feel. Nolan williams (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong word in title

The article title should be either "Emigration to..." or "Immigration into..." WCCasey (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Recommend to Remove Racist Language

It is a misdemeanor to cross into the United States illegally and if done repeatedly can become a felony.

[http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/a2011_76.pdf "Illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" are being used in this article to describe Mexicans and other latinos 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 charitable institution to engage in political activity. The terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" cannot be used in Wikipedia to describe people that have not engaged in any misdemeanor or felony activity without crossing that line. 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. The debate on immigration is a controversial subject.

"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 kind of racist language used in this article is being used to encourage genocidal behavior.

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:

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.

Regards, nanoatzin (talk).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanoatzin (talk • contribs) 04:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

NICE TRY. But "illegal alien" means a person who has entered this country illegally and WITHOUT PERMISSION. getting documented is not automatic simply by applying. PERMISSION TO ENTER AND PERMISSION TO STAY MUST BE ALSO GIVEN FIRST, before entering, or afterward if that is possible (usually not). Then the person can be "documented". The term "illegal alien" refers only to the fact that the person has entered illegally or is present illegally WITHOUT OFFICIAL PERMISSION. It DOES NOT refer to the person having committed a crime other than illegal entry, which is designated as a misdemeanor. YOU cannot change that FACT by your wishful thinking and coercive guilt-shaming. This FACT in print may help some to avoid committing a misdemeanor if they read the FACTS of this important matter. Your assertions are absurd and false. No person who knows our laws would take you seriously. YOUR diatribe is actually imaginative opinionated deceptive POLITICAL ACTIVISM and does not represent our laws at all. Show us your court decision supporting your outrageous bogus claims spelled out plainly on a court document or Congressional document that lays down the law. The link you gave to the IRS has NOTHING ON IT about the subject you are preaching on. STOP USING HEAVY HANDED THREATS TO COERCE WIKIPEDIA TO CATER TO YOUR SERIOUSLY BIASED POLITICAL PREFERENCES. Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Meat Eating Orchid: A) You are responding unnecessarily, and in a WP:BATTLEGROUND manner, to an extremely old thread. B) Please read WP:SHOUT. I would suggest that you modify your response both here and, more particularly to the move request (below) to conform with good talk page practices. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The same thing goes Nanoatzin. It is not racist to use the correct term illegal immigrant and is reprehensible to even suggest it. I now changed the article to feature the correct term.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
We should reflect the language that the sources. The overwhelming majority of scholarly sources use the terms "undocumented" or "unauthorized". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The overriding principle is WP:NPOV. Even if a source reference Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as terror organisation (which most western media does). The article should and is NPOV. Take a look where undocumented immigrant takes you.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the term "illegal immigration". Most RS, in particular scholarly RS, do not use the term "illegal immigrant" though. If you're completely unfamiliar with the debate over terminology on this subject, you should perhaps stay out of it and inform yourself first. You also seem extremely confused as to what WP:NPOV is. Do you just randomly throw around phrases that you hear other Wikipedia editors use? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I just told you what NPOV says. An outside debate whether or not to use a term that tries to conceal the meaning is irrelevant as wikipedia should use neutral language and not take a side in the level immigration. Now did the Isis article say: " is a Salafi jihadist militant group and former unrecognised proto-state that follows a fundamentalist, Wahhabi, and heterodox" or "Isis is a terrorist organisation"? Take a look at the headline of this section. The user claim illegal immigrant is racist which tells you exactly which kind of people that use undocumented immigrant.
So you are clearly wrong here. Plus your tone and behavior is not compatible with community standards. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The term "undocumented immigrant" is neutral language. There's nothing more neutral about using "illegal immigrant"; in fact it's a term that most RS do not use. I have no clue what the point of your ISIS rambling is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Since this is your 4th time you mention within two days that you do not understand an argument that is being presented by me or others, the problem seem to be with you and not with me. Maybe you shouldn't have such strong opinion about language if you are not proficient in English? Undocumented immigrant is vague Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Words_to_watch, also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Expressions_that_lack_precision. If you were serious editor, you would of course acknowledge (as the section's original poster have demonstrated that) "undocumented immigrant" is only used by people who have a agenda not recognize the people of the united states right to regulate their immigration. [1]. But again, if you were a serious person, you would not be an advocate for unregulated immigration in the first place.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Stop the personal attacks Immunmotbluescreen – Wikipedia has a no personal attacks policy, and you risk being blocked if you persist. As to Snooganssnoogans command of the English language: Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black. Instead of galloping roughshod over several articles and noticeboards, you'd best rein 'er in kemosabe. Mojoworker (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
IT'S IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH WHO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT . AN UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT is nonexistent. A person without papers is NOT an immigrant at all but an alien, and an undocumented one. So at least use the correct term- perhaps undocumented alien would suffice. Only a person with proper papers, whose intent and application is to stay permanently and become a citizen, can be technically termed an "immigrant".

