Jump to content

Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Alleged effects of demographic changes

Sock puppetry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Section header renamed to neutral heading. Old title=Corruption/scandals/implications for democracy in government associated with illegal migrant population centers O3000 (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I will be adding information about how large slices of California have to some extent been politically remolded into the home countries from which illegal migrants came and there is quite a bit of corruption in areas with large illegal migrant populations.

  • "The city’s 2010 population was 35,477, 91 percent of whom identified as Hispanic... According to the 2013 American Community Survey, 48 percent of Bell residents identified themselves as foreign-born, 34 percent were noncitizens, and 89 percent spoke a language other than English at home. As seen in Figure 3, the White population in Bell declined dramatically from 76 percent in 1970, to 13 percent in 1980. By the 2010 Census, Whites made up roughly six percent of residents, with a sizeable number of Whites (37 percent) reporting Arab descent.Additional factors contributed to the corruption in Bell. Community complacency was also a contributor... Finally, Bell’s large numbers of undocumented residents and recent arrivals clearly, played a role in the lack of engagement in city affairs. Lewis, Ramakrishnan, and Patel (2004) note that all “immigrants occupy a somewhat uncertain role in local civic affairs . . . they are often recent arrivals; a high proportion either cannot or do not vote; and they are often not well connected to associations and interest groups that are important in local affairs..... Though significant, relatively lower voter participation in Bell between 1980 and 2010 can be substantially explained by the city’s large population of noncitizens, low income, highly transient population, among many other factors.SourceShemakesmynosebleed (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Cudahy resembles a Mexican border town more than it does a Los Angeles suburb. Entrenched gangs and Mexican drug trafficking have trapped working-class legal and illegal immigrants in a cycle of violence and fear, in a city where less than a quarter of the 28,000 residents are eligible to vote. An uneducated city council, a deeply troubled police force imported from Maywood two towns over, and the raw power of the 18th Street Gang — a complex criminal organization with a knack for setting up business fronts and obscuring underground drug activity — make Cudahy residents seem like hostages in their own city. source
  • Civic organizations, from philanthropic clubs to local newspapers, shriveled. Residents were too busy, too poor, too new to the country to worry about what their city councils were doing. The median household income in Rendon’s district is now about $48,000, according to the American Community Survey, while more than a fifth of those living in the area are not U.S. citizens...Voting rates are among the lowest in California. Last November, fewer ballots were cast in Rendon’s race than in 71 of the 78 Assembly districts with competitive runoffs. Turnout for the presidential election was more than 10 percentage points below the statewide average.source
  • By the mid-1970s, with illegal immigration unchecked, Mexicans were a substantial minority of South Gate’s population. By the 1980s they were the majority. Today, South Gate is 93 percent Hispanic... Exactly how many are illegal aliens or children of illegal aliens is difficult to assess, but two-thirds is probably a conservative estimate. Nearly half of South Gate’s population was born outside of the United States, and 80 percent of the town’s residents speak Spanish at home. South Gate High School is 99 percent Hispanic. Of almost 3,400 students there are only 15 blacks and 17 whites. A quarter of the students speak little or no English, and 85 percent of the students receive free meals at the school. Test scores are abysmal. On a state testing scale of 1 to 10, the high school scores a 2.source
  • Julia Barraza knew campaign season had arrived in her Mexican pueblo when politicians in open-bed trucks rolled by offering sombreros, sarapes and food for votes. She moved to South Gate years ago, but Barraza sees a similar thing happening: free trash service, free boxes of food, and even a free three-bedroom house for one lucky resident. "Igualito ... igualito," -- the same, the same, Barraza said. "It's like I never left Mexico."...The four recall targets portray themselves as misunderstood reformers whose efforts to improve services have met with vicious resistance by the city's old guard. Critics call them self-dealing "kleptocrats" who have awarded sweetheart deals to cronies while spending almost all of the city's $8-million reserve..In December, the city offered residents free trash service for the month, and newly registered voters were signed up for a city-publicized raffle of a television set. Next came the house raffle, held last week on the park-like grounds of City Hall. Amid a carnival atmosphere of rainbow-colored lights and thumping Mexican ranchera music, the recall targets played host to hundreds of residents -- many of them working-class immigrants -- hoping for a picket-fenced paradise. source
