Jump to content

Talk:United States Border Patrol

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pensadora956.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chaplain's Medal

[edit]

The image currently uploaded is inappropriate for wikipedia. It's a animated gif. An unanimated version should be used. 67.169.145.35 (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if there's a list of Newton-Azrak Medal earners?

[edit]

It would be neat to compile a list, along with a brief citation.Rhallanger 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone actively maintaining this page?

[edit]

There has been a ton of news coverage, I'm assuming national but possibly more local since I'm in the area, about two Border Patrol agents who shot an illegal attempting to return to Mexico, were convicted by a jury, and may be pardoned. This is a current issue that should certainly be on the page. Don't make me research it myself, folks, I have other jobs to do 0:) Arker 08:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Border Patrol Personnel

[edit]

The number of personnel for the border patrol and other data can be found in their budget statement here: that is ludacris[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdirrim (talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

[edit]

I'm interested in being an agent, and was wondering how many agents have died in a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.38.149 (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apply on line.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt that the application says, "Oh by the way, two officers were killed in 2008. Sign and date here." 67.169.145.35 (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there not a section of this article that lists the deaths of agents who have died on duty? There is an entire article of migrant deaths. One was killed in Campo in late July of 2009. As for a list of those killed, I have found one[2]. At least two since 2007 have died due to cross-border crimes. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try here United_States_Border_Patrol#Killed_in_the_line_of_duty --Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment

[edit]

I fixed up a few mistakes in the equipment section, simple errors in weapon names to be exact.--R.M.Hale (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca

[edit]

DALLAS (Notimex) — A poco más de un año del homicidio del menor mexicano Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, de 15 años, por un integrante de la Patrulla Fronteriza este viernes se identificó al presunto responsable como el agente Jesús Meza Jr. Reference the alleged homicide of 15 year Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca by BP Agente Jesus Meza Jr.) (translation mine--Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)) (Translation:"Just over a year after the homicide of the Mexican minor Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, 15, by a member of the Border Patrol this Friday, the alleged perpetrator was identified as agent Jesús Meza Jr. Reference the alleged homicide of 15 year Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca by BP Agent Jesus Meza Jr.")[reply]

http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2011/06/10/abogados-identifican-a-agente-de-eu-que-mato-a-un-menor-en-juarez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.142.245.229 (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2010/06/10/la-familia-del-adolescente-muerto-en-juarez-lo-protegia-de-la-violencia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.189.132.61 (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://conexiontotal.mx/2011/09/21/la-ahoga-patrulla-fronteriza/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.208.15.91 (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/771913.html

How about putting all this in English as this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia--Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

En ingles, por favor. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Border Patrol

[edit]

Would someone please do something about the fact that American Border Patrol, a non-governmental organization as stated in their official site[1] which is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center[2] not only lacks its own page, but actually redirects to this page? This is going to cause confusion for a lot of people.

References

  1. ^ "American Border Patrol website".
  2. ^ "American Border Patrol/American Patrol".
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Border Patrol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Border Patrol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Border Patrol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Border Patrol. 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) 16:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United States Border Patrol. 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) 00:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Border Patrol. 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) 13:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Border control agent" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Border control agent. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 16#Border control agent until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Border Patrol" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Border Patrol. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 16#The Border Patrol until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

[edit]

This article began to read like the staff at a biased news channel got ahold of it---hence the POV tag. I cleaned up much of it and expanded on citations, missing citations, updated figures, and legal terminology. I am sure more can be done. WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tag, given your clear conflict of interest. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"alien"

[edit]