Any number of scenarios can apply to the term "alien"- that denotes a foreign person present but not a citizen. It is a broad category which includes people present from a foreign nation, who may be either legally present or ILLEGALLY present.

Thus the term, Illegal Alien, refers to persons without proper papers, whose presence in the USA is illegal. It is illegal for them to be present. That is a very technically correct and widely accepted term. It does not contain anything about their race , nor is it derogatory, but rather it is very clearly declaratory of their actual status. Unfortunately user nanoatzin has aggressively tried to use the page as an activist and manipulate everyone with extremely erroneous FALSE accusations which are not supported by any laws.

The term "illegal alien" does not indicate a person who has committed a law violation, other than being present in the US without proper papers. Their presence in the US is a law violation and therefore illegal. This applies to all persons present illegally, whether they are Latino, European,British, Chinese, African, or whatever their foreign nation may be. They are foreign nationals present without permission and without proper papers. END OF STORY. you can't change the fact they are illegal aliens, nor can you remove or change the meaning of that term in common parlance. It is the most well-understood term in use by American english speakers today. It does NOT carry any meaning that denotes the commission of additional crimes other than illegal presence or illegal entry.
FROM THE US GOV IMMIGRATION TERMINOLOGY PAGE:
"Immigrant
An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Also known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a "green card" (USCIS Form I-551), which is the evidence of the alien’s LPR status. LPR’s who are awaiting the issuance of their green cards may bear an I-551 stamp in their foreign passports."
"Illegal Alien
Also known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable."
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/immigration-terms-and-definitions-involving-aliensCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Loaded term ("anchor babies") inserted and misrepresentation of information from a source

The text in paragraph nine does not accurately nor neutrally summarize the information in the source. It conflates two separate actions and adds unnecessary politically charged interpretation and language.

Section: History, Paragraph Nine (not including block quote): "In 2012 and 2014, President Obama initiated policies that were intended to ease the pressure on deporting people who use anchor babies as a means of immigrating to the United States.[31]" [31] Gonzales, Daniel (March 13, 2016). "How we got here:The many attempts to reform immigration, secure the border". Florida Today. Melbourne, Florida. p. 1A. Archived from the original on March 14, 2016. Retrieved March 13, 2016.

Relevant text from source (Gonzales): "June 15, 2012 Obama announces a new policy to let “dreamers” brought to the U.S. illegally as children to apply for deportation deferments, a way of remaining in the country temporarily without the threat of deportation. Those approved could receive work permits, allowing them to work legally.

Obama characterized the policy as a stopgap measure until Congress could pass more permanent solutions, such as the Dream Act. The move helped shore up support with Latino voters upset over the record number of deportations during his first term.