  • In less than a decade, local officials and rivals in such cities as Bell, Bell Gardens, Cudahy, Huntington Park, Lynwood, Maywood and South Gate have been indicted, jailed, wire-tapped, bribed, recalled, threatened, firebombed and shot. In January, the recalled mayor of South Gate whacked a fellow council member in the face....First, a nearly complete demographic shift took place within a generation, with an overwhelmingly white population becoming more than 90% Latino, with many of the newcomers immigrants....As the area changed, the growing number of noncitizens meant fewer eligible voters. The result: “You ended up with cities of over 100,000 residents where the next mayor gets elected with 2,000 votes,” Guerra said...The combination of factors appears to have been combustible: inexperienced and brash politicians taking over cities where residents either failed, or were unable, to keep an eye on their elected officials. But southeast county politicians have been particularly brazen about getting their way...draining the city coffers of more than $2 million even as voters were recalling a majority of the City Council (South Gate, in January). Residents have seen city treasuries squandered on attorney’s fees and low-cost federal loans handed out to the friends and business partners of council members.source-Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
None of this belongs in the article. This is a random mish-mash of trivia. Looks like 4chan copy-pasta. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Are you able to actually dispute the cited information, or will you just stick to deriding information you don't like as being associated with racists (4chan?). It's pretty clear that there is an association between illegal migration and government corruption, deteriorating civic participation, etc.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
If there's any research linking illegal immigration with those bad outcomes, feel free to add it. Thus far, you've linked to the claims by a psychic medium, a defunct journal at a scam university, and random news stories that say that some bad things happened in locations where lots of illegal immigrants also happened to be. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
You did not correctly portray my use of sources. I cited Predator State: Corruption in a Council-Manager System – The Case of Bell, California by Tom Hogen-Esch, a California State University political science professor.
The New York Times has been cited perhaps 20 times in this article. All of a sudden, you're disqualifying newspapers from being used in this article? The Los Angeles Times is an extremely reliable source about political developments in the Los Angeles region. The Department of Homeland Security has been cited multiple times in this article, too, but when it concerns illegal migrants and crime, you also claim "nuh uh, it's not a reliable source!" Unless you can actually present information refuting/discrediting what's cited above, I'm not taking what you say about the topic very seriously.
"Entrenched gangs and Mexican drug trafficking have trapped working-class legal and illegal immigrants in a cycle of violence and fear, in a city where less than a quarter of the 28,000 residents are eligible to vote. An uneducated city council, a deeply troubled police force imported from Maywood two towns over, and the raw power of the 18th Street Gang — a complex criminal organization with a knack for setting up business fronts and obscuring underground drug activity — make Cudahy residents seem like hostages in their own city." - written in a Los Angeles Weekly article. How is this a random news story? It clearly shows that illegal migrant populations and their inability to vote is associated with the thuggish, criminal governance in several California municipalities: Bell, South Gate, Maywood.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
This is, obviously, a political bugbear propped-up with WP:SYNTH and cherry-picking. Correlation is not causation, and anecdotes are not data. As Snoogansnoogans said, if you have a reliable source linking A to B, present it. Using a source to make this link yourself is WP:OR, and dubious sources can be found for any point you care to make. All sources are judged in context. A specific source is not automatically reliable just because the outlet is generally reliable. Spamming random news sources and dubious journal publications is not productive. Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
One of the articles I cited is a 31-page paper. Do you honestly expect me to copy and paste every detail and bit of trivia from it on this talk page? Earlier, you came and attacked me for using lengthy quotations from the sources I used on the basis of "muh copyright", now you're accusing me of "cherry-picking" This all seems to be a cloak for agenda pushing on your part, because you accused me of seeking to "demonize undocumented immigrants", which is complete slander that I reject.
I like how you erected a straw man. I literally never argued that illegal migration causes crime or that it causes problems in governance.