It looks like there's a slow-motion edit war on this page changing "migrant" to "alien" (and back again). A primary argument seems to be that the Border Control itself uses "alien" and it is written in some legal documents. As this is not the Border Patrol's website, unless we're citing legal documents which use the term, that alone doesn't seem like a good reason. Wikipedia typically wants to use terminology that's most commonly used in independent reliable sources. I suspect that would be either [decreasingly, but still commonly?] "illegal immigrant" or [increasingly, but perhaps not quite common enough?] "undocumented migrant", but I'm not sure. We should be consistent, in any case. I suspect this has been discussed in many places around Wikipedia, but I can't find anything authoritative. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of WP policy is that one doesn't unnecessarily use statutory language, WP isn't a court and articles aren't legal documents. The key is what reliable sources use. I have a large collection of newspaper and magazine stories on the situation, and they all, every one, use the term migrant. Here are examples:
All of these stories, and I have dozens if not hundreds of other examples if anybody wants them, use the term "migrants" exclusively and never use the word "alien" even once.
The Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas calls them migrants (Miami Herald, September 25, 2021, p. A1). President Biden also calls them migrants [3]. Daniel Foote, special U.S. envoy to Haiti who resigned, called them migrants [4].
In addition, the legal term "alien" is the one that shows lack of neutral point of view. It says these people are second class, they're not us. They have no rights. I have no problem if CBP uses "aliens" internally, it's a law enforcement agency. But it's a prejudicial term that does not belong in a WP article, not this one.
If anyone disagrees with me, please say why here. If no one does I am going to change "aliens" back to "migrants" again, remove the POV template which the "aliens" person added, and report any further meddling as an incident possibly calling for sanction. deisenbe (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The term "alien" is absolutly a neutral term. The law is neutral and is crystal-clear in the matter. The same law that the U.S. Congress passed and the U.S. Border Patrol is supposed to enforce: Title 8 of the United States Code: Aliens and Nationality. In Title 8, it is clearly defined what a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States is called and that term is alien (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101)
The people and the news organisations are forever-changing words based on political leanings and their feelings du jour; some would call this wokism. There have been calls in the past to use 'Justice-involved Person' instead of 'Criminal'; 'Sobriety-deprived Individuals' instead of 'Alcoholics'; and 'Minor-attracted Person' instead of 'Pedophile'. Immigration, illegal immigration, and the law enforcement involved with it are a constant 180-degree back-and-forth for whatever political party is in power and however bias individuals want to report it. That is why it is very important to use only the the legal terms and not the 'this word makes me feel good' term of the day (migrants, undocumented people, non-citzens, foreigners, folks in the shadows). It is clear that people have been emotionally persuded in how they edit and this does not help the neutrality of Wikipedia. Perhaps one day Congress will change the immigration laws to reflect a change in definitions but until then alien is the proper legal word WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This article used the terms "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant/illegal immigration" exclusively until editors started changing them to reflect their own political leanings. The term "alien" is neutral, is codified in US law and has been in use in the US since the country was founded. All of the media sources you cited are well known for their recent "wokeism" and left-wing bias, as are the politicians you quoted. Propound (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page which explains what Wikipedia considers a reliable source is here: WP:RS. The sources Deisenbe listed are reliable as per that definition (I'm speaking about the publications -- what individuals like Biden use isn't really so consequential). A counter-argument would be to show that reliable independent sources use different terminology -- that those sources don't reflect any kind of consensus among the body of literature on the subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Five days have gone by, no reliable independent sources using the term "alien" have been cited. This is sufficient, in my view, to restore "migrants". I'm pretty sure that if I do so, these yahoos, without citing any sources, will change it right back. Any suggestions? deisenbe (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand wanting to use the same language as the organization we're writing about, and think there's a place for that (quotes, legal texts, etc.), but otherwise Wikipedia typically wants to use language for things that reliable independent sources use. We also want to avoid "disparaging" expressions when we're trying to simply be descriptive. Of course, I get that part of the question here is whether "illegal alien" is indeed disparaging. That is something else that can be settled with reliable sources, which I suspect would agree. The last consideration, which I'm not sure about, is whether there are clear legal implications between the terms. That is, are there areas where the terms do not overlap which would be important to clarify in the context of the border control? As for changing the language, if you feel doing so would make it accurately reflect RS, go for it, but I suspect it may wind up going to an RfC. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: I just came across this. As I said, Wikipedia explicitly tries to avoid disparaging terms and labels. While there's no shortage of sources which explain that "illegal alien" is considered by many to be disparaging, it appears even ICE has decided to stop using it because it's too often "perceived by others as offensive or otherwise disparaging". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to post a quote from the great source Rhododendrites has just cited: "ICE to stop using the term 'illegal alien' referring to immigrants. An ICE memo said the term can be seen as 'offensive or otherwise disparaging.'" deisenbe (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On April of 2021, the Biden administration ordered immigration agencies to stop using words like "alien" and "assimilation".[1] On April 28th, 2021, it was reported that then USBP Chief Rodney Scott would not endorse the new language policy as these terms are inconsistent with the law and urged to not make any changes until the "U.S. Citizenship Act" that was introduced was enacted.[2] In June of 2021, because of Scott's unwillingness to go along with the administration's wokeness, open borders, and catch & release policies, he was sent a "3 Rs" letter basically firing him as Chief of the Border Patrol.[3] Why? Feelings are more important than what the actual law states. If the law changes, then those are the terms that will be used. But noooooo we must use the feel-good progressive woke term of the moment. So what we have here are two editors (one of which has never edited these page until Jan. 1st) strongly wanting to change wordage based on their feelings and political bias. You have two other editors that argue the same as Rodney Scott to wait until U.S. law is changed by Congress otherwise it is a neverending swirl of forever changing terms based on hurt feelings and the super-woke mob. Editor wokeness is everything wrong with Wikipedia. WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason ICE stopped using the terms 'illegal alien' and 'illegal immigrant' is because they were ordered to do so by the Biden Administration, not because anyone who works there finds it offensive. [4] As previously stated the term 'alien' is defined in 8 U.S. Code § 1101 and was previously used by many of the "reliable" sources you quoted until they decided to embrace 'wokeism' and become the language police. [5] [6]. The Border Patrol is a federal agency which follows federal law and thus the term 'alien' is appropriate. Furthermore, your description of your fellow editors as "yahoos" is inappropriate and does not belong in this discussion. Leave this article alone and as it was originally written. Propound (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems much ado about nothing but I struggle to understand deisenbe‘s logic. If this is how it is are we just suggest that the Termanology that we use for these changes every four years when we have a new president? Is there a wp:followthepresident policy? If they’re here illegally we should just say so. Just like if someone breaks one of those famous “dumb” laws and is convicted for it they are a criminal convict. It doesn’t mean that we agree with a lot but it’s just a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.246.108.45 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some updated/alternative footnotes:
footnote 1: Agencies ordered not to use "illegal alien" (replacing WABE): Immigration Agencies Ordered Not To Use Term 'Illegal Alien' Under New Biden Policy (KQED, April 19, 2021).
footnote 4: ICE, CBP to stop using 'illegal alien' and 'assimilation' under new Biden administration order (Washington Post, April 19, 2021)
footnote 5: The Institutionalization of the Illegal Alien (New York Times, September 29, 1985)
Fabrickator (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.wabe.org/pantheon/immigration-agencies-ordered-not-to-use-term-illegal-alien-under-new-biden-polic/
  2. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/border-patrol-chief-cbp-language-policy-illegal-alien
  3. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/biden-admin-asks-trump-appointed-border-patrol-chief-rodney-scott-n1272191
  4. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/illegal-alien-assimilation/2021/04/19/9a2f878e-9ebc-11eb-b7a8-014b14aeb9e4_story.html
  5. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/1985/09/29/weekinreview/the-institutionalization-of-the-illegal-alien.html
  6. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/business/media/the-times-shifts-on-illegal-immigrant-but-doesnt-ban-the-use.html

loading immigrants on buses

[edit]

@BonnieForist12345!: Here is a source for the claim about Border Patrol loading immigrants on buses:

Federal officials leave dozens of migrants at bus stations across San Diego County] (San Diego Tribune).

Of course, the claim needs to be changed to be NPOV and the details changed to correspond to the newspaper article. There may be a better source, but this at least conveys the general idea. Fabrickator (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Border_Patrol&oldid=1205835629"