Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Overstayers

Editors have claimed that 40% of the illegal immigrants have "merely" overstayed their visas. If the article doesn't state this, it seems to me that it should analyze this group. Were these mostly farm workers? The legal visitors I know of are academics and religious. They go home before their visa expires and reapply. They have to wait several months for readmission, which is quite inconvenient IMO. Also, considering that they most probably won't be "picked up" by anyone (no one has that job), why wouldn't they just stay on and apply for full citizenship when amnesty is declared, which it always is eventually? Doing it correctly means they won't be eligible for citizenship! Student7 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you still doubt the numbers? They are clearly cited in the article.
Most visa overstayers have come in on a B-1 ("business") or B-2 ("tourist") visas (or the combined B-1/B-2 visa). Others come in on the 9 month visa or student visas. There are plenty of reasons why they have stayed. It could be something as simple as taking out a student or business loan, and then having the economy in your home country collapse so that it would be impossible to pay it off if you went home. The thing is that if you overstay by any amount of time, even if you leave legally you can be barred from ever returning again for any reason, which is a huge incentive not to leave after that point.--Cúchullain t/c 21:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you are saying here. As far as I know, no one "checks out" when leaving. Do legal immigrants? Americans certainly don't. There are no physical impediment to leaving the country. So how would the US government know that a person had overstayed? There are no checks. Student7 (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there are checks. Date of departure is supposed to be stamped on your passport (if you leave legally). If they catch that you're beyond your designated date at the time and note it, or catch it when you're trying to return, there are harsh consequences, ranging from a three- or ten-year ban to what can amount to a complete ban. There can even be problems for you if you did leave when you were supposed to and your passport wasn't stamped (though there are other ways to prove you really did leave). And that's not to mention if you are caught before leaving and deported.--Cúchullain t/c 17:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Historical Data

This article is missing recent and historical deportation numbers, which fluctuate due to politics and economy. I think it's very important to include, but where in the article to add it, I'm unsure. 67.180.92.188 (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You have made an excellent point. Deportations should be mentioned. But it must be made in the context of "immigration". That is vital, otherwise non-WP:TOPIC. My thought is to try a separate subsection near the bottom which says "Government response" or "Official response." These are hardly classic subtitles and I am sure you can come up with something better. It needs to include wording (which may already be there) that once in, immigration officials could care less unless the illegal commits a felony. So for Immigration and Naturalization Department, it's the border, or nothing.
And good citations, right? Thanks for bringing this up. Student7 (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Illegal Immigrant" is a Misnomer

While I understand that the dictionary definition of 'immigration' certainly allows the word to be used in this sense, you will not find a single reference in U.S. immigration law to 'illegal immigrant'. Obviously the term is enjoying widespread usage but a sentence explaining that an 'illegal immigrant' is actually an illegal alien might be salient. I guess what I'm suggesting is a more concise description of what an 'illegal immigrant' really is, using law based terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.231.218 (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to add such a section, along with the sources where you found the information.GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree: A section should be added to the article discussing this nomenclature issue and this discussion section should continue with regards to the title of the article. Based on quick research it seems that "undocumented immigrant" is the correct term in both legal and academic situations.[1] This decision should be made with regards the wikipedia:npov policy. More academic research is needed first. -Socalres (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that nomenclature should be discussed, but I don't think that "undocumented" should replace "illegal". A Google search for the quoted search term "illegal immigrant" returned "About 1,110,000 results", whereas using the quoted search term "undocumented immigrant" returned "About 719,000 results". Also, in clicking on the "News for" link in the results, "illegal immigrant" yields "About 1,590 results" and "undocumented immigrant" yields "About 136 results". One current example of the use of "illegal" is used in this Seattle Times article. Furthermore, the about.com article referenced above is just another opinion work that doesn't cite references (only one person's point of view). In searching Laws.com it seems that "illegal immigration" is the preferred term. In short, I think it is important to clarify nomenclature, but "illegal immigrant" is not a misnomer. Impliedchaosx (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

While "illegal immigrant" may be preferred in a colloquial sense, this doesn't take away from the point that in legal terms, "illegal immigrant" is most definitely a misnomer. Consider that a legal immigrant is one that has been granted permanent legal residence status. Persons in the U.S. on work, travel, or other visas are certainly not here illegally, but they are also, technically, not "legal immigrants." It should also be noted that laws.com, referenced by impliedchaosx, is not an objective or unbiased source of information. A compelling proof to continue to use the term "illegal immigrant" should be supported by existing immigration law. In other words, so long as existing immigration law fails to make the designation "illegal immigrant" it should be discarded. For an alternative, I suggest the Social Security Administration's preference, "other than legal immigrant." When referring to persons who have entered the US in an unlawful manner, this is technically referred to as "illegal entry," not "illegal immigrant." 64.108.89.249 (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)sara