Nov. 20, 2014 Obama uses his executive authority to expand deportation deferments for dreamers and also offer deportation deferments to undocumented parents with children who are either U.S. citizens or legal residents. The programs are put on hold after Texas and two dozen other states including Arizona file a lawsuit claiming Obama acted illegally. The Supreme Court is considering whether to rule on the lawsuit." Hensong (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

In Literature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_(novel_by_Jorge_Majfud) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alondresgirl (talk • contribs) 16:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

US student assigned to this Wikipedia entry

I'll be adding suggestions in Talk as well as sending 8-10 major edits before May 10th. Looking forward to working with this page's editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubersuperman (talk • contribs) 02:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Added to Political section. Noted calls for the National Guard at the United States-Mexico border. Added to Military Immigration. Clarified between foreign births that require additional documentation and military programs to gain or give access to United States citizenship. Ubersuperman (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubersuperman (talk • contribs) 07:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Added a section in inequality explaining the negative impact and resulting imbalance of workers and housing prices caused by sending high-skilled workers from home/sending countries.Ubersuperman (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Added a section on brain drain; the effect sending healthcare professionals has on sending countries.Ubersuperman (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Added to the asylum for refugees section to explain the lack of resources to cover monthly applications that had led to a backlog.Ubersuperman (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Added to Political to describe the arrival of the caravan of Central American asylum seekers. What policy has been updated by Attorney General Sessions and President Trump? They have made statements about border wall security, immigration, and specifically about asylum seekers (the caravan).Ubersuperman (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Added to Religious diversity section by including numbers on non-religious.Ubersuperman (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Added to Assimilation section to elaborate on the process and speed of assimilation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubersuperman (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the country Norway is missing from the "Origins" table (it does show on the map that appears adjacent)

Be nice if someone added Norway to the Origins table. First time for me to make a comment so not quite sure how this works 73.95.190.19 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Ed Stanton

It's off the bottom of the chart at 22,669. I'd add it, but I'm not sure where the 1986-2016 stats are coming from. Mojoworker (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2019

Please update the immigration statistics for year 2017 Oxidised Alpha (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Reorganisation of Subheading

The subheading for 4. Effects of immigration can be separated into 4. Effects of immigration on the United States and the section under '4.3 Social' can be its own subheading: 5. Social effects on the immigrant. This would be more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliciageng1 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yale Study estimates 22 million undocumented migrants.

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.199.191 (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Cute Article

An Article on US immigration and not one word was spent discussing the first major waves of immigrants in the mid-19th Century (Irish Famine refugees and German 48ers). I find this to be more interesting than the article itself.Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Undocumented vs. illegal

The use of the phrase 'undocumented immigrant' instead of 'illegal immigrant' is a MOS:EUPHEMISM and NPOV violation (Most US law uses the term 'illegal'). Carrot official (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2019

in the first pie chart the percentage of asian immigrants should be changed to 42 and Americas to 39 Bad1994 (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: the pie chart you mentioned shows the numbers for immigration from 2016. The adjacent table shows the data for 2016 and the two years prior, and I think you've confused the 2016 data in the pie chart with the 2014 data in the table. If I've misinterpreted, let us know and someone will take another look. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Persons or people?

The word "persons" is written 13 times in this article. Should it be changed to "people"? Melofors (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, except for quotations (1 case) and titles in references (5 cases). Station1 (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Trump Policies

Trump's administration deported 295,000 illegal immigrants in 2017, the lowest number since 2006. (Remove this due to inaccurate information and replace with the following:)

According to a report released by ICE, during the fiscal year of 2016 ICE removed 240,255 immigrants. During the fiscal year of 2018, ICE removed 256,085 immigrants [1]. There has been a significant increase in the removal of immigrants since President Trump took office. The reason for the increase in removals is due to the policies that the Trump administrations have put in place.