I cited a report prepared by a professor of political science at California State University. I also cited the Department of Homeland Security. I cited local newspapers in Los Angeles, which are important sources of information for local government issues. I'm not going to accuse you of deliberately misrepresenting the sources I used, but I think it would be helpful to actually look at what I cited instead of falsely characterizing my activity on this talk page. The excuses you guys are using are lame because the types of sources I cited are already cited numerous times in this very article.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, copying lengthy, selective quotes from arbitrarily chosen sources is both cherry-picking and copyright violation. There is no conflict between these two things.
You "literally haven't argued" anything, that's the problem. Everyone reading this is also capable of finding random sources to prop-up a political position. It doesn't matter, because stringing together a bunch of sources is bad research. We don't want your research at all. Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research. You're trying to have the article say that illegal immigration is "associated" with corruption, but most of these sources are local news stories about specific communities dealing with specific examples of corruption. The connection between "Illegal immigration" and "corruption" needs to be directly spelled-out by sources, not implied by a random example reported on in 2003 by a local newspaper.
These sources are not reliable for sweeping claims about the entire topic. We cannot chain together such sources to imply something to readers unless that implication is made by a source. That's why this is WP:SYNTH. Lots of things are "associated" with other things. This information in isolation is loaded and misleading without context, and you have not provided context. We need a reliable source to explain how these things are "associated". If any of these sources are reliable, and they provide this context, get to the point. Grayfell (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I got annoyed at you for accusing me of cherry-picking, yet you're doing it again. Knock it off. I'm not going to copy and paste 31 pages worth of text from an article.
You accused me using "random sources" - I already told you earlier that the Department of Homeland Security, newspapers like the New York Times, and others are cited in this article. I used sources of similar quality.
I literally quoted several different sources, yet you're accusing me of "original research". Huh? I cited others' research, no my own.
There were no sweeping claims made. I pointed out earlier that it's a fact that some illegal migrants come to America because they're fleeing justice from other countries. I also pointed out how communities with high percentages of illegal migrants are associated with some pretty thuggish, third world corruption seen in certain countries - it's literally documented in the Los Angeles Times articles I quoted.
Now, you're attacking sources based on their age? 2003 is ancient history now? The same stuff continues to go in these same communities well into 2020: "A Los Angeles County investigation into possible corruption in Maywood has set its sights on a broad swath that includes four current and former council members, 13 companies, five current and former city administrators and one activist who dresses up as a clown......Rendon said a lack of civic engagement and low voter turnouts, as well as dwindling media outlets to keep watch over elected officials, have contributed to some of the problems in cities like Maywood. The city has a large population of Latino immigrants, many of whom can’t vote...Maywood is 98% Latino, and 46% of the city’s residents are foreign-born."sourceShemakesmynosebleed (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Most of the sources you're trying to cite here are opinion-pieces by non-experts - they express the personal gut feelings of their authors, nothing more, and are not usable for statements of fact. The few that are not opinion pieces don't make the broader argument about immigration that you're trying to WP:SYNTHesize out of them. --Aquillion (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
What are my arguments? I never said illegal migration causes crime. I never said illegal migration causes corruption. You did not accurately represent the sources I used, I did not cite a single opinion-editorial from a newspaper. Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The American Conservative, LA Weekly, LA Times, and Sacramento Bee pieces are all opinion-pieces, whether they're properly labeled or not; many older archive papers at the LA Times are not properly labeled. And you argued that large slices of California have to some extent been politically remolded into the home countries from which illegal migrants came, but the few non-opinion pieces you cited do not say that; similarly, you made the sweeping statement of there is quite a bit of corruption in areas with large illegal migrant populations, but your sources don't back this up. The first one only mentions illegal immigration once, in passing, when it notes that they can't vote. The LA weekly piece only mentions them in passing again, and does not connect them to the corruption (ie. it does not support your personal opinion that "there is corruption in areas with large illegal migrant populations". The last two do not even mention illegal immigration, not even in passing (why on earth did you include them?) Only the grindy culture-war opinion piece from the American Conservative - a low-quality source on WP:RS/P, which is the mouthpiece of a think-tank and therefore represents nothing but the personal opinions and gut feelings of the people who fund that think-tank - directly connects the topics in the way you want them to be connected. There's simply nothing usable here. --Aquillion (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
None of the newspaper articles I cited are in the opinion sections of those publications, so therefore they are not opinion pieces. You did not accurately represent these sources. Arbitrarily declaring something an "opinion piece" is not very convincing.