Who wants to be first on WikiProject Music to tell them that they should not employ the term "Lady Gaga" because she has not been legally designated by the Queen? Or the word "hairball" cannot be used because the contents have not been examined by a reputed laboratory along with its findings? Or "cloudy sky" cannot be used because an exact inventory of the sky had not been made by the weather analysts? Or funny car cannot be used because there are a number of them and therefore no longer "peculiar?" Or "Somalian Pirates" because they have not been tried and will doubtlessly plead that they were "assisting" stranded boaters?
Use of common terms should be used IMO. We don't need to stop and take a vote every time we write a sentence. If the term is not obviously pov (e.g. "Crazy Muslims") and in common usage, it should be used. We do not have to have a 100% conviction rate for everyone that sneaks over a border in order to use the term. Particularly true when the Department of Immigration has no charter, nor is trying to bring these illegals to court. They are still here illegally. No one claims otherwise! Student7 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Illegal Alien voting

Should there by be a section in regards to illegal aliens voting in Federal, State, and local elections? There have been several news stories regarding this, therefore there are reliable sources which to build the section with. Such as those found here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

For instance five thousand were found to have voted in Colorado. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Several news stories" don't cut it for an article on so broad a subject as illegal immigration. Wikipedia is not news.--Cúchullain t/c 20:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Hard to prove. Requiring meager identification at the polls is "suspicious" and annoying to some of us, but not quite the smoking gun to prove widespread illegal voting. Unfortunately. We would need a scholarly basis for this. And there may be some scholarly research out there. It is possible. But probably not the media generally, except maybe the NY Times. Student7 (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Trade agreements section very POV

The section on the effects of NAFTA is extremely unbalanced and POV. For starters the sources are cherry picked - and most of the paragraph seems to rely on an opinion of some journalist from what appears to be an editorial. Not a reliable source. Actual economic estimates of the effects of NAFTA show a very different picture. For example [2]. The general assessment of NAFTA's effect on the Mexican economy has been that it didn't deliver as much as was hoped for (see for example [3], although longer term assesments take a more positive view ([4]).

And then there's some outright synthesis and stupidity going on: The 1994 economic crisis in Mexico,[34] which occurred the year NAFTA went into effect, resulted in a devaluation of the Mexican peso, decreasing the wages of Mexican workers relative to those in the United States.

Yes, the crisis depressed Mexican wages, that's what happens in a recession. But they bounced back within a two years. What does devaluation of the peso have to do with immigration? What does NAFTA have to do with the crisis - the text insinuates a connection but the answer is "damn nothing".

Most of this junk needs to be simply removed, and perhaps replaced with actual academic studies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

not in source

The definition given in the first line of lede: refers to the act of foreign nationals violating U.S. immigration policies and national laws by entering or remaining in the United States without proper permission from the United States government is NOT in the source given [5] and it also smacks of heavy POV pushing. I'm going to change it back to the more neutral wording which used to exist in the article before.

I also think that we shouldn't use CIS in the lede given that they're more or less an explicitly anti-immigration advocacy organization. Since at least some of the research they carry out is legit (while some isn't) it's probably fine to use them in article text, with attribution but it's probably too biased for the lede. However, since the information being cited isn't all that controversial I am going to leave it in for now, and just hope that a better source can be found.

The article also suffers from other POV problems, the most common of which is the focus on random incidents, laws (which weren't passed), etc. - for example, I don't really see what the story of Esequiel Hernández Jr has to do with this article. There's other examples like this. Please keep in mind that this is a GENERAL article on the subject. Basically, past the section "Causes" the article is heavily laden with POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do what it takes to clean up this mess. On CIS, honestly we shouldn't be using them at all. They are an advocacy group, and there are bound to be far superior sources available.--Cúchullain t/c 13:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The article needs a history section

As it is, it appears that our current immigration restrictions are an eternal universal, which affects the POV of the article. The article really needs a whole section explaining why our immigration laws were created. 24.17.178.36 (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Article needs renamed to "Undocumented Worker Migration to the United States"

The National Association of Hispanic Journalists has deemed the term the term "Illegal Immigrant" to be dehumanizing and racially insensitive, offering the alternative "Undocumented Worker" to be used in its place. Please change this hateful, racist, and bigoted title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.252.7 (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We usually do not bow to the pressure of some advocacy group; besides, w/o a link to it, your contention is unverifiable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a race mentioned in the term "Illegal immigration" that I missed? If someone is implying some connection between race and illegal immigration, as the Hispanic Journalists seem to be doing, then that would be racist. I don't know of anyone who would dispute the connection between geography and illegal immigration. That there may be some correlation between race and geography is a historical artifact, not germane to the use of the term.Tim Bird (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mortgages: Call for deletion

"In October 2008, talk radio station KFYI reported that according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, five million illegal immigrants hold fraudulent home mortgages. The story was later pulled from their website and replaced with a correction. The Phoenix Business Journal cited a HUD spokesman saying there is no basis to news reports that more than 5 million bad mortgages are held by illegal immigrants, and that the agency has no data showing the number of illegal immigrants holding foreclosed or bad mortgages. Radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Lee Rodgers repeated a variation of the claim without noting that HUD has reportedly stated that this statistic is false. Roger Hedgecock also repeated the incorrect claim on CNN's Lou Dobbs show."