The Trump Administration has continued their promise of a heavy hand on immigration and is now making it harder for asylum seekers. Most recent policies are attacking what is means for an asylum seeker to claim credible fear, these policies are changing the ways in which asylum officers assess an asylee’s circumstance, “A passage has been altered on individuals’ ‘demeanor, candor, and responsiveness’ as a factor in their credibility. Both the 2017 and 2014 versions note that migrants’ demeanor is often affected by cultural factors, including being detained in a foreign land and perhaps not speaking the language, as well as by trauma sustained at home of on the journey to the US. But the new version removes guidance that said these factors shouldn't be ‘significant factors’ in determining someone’s credibility — essentially allowing asylum officers to consider signs of stress as a reason to doubt someone’s credibility”[2]. To further decrease the amount of asylum seekers into the United States, Attorney Jeff Sessions released a decision that restricts those fleeing gang violence and domestic abuse as ‘private crime’, therefore making their claims ineligible for asylum, “The 31-page decision narrows the ground for asylum for victims of ‘private crime’ and will cut off an avenue to refuge for women fleeing to the United States from Central America. ‘Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum,’ Sessions said in the opinion”[3]. These new policies that have been put in place are putting many lives at risk, to the point that the ACLU has officially sued Jeff Sessions along with other members of the Trump Administration claiming that, “these policies undermine the fundamental human rights of women and violate decades of settle asylum law” [4].

Since the Trump Administration took office, it remained true to its hard stance on immigration. Trump and his administration almost immediately looked to remove the DACA program that was put in place by the Obama Administration. A policy was passed to stop granting citizenship requests. If you go to the DACA page on the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services a warning appears that states: “Important information about DACA requests: Due to federal court orders, USCIS has resumed accepting requests to renew a grant of deferred action under DACA. USCIS is not accepting requests from individuals who have never before been granted deferred action under DACA. Until further notice, and unless otherwise provided in this guidance, the DACA policy will be operated on the terms in place before it was rescinded on Sept. 5, 2017”[5]. The Trump administration ordered federal courts to no longer grant citizenship to DACA requestors, making the process to citizenship for young children brought to the country illegally by their parents almost non-existent.

Asouffront (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Public Opinion

Public response to the Trump Administration’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy: What really stood out to the public in regards to the issue were the ways in which children were treated during their detainment. “During its implementation children were taken away from their parents and kept in prison-like appalling conditions (eg, tents, warehouses, cages), Trump’s administration however, claimed that this policy would act as a ‘deterrent’ for the influx of refugees into the United States” [6]. This created massive amounts of outrage, the campaign ‘Close the Camps’ was created and the facilities that were detaining young children were compared to concentration camps and internment camps. Many have begun to recognize the ways in which these policies are negatively impacting the children that have been separated from their families. There has been research showing that this has had psychological impacts on these young children, many of them have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, “the children, many already distressed in their home countries or by their journey, showed more fear, feelings of abandonment and post-traumatic stress symptoms than children who were not separated” [7].

Asouffront (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Refugee Numbers

In the 2016 fiscal year, the US accepted 84,995 refugees from around the world. In 2017 it was announced it is prepared to welcome for resettlement to only 45,000 a decrease from the 84,995 the last year. In 2018 it was announced by the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that the United States would cap the number of refugees allowed into the country at 30,000 for fiscal year 2019. (Remove this due to inaccurate information and replace with the following:)

According to the Department of State, in the 2016 fiscal year 84,988 refugees were accepted into the US from around the world. In the fiscal year of 2017, 53,691 refugees were accepted to the US. There was a significant decrease after Trump took office and it continues in the fiscal year of 2018 when only 22,405 refugees were accepted into the US. This is displays a massive drop in acceptance of refugees since the Trump Administration has been in place. [8]