The second paragraph of the Mortgages subsection is based on nothing more than people reciting an untrue rumor. I call for this entire second paragraph to be removed. While this information may be relevant on the wiki pages of those who used the information, it does not add to the encyclopedic value of this article: wikipedia:relevance. Ljmajer (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed. Ljmajer (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Lack of sourcing, going to remove

The following sentences from section 3.1 are not sourced, and present POV: "There are also positive externalities associated with illegal immigration such as the job market. Illegal immigrants typically comprise the largest population of manual labor in the United States. This has been positive for the native US born poor class because it is taking jobs that most Americans do not want to do anyways." Without statistical data, one cannot assert that illegal immigrants comprise the largest population of manual labor in the US. I am going to remove the sentences listed. Oakbranch8 (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Source about illegal immigration

Here's a source about illegal immigration that might be useful:

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Birth language misleading

It is misleading to say that babies born in the US are citizens "according to the predominant interpretation" of the 14th, Amendment. The "predominate interpretation" is also that of the Supreme Court and the Federal Government. It's settled law and process.

You may as well say freedom of speech is, according to the predominate interpretation of the 1st Amendment, a protected right. It falsely implies active controversy. 63.85.45.130 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree it should be reworded. It is not an interpretation that babies born in the US are citizens, it is the law and a fact.Millertime246 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Material unsupported by sources

Reverse migration of illegal immigrants from the US back to Mexico has reduced consumer demand in the United States due to an overall decline in the population.[1][2][3][4][5]

Approximately 0.5 million dwellings have become permanently vacant as a result of a reduction in the illegal immigrant population since 2007.[2][3][4] The greatest impact has been on the California economy, where illegal immigrants comprise approximately 1/3 of the total population.[2][3][4][5] The reduced demand for housing created permanent unemployment for hundreds of thousands of building contractors, realtors, and mortgage brokers.[2][3][4][5]

Economic decline caused by reduced spending by illegal immigrants in the US began at about the same time as the rise in unemployment of approximately 1 million additional US citizens since 2007.[2][3][4][5] This segment of the unemployed population used to provide goods and services for the illegal immigrant population either directory or indirectly.[2][3][4][5]

UCLA research indicates economic activity produced by illegal immigrant employment produces $150 billion in consumer spending that employs about 5% of the total legal US workforce.[2][3][4][5] Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US.[2][3][4][5]

Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[2][3][4][5]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

  1. ^ a b "Realty Rates Follow Population". China Daily.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j "Labor Market Impacts of Amnesty: A Comparative Analysis of IRCA and current conditions" (PDF). UCLA North American Integration and Development Center.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j "Raising the Floor for American Workers" (PDF). The Advocates for Human Rights.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j "Real Earnings - 2011" (PDF). US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i "Foreign Born". US Census Bureau.

These sources don't support the statements. I can't tell what the editor was thinking. The bulk of the text was added on September 1.[6] I've removed this text from the article. Some of it is clearly implausible, like the assertion that 1/3 of the people in California are illegal immigrants. I'll ask the editor who added the material to explain.   Will Beback  talk  07:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The term "illegal immigrant" is actually a racist slur. The correct term is "undocumented immigrant". Someone else may have edited the article to indicate that all immigrants are illegal (I did not do that). 1/3 of the California population consists of foreign born that have legal status (green card or citizenship). The reference material otherwise support this contribution. Regret that you experience a need to remove information with which you disagree. Immigrant documentation fees increased from about $35 to over $500 after 911, which is unaffordable by low income farm workers paid about $0.10/pound for picking fruits and vegetables (fees equivalent to 2.5 tons of produce harvest). California has about 28 million acres of farmland that employ few US citizens for farm labor (if any). Most immigrants became undocumented and therefore "illegal" as a result of the REAL ID Act and related policy changes that prohibited documents from being issued to immigrants that are unable to afford the fees. California police confiscated and auctioned about $40 million of vehicles from immigrants that became undocumented in 2009. New vehicle sales collapsed as a result of the auctions. Abandoned housing rose from about 2% to above 10% causing real estate values dropped by 50% for the fist time since Mexican Repatriation. Food prices skyrocketed as crops rotted. The undocumented immigrant population is slightly more than the housing vacancy rate in early 2009. That information would seem to be relevant to the article, wouldn't you say? Nanoatzin (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • What matters is what the sources use, and the term "illegal immigrant" is pretty soundly established in the American lexicon. Wikipedia isn't censored, nor is our goal to use politically correct terms. WP:Soapboxing isn't helpful nor neutral, and Wikipedia isn't here to correct great wrongs, only to document facts as reported by reliable sources. By the way, I've closed your SPI case, since it made no sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's try this again User:Dennis Brown, shall we? Pleased to meet you. I will make it simple this time.
The following facts are missing from the article, which makes it inaccurate and misleading in a way that will influence election outcomes. That is political activism, which violates Wikipedia's charity status.
Where should these the following facts be added?
The following facts are also missing:
Intentionally omitting relevant facts in order to pursue a political agenda is a violation of 501 charity status. Wikipedia may not be censored but it must obey tax law.
It is illegal to use language intended to influence election outcomes. The federal tax law is very strict on the issue of political campaigning: A 501(c)(3) organization is absolutely forbidden to directly or indirectly participate in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Violation of this prohibition could lead the IRS to completely revoke your organization's tax-exempt status or impose excise taxes on your organization.
Remember:
If you disagree, then copy each link with your specific explanation about why you don't believe it is factual.
I hope this finds everyone well.
Regards, nanoatzin (talk)

Mass deportations

We need sources that state that what happened in the 1870s and as a result of the Real ID act (both of which were/are bad) are considered to be mass deportations. I'm also concerned about some of the sources. The Yaqui Texas band website for instance - the Yaqui came to America from Mexico, so why is their website used? A community college's website doesn't pass our criteria for reliable sources at WP:RS. The use of the California budget report is original research, an editor's interpretation. Etc. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The references for the 1870s are all from university web sites. Several have been used on other Wikipedia pages with no objection. The Yaqui came to Mexico from the United States and returned to Mexico, then to the United States, then to Mexico. The tribe extends across Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Sonora, Chihuahua, and Monterey. You do know that Native Americans are migrants. Right? The Yaqui web site that was used is the official site for the tribe. Your edit appears to violate the user agreement. Explain please.Nanoatzin (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by 'explain please' or violating the user agreement, or even the claim that Native Americans are migrants. Please read WP:NOR. How you use a source that meets our criteria at WP:RS can be as important as whether it meets the criteria. As you also have two editors, both with considerable experience, unhappy with your contributions, I'd suggest you don't just replace them but explain how they are not original research, why a community college website meets our criteria as a reliable source, etc. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Mentioned this briefly at WP:NORN#Self-deportation. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
My apologies. I had no idea that this article was intended to re-write history from a white supremacist viewpoint to edit out the genocide events involving mass forced and voluntary deportations of "illegal immigrants" described by references from major universities without first having an intellectual discussion about editing out content supported by university sources, government sources, and impartial news organizations. It is widely accepted that Yaqui Indians and other Native Americans were forced out by US calvary after the end of the Civil War referred to as the "wild west" when the murder of Native Americans was legal. I see that you object to the telling of that story. I had no idea that the rules for Wikipedia don't allow impartial discussions that describe both sides from a strictly intellectual viewpoint. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Best regards.Nanoatzin (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It's clear both that you do not seek any kind of "impartial discussion" and that the topics you reference have nothing to do with this article or subject matter. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision of Deportation Section

As part of a class assignment to contribute to a Wikipedia article, I will be revising and expanding the Deportation section of this article. I will focus specifically on including social and economic effects of deportation as well as some policies that have affected deportation of illegal immigrants in recent years. I will restructure the sub sections by creating economic effects, social effects, and policy subsections. I will also create a new sub section that focuses on criminal deportations as well as a sub section that includes deportation trends. In the policy section I wanted to focus closely on the Patriot Act and the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and how these two policies have affected deportations and why they were enacted in the first place. Under social effects I will cover those left behind in the US as a result of deportations especially children of illegal immigrants. Under Economic effects I will include information on the effects that deportations have on the economy. Under the sub section of criminal deportations I will discuss the practice of using criminal acts as grounds for deportation. In general I would like to include more scholarly sources since I noticed that several of the sources for this section are news articles. I would like to expand this section because I aim to obtain a more holistic overview of deportations and their effects and reasons. As far as sources I can foresee potential problems finding sources for some of the statistics on recent deportation trends. I can also see economic effects of deportations being an area of scarce sources and would appreciate any help with resources for that or any other aspects of my proposed contributions to this article.