Asouffront (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Fiscal Year 2018 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/eroFY2018Report.pdf.
  2. ^ Kopan, Tal. “Trump Admin Quietly Made Asylum More Difficult.” CNN, Cable News Network, 8 Mar. 2017, https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/trump-immigration-crackdown-asylum/index.html.
  3. ^ Hesson, Ted, et al. “Sessions Moves to Block Asylum for Most Victims of Domestic, Gang Violence.” POLITICO, 11 June 2018, https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/11/jeff-sessions-aslyum-standards-domestic-violence-614158.
  4. ^ Hartmann, Margaret. “ACLU Sues Sessions Over Ending Asylum for Victims of Domestic and Gang Violence.” Intelligencer, Intelligencer, 8 Aug. 2018, http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/aclu-sues-asylum-domestic-gang-violence.html.
  5. ^ “Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).” USCIS, 5 Sept. 2017, https://www.uscis.gov/archive/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca.
  6. ^ Karamouzian, Mohammad. "Trump's Zero-tolerance Policy: Would a Political Response to a Humanitarian Crisis Work?" International Journal Of Health Policy And Management 7.11 (2018): 1070-072. Web.
  7. ^ Al Jazeera. “Migrant Children Separated from Family Show Signs of PTSD: Report.” US-Mexico Border News | Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera, 4 Sept. 2019, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/migrant-children-separated-family-show-signs-ptsd-report-190904160323720.html.
  8. ^ “Refugees and Asylees.” Department of Homeland Security, 18 Nov. 2019, https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/refugees-asylees.

With the exception of native Americans?

What people call “native Americans” came to America across the Bering strait at some point in history. This article reads like an opinion piece. Bjoh249 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

So...? No one disputes this terminology. They’ve also been on that continent for longer than any nation has ever existed. I’m failing to see how this makes the article “read like an opinion piece”. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Assimilation?

The section on Assimilation is misleading. The references are about economic and fiscal assimilation not assimilation in general. This needs to be made clear in the text. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.172.49 (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump administration is considering boosting the number of visas offered to wealthy immigrants, add?

X1\ (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Colonial Period??

There should be no mention at all of settlers who arrived during the colonial period, since these migrants were colonizers -- as the name 'colonial' suggests -- and not immigrants. The definition of immigrant is, "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country," not "a person who comes to colonize a land that may or may not become a country some day."

And it's a curious thing that the author(s) of this article felt it necessary not only to start US immigration history in the pre-national period, but also paid no mention to the Spanish and French colonizers who had a much earlier footprint in territories that would later become part of the US. As some of you may be aware, this site has a significant problem with British and Brit-centric editors who like to inject the English into histories that deal with periods or subjects where the English had very little, if any, presence. This is a problem on American history articles as well as articles pertaining to Europe.

I will remind such editors that "English Wikipedia" means that the encyclopedia is written in the language of English, not that the editors must find creative ways to anglicize every subject. The scholarly consensus is currently that Irish Catholics were the first major class of immigrants in the United States. Between 1820 and 1920, some 5 million Irish Catholics emigrated from Ireland to America, a number that few other US ethnic groups can match. It is also the consensus that Irish Catholics introduced the assimilation model that future immigrant classes would imitate. This is a major aspect of US immigration history, and should therefore be accorded significant treatment in US immigration articles, sections, and cognate subjects. This article contains only a passing mention of "large numbers of Irish Catholics" that were "added to a mix" that included, of course, British immigrants.

As most of you are aware, tomorrow we celebrate our independence in the United States, to commemorate the day when the British were officially kicked out of America. And for my July 4 contribution I'd like to kick them out of this article. If any editor knows of reliable sources that deal with British immigration in the early national period, he/she is more than welcome to cite the material and start the history section off there. But as it stands right now I am calling for the complete removal of the colonial period from the first section, as it's got heck all to do with the subject of immigration. There is a rather long and elaborate Wiki article on 'Colonial America' that pays more than enough attention to the colonizers, with a disproportionate focus on the Brits.Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2020

The statement: "There has been a significant increase in the removal of immigrants since President Trump took office." Should be removed or edited. The preceding president removed immigrants at a significantly higher rate than Trump during his first 6-7 years and then basically stopped on his last year in office. So this sentence is misleading, biased, and subjective. A correct statement would be the facts. Show the deportations that took place over the last 20 years. Obama had some years over 300k deported. Trump is in the low 200k. Please don't lie and say Trump has "increased" especially don't say "significatly increased" deportation. Wmorrisr1 (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