Victoria.delgado (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but I'm wary of your proposal to significantly expand just one section of what's already a very long article, which seems like it could unbalance the article as a whole. Your proposed focus also covers a very narrow range of time (only the past fifteen years or so) instead of looking at the issue historically, and this article already appears very heavy in its focus on the past two decades. Perhaps the Patriot Act or Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act articles themselves would be a better place for a lengthy discussion of the issues they raise? Another option would to be create some sort of WP:SPINOFF article for Deportion of immigrants in the United States or something similar (on the model of Immigration detention in the United States); there you would have room to discuss the issues without the pressure of balancing an overall article. But you might consult with editors more specifically experienced in this area as to whether that would be a good idea. Khazar2 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll just add, and not for nothing, that I've seen this type of scenario unfold before. College student who has never edited Wikipedia before is given mission by professor or TA who has also never edited Wikipedia before. Mission is for grand expansion or rewrite of specific article that the student or professor wants to change, and copious original research is the likely result. It rarely ends well and in fact this is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Furthermore, generally, creating an account just to edit this article is strongly frowned upon, if not an outright violation of WP policy. I recommend you spend a few months editing other articles and familiarizing yourself with WP policy before undertaking this project, and even then, please seek guidance from others in doing so. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

2 articles related to this that need attention

Reverse immigration in the United States which is pretty dire, and Illegal immigrant population of the United States which needs updating or maybe just a redirect to this one as it is more or less a fork (and I couldn't find a link in it to this one, maybe I missed it). Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This page is duplicate content and should be merged with the existing illegal immigration Wiki page

This "illegal immigration to the united states" page needs to be combined with the illegal immigration page that already exists at Wikipedia. By creating this second page about illegal immigration, Wikipedia is grabbing both the number one and number two spots on google for searches on illegal immigration. Hogging up search results like that is going to earn Wikipedia a very bad reputation with other organizations and websites competing to share information on topics. Wikipedia should have one page dealing with Illegal Immigration and this page about US Illegal immigration should be combined with the other page please.

I would just like to say in response to this, that Wikipedia should be spread out widely throughout the Internet. I feel that it is in no way hogging the spots on google searches--but in fact providing students with different options to follow up on more research. Wikipedia is great accessing tool for knowledge because it provides insight on a given topic through many different views. I feel that if it is combined with the other page, individuals would lose interest in reading the article thouroughly. (post by Zaslam72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
The article is not supposed to be duplicate content because it is supposed to cover 8 USC - Aliens and Nationality.
The existing article is mostly fiction.
The article should be removed from Wikipedia or heavily edited because the original intent of the article appears to have been to alter the outcome of elections in the United States.
Wikipedia is banned from posting content that would alter the outcome of an election because that is a violation of charity tax law.
This article is supposed to cover 8 USC Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY.
Regards, Nanoatzin (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas

Shouldn't he be mentioned? Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Recommend to Remove Racist Language

It is not "illegal" for a foreign born citizen to breath air inside the US border when they lack documentation. That is not a felony or misdemeanor.

The title of this article requires it to cover 8 USC Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY, but the article advocates an unrelated political topic intended to influence voters.

Only a judge or jury can identify someone as an "illegal" by finding the individual guilty of a misdemeanor or felony in a court of law. Only an immigrant with a criminal record is "illegal" according to US law.

Any other use of the term "illegal" involves political activism intended to alter the outcome of an election. That violates US charity law.

The correct word used to describe a person that lacks documentation is "undocumented", not "illegal".

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

Federal tax law is very strict on the issue: A 501(c)(3) organization is absolutely forbidden to directly or indirectly participate in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Violation of this prohibition could lead the IRS to completely revoke an organization's tax-exempt status or impose excise taxes on the organization.

It is not a misdemeanor or felony to be born outside the US. It is not a misdemeanor or felony to lack documentation.

"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 by using "encyclopedic content" intended to alter voting patterns of students. 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 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.

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 non-political 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.

The following facts are missing from all articles that mention "illegal immigration", which corrupts Wikipedia by introducing bias that is inaccurate and misleading.

The following facts are also missing:

These facts are well known and relevant to all immigration discussions involving North America. The only excuse for leaving out these facts is to influence the election process.

Regards, nanoatzin (talk).