Add {{US citizenship and immigration}} to the page. (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done EN-Jungwon 12:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

The refname "naturalization" is no longer used in the article but still appears in the reflist, causing a cite error. It should be commented out or removed.
Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Mckennahf.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Nolan williams.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aliciageng1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Asouffront.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 October 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mariahrose62.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Conditions at the Border

According to the source State of the Union In Numbers in April 2021, more than 20,000 unaccompanied children were located at the border facility of Health and Human Services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janekaydough (talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LIBR 1 Working with Sources

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2022 and 20 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nathaliafm (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kdavis25 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"Israeli immigration to South Florida" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Israeli immigration to South Florida and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 27 § Israeli immigration to South Florida until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Fram (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2023

There number and rank of immigrants are not right Jaulesmckinsky (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jaulesmckinsky:  Not done: please be specific and provide reliable sources for you claims. What exactly are the right number and rank of immigrants? According to who? small jars tc 17:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

American Council of Learned Societies

Why do editors keep citing the ACLS results as the final word on the 1790 population? Scholars have determined ACLS data inaccurate and unreliable for many decades now[2]. There are other sources that have revised these estimates. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Section repeats, same text

There is repeating text under the heading "Exclusion Era" Calliope777 (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2023

Contemporary immigration numbers of lawful permanent residents should be updated with data from 2021 and 2022. 2021 data is here https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/2022_0405_plcy_lawful_permanent_residents_fy2021v2.pdf 2022 data is here https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/legal-immigration (there's a xlsx file that contains statistics for all 4 quarters of 2022. Abramprice87 (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2023

Change table titled "Top 15 Countries of Origin of Permanent Residents, 2015–2021:" to include 2022 data released on 03/08/2023. That data can be found here: https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/legal-immigration/year-end Abramprice87 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Abramprice87, may I suggest you copy the existing table over to your own userspace and update it yourself? Then when you're finished, reopen the edit request and point whoever answers to the updated table. Thanks, Xan747 (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! finally got the updated table put together (pasted below). please change the table entitled "Top 15 Countries of Origin of Permanent Residents, 2015-2021" to include 2022 data posted here ( https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/legal-immigration/year-end). Note that the top 15 countries for 2022 have changed. Canada, Honduras, and Guatemala are now in the Top 15 and South Korea, Haiti, and Nigeria are not. I have retrieved the 2015-2021 data for Canada, Honduras, and Guatemala and removed the rows for South Korea, Haiti, and Nigeria.
Top 15 Countries of Origin of Permanent Residents, 2015–2022:[1]
Country 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
 Mexico 158,619 174,534 170,581 161,858 156,052 100,325 107,230 138,723
 India 64,116 64,687 60,394 59,821 54,495 46,363 93,450 125,130
 China 74,558 81,772 71,565 65,214 62,248 41,483 49,847 68,100
 Dominican Republic 50,610 61,161 58,520 57,413 49,911 30,005 24,553 39,472
 Philippines 56,478 53,287 49,147 47,258 45,920 25,491 27,511 36,313
 Cuba 54,396 66,516 65,028 76,486 41,641 16,367 23,077 31,347
 El Salvador 19,487 23,449 25,109 28,326 27,656 17,907 18,668 30,478
 Vietnam 30,832 41,451 38,231 33,834 39,712 29,995 16,312 23,804
 Brazil 11,424 13,812 14,989 15,394 19,825 16,746 18,351 23,596
 Colombia 17,316 18,610 17,956 17,545 19,841 11,989 15,293 21,433
 Venezuela 9,144 10,772 11,809 11,762 15,720 12,136 14,412 19,956
 Canada 19,309 19,349 18,469 14,337 14,723 11,297 12,053 19,313
 Honduras 9,071 12,996 12,792 13,492 15,901 7,843 9,425 16,936
 Guatemala 11,466 12,547 11,147 15,172 13,111 7,369 8,199 16,814
 Jamaica 17,642 23,350 21,905 20,347 21,689 12,826 13,357 16,300
 South Korea 17,138 21,801 19,194 17,676 18,479 16,244 12,351 16,058
Total 1,051,031 1,183,505 1,127,167 1,096,611 1,031,765 707,362 740,002 1,018,004
Abramprice87 (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR)". Retrieved November 6, 2022.
Table markup edited so that table displays as I believe Abramprice87 intended. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggest splitting this article

Hello,

This article is over 300,000 bytes. The splitting guidelines suggest to split an article when it reaches or surpasses 100,000 bytes. Therefore, I think it is a good idea to split it at this time. If you oppose this, please add a comment with your rationale. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, so I support the split. deisenbe (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
i think we should split it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.81.85 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the proposal as presently described on the article page:

It has been suggested that this article be split into articles titled Demographics of immigration to the United States, Effects of immigration to the United States, Legal issues of immigration to the United States, Public opinion of immigration to the United States and United States immigration policy.

I agree that the present article is cumbersome and could benefit from being divided. It seems to me that it would be appropriate to keep law and policy in a single article, as law and policy intersect. I also wonder if effects and public opinion should be kept within a single article. Arllaw (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Arllaw: Sorry for my late response. If effects and public opinion are to be in a single article, what should that article's title be? "Effects and public opinion of immigration to the United States"? If you have any suggestions, please feel free to state them; this goes for anyone else as well. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps something simpler, like "Impact of Immigration to the United States". Arllaw (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Arllaw: It might be necessary to do without conciseness in favour of clarity. I'm not sure if "impact" communicates the intended message, and I'm also concerned that it could be a colloquialism in this context. I'd like to hear what others think about this, though – perhaps there's a better title someone else could come up with, or perhaps the title you suggested is fine and I'm just overthinking it. I posted about this split discussion on the United States wikiproject talk page once before, but that didn't seem to attract much attention. Do you have any suggestions for how we can get more input here? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
"Impact of..." seems to be a common approach to titling articles, but you may find other common approaches. Even though less specific, a concise title can provide advantages to end-users over a "more precise" title that is excessively long. Arllaw (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Arllaw: We can go with that then. So what is the list of proposed sub-articles now? I'll update the template on the article page accordingly. DesertPipeline (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
How about just "Effects of immigration"? Public opinion to it would be a section. deisenbe (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Deisenbe: That was my first suggestion. Depending on the merit of the points for and against such titles, and any other options that exist, we can decide which to use. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I doubt that's gonna do anything, the public opinion part is barely much to change, the article would still be too long to navigate comfortably. I suggest an alternative message: This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. Cleter (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

As anybody who's ever tried it knows, splitting an article is not as simple as it sounds. X-References may fail, so notes have to be copied and pasted. Plus there need to be new links associating the new articles. All the links to the present article—there are hundreds—need to be revised multiple times. To which new articles would the existing illustrations be moved? What new illustrations are available for the new articles? There is also the question of whether everything in the current article would properly fit into one of the new articles, and what to do if some of it doesn't. And there is also the not insignificant question of who would do what, and who would coordinate things. In my view, there has to be one person at least keeping track of all the parts of each revision.

Perhaps someone could explain to me what section(s) of the present article would properly be turned into an article on "United Ststes Immigration Policy", as suggested above. The history?

On looking at the existing article, it says absolutely nothing, and says that it is saying nothing, about the forced immigration of enslaved Africans until 1808, and clandestinely afterwards. They were not being counted as immigrants at the time, but in every sense I can think of, they were still immigrants. They came from foreign countries to the United States, where almost all of them remained. They were immigrants. And their numbers were substantial. They belong in the statistics. deisenbe (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has been dormant for several months, so I've begun the process of splitting the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: The opinion about the topic is a component of the topic itself and belongs within the primary article. Also, this proposal was made almost a year ago and should now be settled one way or the other. Keystone18 (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Immigration_to_the_United_States/Archive_3&oldid=1261318720"