Hmmm... see Illegal entry#United States. See also "CRS Report for Congress: Immigration Enforcement Within the United States" (pdf). Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress. April 6, 2006., cited therein. quoting from that second item, "The law prohibits aliens from entering or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place which has not been designated by an immigration officer (i.e., a port of entry). It also prohibits any alien from eluding inspection by immigration officers." §275(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is cited in support of that quote. I think you'll find that codified in 8 U.S.C. § 1325. User:Wtmitchell 01:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello User:Wtmitchell, it is good to meet you. Please sign your posts.
USC 8 §1325 reads as follows:
Any alien who is apprehended ... shall be subject to a civil penalty ...
Civil courts do not adjudicate crime.
A civil penalty is not a criminal penalty (i.e.: USC 8 §1325 does not discuss crime).
You are only "illegal" if you are found guilty in a court of law.
Civil courts are for things like divorce. Not crimes. Anyone that has ever gone to divorce court is "illegal" in the exact same way as undocumented immigrants.
It is not a crime to walk across the Sonoran Desert.
Remarkably stupid, but not criminal.
Undocumented immigrants are not guilty of a misdemeanor or felony.
Therefore undocumented immigrants are not "illegal immigrants".
People that have been found guilty in a court of law of a felony or misdemeanor are "illegal".
Only immigrants found guilty of a crime in a court of law are "illegal immigrants".
That is not what is being discussed in the article, which is why this article falls into the category of political campaign material intended to alter elections.
"Illegal" in that context is a violation of Wikipedia's 501(c)3 charity status.
Regards, nanoatzin (talk).
Getting back to the title of this section, I see nothing in the term illegal immigrant that refers to any race or ethnicity whatsoever. You may find the term distasteful, but unless Irish illegals are described differently than Chinese or Nigerian illegals, I don't see how it is racist. Plazak (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Using the word "illegal" to mean "undocumented" falls into the category of illiterate behavior. "Illegal alien" is illiterate when used to describe a person that lacks documentation. Illiterate and distasteful are very different words. I did not say "distasteful". That is not what I meant. If you believe that I am saying "illegal immigrant" is ignorant when you are describing undocumented people, then that would also be accurate. I am not trying to insult anyone. I don't know what other words to use. It is ignorant to say "illegal" when you mean "undocumented". Regards. Nanoatzin (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Responding to Nanoatzin, in the second "..." part of the snippet you requoted as "Any alien who is apprehended ... shall be subject to a civil penalty ...", it says, "Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed." I'm not a lawyer, but that indicates to me that criminal penalties might be imposed. In section (a) just above the requoted snippet, it says, "... shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, ..." (Title 18 of the United States Code covers Crimes and Criminal procedure (see [7]). I don't think I've neglected to sign any of my comments lately. Apologies if I have and failed to notice that omission. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Criminal penalties apply ONLY TO THE EMPLOYER, not the foreign-born person. $250 to $10,000 fine for each foreign-born person plus prison when the EMPLOYER fails to document their employees. That is how employees become undocumented.
If there is an expired visa, then the foreign-born visitor pays for a visa extension.
The undocumented person may pay a civil fine of $50 to $250 if the judge thinks they were negligent (not a crime). That is how they pay for the cost of enforcement. Criminal penalties only apply to criminal behavior. Being undocumented is not a crime. Lying about it is a crime.
Criminal penalties only apply for repeat offenders.
You don't get a criminal record the first time you drive 10mile/hour over the speed limit.
USC Title 8 § 1182 indicates that it is "illegal" for a foreign-born person to reside in the US because of a mental disease, because of a mental defect, because of communicable disease, because the person is a Nazi, because the person is a drug trafficker, because the person is a suspected terrorist, because the person is a communist, because the person has felony conviction is the US, or because the person has a felony conviction in the home country (armed robbery, grand theft, murder, ...).
THAT is an illegal immigrant.
People that are insane, people that represent a threat to public safety, and people that lie to federal workers are the only "illegal immigrants" identified in USC Title 8.
Using the word "illegal" to describe a person that is "undocumented" but not criminal is just plain ignorant, even if "every one else is doing it".
I hope this finds everyone well.Nanoatzin (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
8 USC 1325 is speaking of (quoting) "any alien who". That section is not speaking of that alien's employer, if that alien is employed. The civil and criminal penalties mentioned in that section would apply to the alien himself or herself, not to that alien's employer, if that alien is employed.
Let me try this from another angle. A person who sticks a gun in my face and steals my wallet and watch is a thief. That person is an armed robber. That person has committed a crime. That person is a criminal. That person may or may not ever be convicted in a criminal court of having committed that felonious act. Whether or not that person is ever convicted in a criminal court of having committed that particular felonious act, that person has committed a crime and that person is a criminal. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Violating the civil rights of foreign-born people is not "another angle".
People are not "illegal" until after a court of law says they are illegal.
No person shall be held to answer for a ... crime ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution are applicable to aliens residing within the United States.
An allegation is a claim of a fact by a party in a (court) pleading. Allegations remain assertions without proof, until they can be proved.
An allegation does not become a crime until after judge or jury says that it is a crime in a court of law.
That is how things are supposed to work in the United States.
Best regards, Nanoatzin (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you brush up on your definition of racism before you expect to toss that lingo around and see false changes to the wiki. A non-citizen who enters the country illegally is an illegal alien. This law is important to people who understand how politics works, even if you do not. Let's not forget that even Mexico blocked cubans from coming into their country illegally at one point, so to play a race card is only to play it against yourself. It is a felony/misdemeanor to enter into this country illegally. Any citizen may use the power of his constitution to enact a citizens arrest upon anyone he has good reason to believe is Illegal to this country.

"The correct word used to describe a person that lacks documentation is "undocumented", not "illegal"." actually, the correct term is illegal. when you do something that is not legal, you did something that is -Illegal-.

illegal alien noun 1. a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization. 2. a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, especially a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson.

"It is not a misdemeanor or felony to be born outside the US. It is not a misdemeanor or felony to lack documentation." Yes, but it IS illegal to enter the country without first securing a visa, or workers permit and to continue undocumented. And it is a law for good reason.

I see too many people willing to invoke the race card just to have wikipedia change history for them. I don't think your guilt trips are going to work. The correct term is illegal immigrant, unless they have permission to be here in which case they would be called resident aliens. You have nothing to show that genocidal behavior is being caused on anyone. You disagree with the law, and that is just too bad. The law is a law. Stop pretending like genocide is happening.

Those are very nice nitpicked facts, but im sure that if facts involving number of crimes that illegal immigrants have committed or how the government has been involved with the cartels ex. operation fast and furious, you would just bring up racism again so that only your facts could be heard. which is in itself, racist.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.48.82 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Definition Incorrect

The definition area us unrelated to the breakdown of any actual laws regarding foreign-born people living in the US.Nanoatzin (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The definition area has been corrected to remove most fiction and add facts.Nanoatzin (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ham-handed, apparently POV edits by User:Nanoatzin

This article is outside of my normal focus areas, but it is on my watchlist. I am concerned about recent edits by Nanoatzin. I have not been following these edit-by-edit. The specific edit which prompted this comment was this one. Subsequent to that edit, we have this article asserting in Wikipedia's editorial voice that the likes of former presidential candidates John McCain, Barry Goldwater and George Romney, all of whom are or were US citizens born outside the United States, are considered naturalized citizens (Lowell Weicker as well, though he didn't make it past the presidential primary process; perhaps others too). Can we get this under control? Can we come to a consensus here about Nanoatzin's POV issues before this article gets further into the fringe?

I've been involved in discussions above, and I consider myself to have a WP:COI here re any administrative action. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I was unaware that US immigration law is "fringe territory" in an article about US immigration law. Seriously?
May I remind you of the following, administrator Wtmitchell?.
... if a claim is factual, the article is therefore neutral.
Presumably that includes actual US law?
I am pleased that you took such a strong interest in the correction of this typo. Appreciate the help.
I posted zero material with political content.
If there is any political content, then kindly take that up with the actual person that did that.
Owing to the fact that you appear to have accused me of something that I did not do, I have made a copy of the main page, talk page, and history for both.
My editing efforts began 23:01, 19 March 2013‎.
This article contained substantial fiction masquerading as fact before that, which actually is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy.
I discussed EXACTLY what I planned to do about that violation before I began editing.
My focus is limited to inserting facts related to US law and removing fiction that does not belong in "encyclopedic reference material".
As an administrator, Wikipedia and you have entered into a fiduciary agreement that means anything that you do on behalf of the organization WILL compromise US charity status for the entire organization.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
I WILL inform senators, representative, IRS, and DoE if an administrator removes any of my contributions when the edit may support a political agenda on this topic.
That being said, how are government immigration laws and university information about immigration an "NPOV violation" of Wikipedia policy in an article that is about immigration?
I was unaware that academic information from universities is not permitted by Wikipedia policy (i.e.: facts).
I was unaware that actual US immigration law "gets further into the fringe". Really?
Would you please let me know what is wrong with including the US Sentencing Commission, the US State Department, DoHS, and USCIS?
I see that you are displeased but have posted no substantiated proof to dispute any references or statements.
You are welcome to dispute individual references or facts.
You are welcome to suggest better or more credible references that may support the article.
If you can substantiate anything that you disagree with, then I will make corrections.
Kindly clarify in accordance with actual Wikipedia policy - provide links or other substantiated information to support your claims (click here).
Regards, Nanoatzin (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Uhh.... As an administrator, Wikipedia and you have entered into a fiduciary agreement that means anything that you do on behalf of the organization WILL compromise US charity status for the entire organization and I WILL inform senators, representative, IRS, and DoE if an administrator removes any of my contributions when the edit may support a political agenda on this topic??? Just block already.Volunteer Marek 01:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I laughed my a__ off the first time I read this article.
The original author and some of the readers might not realize this whole "illegal immigrant" thing is satire of functionally illiterate people (i.e.: comedy).
Jimmy Fallon - I Love You but Stop Calling Immigrants Illegal
"They say there are about 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. But if you ask a native American, that number is more like 300 million." - David Letterman
Many people have so little education that they have no clue that we have a constitution, what it means, or how everyone even got here.
Those are the kinds of people that take this "illegal immigrant" thing so seriously that they get HIGHLY offended when facts creep into the fantasy (laws and things like that).
I have considerable knowledge and experience on this topic but I am not an administrator and therefore I cannot block anyone else without blocking myself.
Regards, Nanoatzin (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have just blocked Nanoatzin for making legal threats (per WP:NLT). I will be reverting this article to the state it was in prior to Nanoatzin's recent round of changes. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to an earlier version. A few edits by others had to be reverted along with the massive number of questionable edits by Nanoatzin—and it is also conceivable that some of Nanoatzin's changes might be objectively justifiable on their merits—but these problems will need to be sorted out on an individual basis. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What nationalities are allowed to live in the USA without a visa?

In the "Definition" section is states "Foreign-born non-citizens without a current visa but that are not prohibited from entry (undocumented)" and "The terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal immigration" are sometimes used incorrectly outside the scope of US law to mean foreign-born non-citizens that are undocumented but not prohibited from entry into the United States.".

I am an expert on immigration to the USA, and am not aware of any nationals that can enter the America without any visa or any documentation whatsoever. Could someone please cite these foreign nationals? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.84.89 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

US Citizens do not need to be naturalized.

Under the Definition section, it states "US citizens born outside the United States (naturalized)". US Citizens do not need to be naturalized, as they are citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.84.89 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC) US citizens do not need to be naturalized, but US citizens who were born outside the US are often citizen as a result of having been naturalized. If you are a US citizen, and you were born outside the US, then the odds are, you are naturalized. [Dthomann] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomann (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is far below standards

I'm sorry, I'm new at contributing, but this article is far below the standards for anything I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The entire thing is basically an opinion piece combined with a semantic debate that has nothing to do with law. You can't cherry-pick parts of US law and hold them out to a lay audience as being authoritative definitions. The term "illegal immigration" is not something defined by Congress, it is a term defined by different political and social actors to describe different things. Section 1325 of the US Code has no bearing in immigration court. It is language written for a specific purpose, and providing a lay definition of a term is not that purpose.

This article contains too many redundant and poorly written statements. The cites are terrible (britannica online to explain US deportation? that's like citing National Geographic to write about baseball - I'm sure there's something in there you could use, but why would you bother to look in that source when there are countless sources that are actually about baseball??). Where does the idea that people are removed (the difference between deportation and removal is not semantic, by the way, it is legal - tha act is the same, but the legal meaning is different) for the "protection of resources, and protection of jobs" come from? Those things may arguably be the reason Congress gives for restricting immigration, but they are not the reason for removals. The drinking age is 21 as a result of trying to reduce drunk driving across state lines - but it's ridiculous to say that a policeman ticketing an underage drinker is doing so to prevent drunk driving. They are doing so because the law says you have to be 21 to drink, it doesn't matter what the purpose behind the law was. People are not removed "to protect jobs," they are removed for violating immigration laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomann (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, parts of this ARE well written and informative, but the information they contain can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia or can be moved to other articles. Parts of it are good, but as a whole, it falls short, and does not need to be a separate entry. It is an op-ed piece that seeks to literally define a term that is not used literally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomann (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Lost in the noise is the fact that there are a large number of people here on green cards, working. They must periodically leave the country and apply for reentry! If they don't, they are in violation of the law and will be deported to "protect jobs;" that is, to allow an American to do the job that the temporary immigrant was hired to do. Student7 (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
While I respectfully agree that not all the sources on this page are up to Wikipedia's "reliability" standards, most of the article is well-sourced and well-written. Rather than remove or move the content out of the article, why don't we leave it in, tweak it, improve it, and expand it. If statements from one point of view are being made, we should provide sources and content from the opposing side to balance the page. Best! Meatsgains (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Erase dehumanizing language

The term 'illegal' to modify 'alien' or 'immigrant' is an attempt to describe people in a dehumanizing way. Whether perpetrators of this behavior consider themselves patriotic or racist or xenophobic is of no concern but civility and accuracy dictate that name-calling should not be part of Wikipedia. AmboyBeacon (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't try to lecture civility of word choice while you are calling people racist and xenophobic. If you really believe that "civility and accuracy dictate that name-calling should not be part of Wikipedia", perhaps you should first examine your own behavior. Perhaps then we can have a civil discussion. Plazak (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Writing New Related Article on Undocumented Immigrants

My name is Katherine and I am currently a senior attending Rice University. I intend on writing a new Wikipedia page titled “Healthcare availability for undocumented immigrants,” for which I thought this page would serve as a great parent article for. In this new article I intend on including four main sections on the following: introduction/background, usage of health-care services, barriers to accessing the health care system, and relevant federal and state-level policies. Under each of these main sections, except the introduction, there will also be at least one subsection related to particular populations, such as women or specific data found on the topic. This proposed contribution is also part of a course I am taking for my minor on poverty, justice, and human capabilities. Please feel free to offer thoughts, advice, and suggestions! Katcai02 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

One immediate thought I had was that this clearly US-centric topic should have a US-centric article title. See WP:PRECISE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Also re the title you're considering, see WP:EUPHEMISM. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States/Archive_7&oldid=1131114077"