"does not support your personal opinion" - perhaps you should read the sources. Some of the communities referenced in those articles have close to half of their populations being foreign-born, a significant percentage of which have illegal status. South Gate, CA has a large illegal migrant population and South Gate is corrupt. Cudahy, CA has a large illegal migrant population and Cudahy is corrupt. Sources I cited primarily focus on corruption, and they also mention the fact that the communities they focus on have illegal migrants and people not eligible to vote.
"The last two do not even mention illegal immigration" - they do not have the explicitly use the words "illegal immigration", it's strongly suggested in one of the articles: "the growing number of noncitizens meant fewer eligible voters". The other sources I mentioned mention that the communities have large numbers of people without legal status.
The American Conservative cited facts. Are you able to dispute "By the mid-1970s, with illegal immigration unchecked, Mexicans were a substantial minority of South Gate’s population. By the 1980s they were the majority. Today, South Gate is 93 percent Hispanic... Exactly how many are illegal aliens or children of illegal aliens is difficult to assess, but two-thirds is probably a conservative estimate. Nearly half of South Gate’s population was born outside of the United States, and 80 percent of the town’s residents speak Spanish at home." I never actually cited this source in the article. And the fact that you dismiss this as "grindy culture-war opinion piece" is strange - these are basic facts about a community for which you have no ability to refute. Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand the point of your last paragraph. So what? O3000 (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Exactly how many are illegal aliens or children of illegal aliens is difficult to assess, but two-thirds is probably a conservative estimate. What credentials does the author, Roger D. McGrath, have to make a sweeping "estimate" of the ancestry or immigration status of people? He appears to be a historian whose most notable work is a 35-year-old book about violence on the frontier of the American West. What makes you think he has any idea whatsoever about population demographics? What sources of data (Census statistics, household surveys, etc.) does he cite in support of his claim? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Maywood, CA has a foreign-born population of 45%[1]. A large chunk of those have no legal status in the United States. 93% of the population speaks a language other than English at home. But let's pretend that illegal migration has absolutely nothing to do with anything going on in this particular municipality in California, as well as neighboring municipalities Huntington Park, South Gate, Cudahy, Bell, and Bell Gardens, as well as unincorporated East Los Angeles that collectively contain a population of hundreds of thousands of people. Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
This sounds more like it belongs in the White genocide conspiracy theory article. What is your point related to this article? O3000 (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Are you claiming that South Gate is the same city as Maywood? If so, you lack the competence required to edit Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Objective3000 - that is outright slander and I think you should take back what you've said. I literally never argued here that a development took place resulting from a conspiracy planned by organizations. "Conspiracy theory" is a weaponized slur, it seems, for attacking people.
@ NorthBySouthBaranof - where did I say that Maywood and South Gate are the same cities? I identified them as separate municipalities. Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, then you're just deflecting - I asked you what Roger McGrath's expertise is in demography and by what credentials he makes a "conservative estimate" that two-thirds of the population of South Gate are illegal immigrants or their children, and you answered by providing a set of data about Maywood that does not make any statements about how many people in Maywood are illegal immigrants or their children. So you admit that Roger McGrath's "conservative estimate" is nothing more than the unsupported conjecture of a historian whose specialty is the frontier of the American West, and that we have zero reason to give that any credence whatsoever. He's not a demographer and he cites no research or field data to support his claims. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
You're missing the forest for the trees. Whether 30% of the community has no legal status or whether 66% of the community has no legal status, the fact that remains that illegal migration is a significant development in the communities I've been discusssing.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Maywood is in an area that was inhabited by Native American tribes for centuries. Later, the settlement of Pueblo de Nuestra Senora de Los Angeles was created there. A cow pasture there was later named Maywood. In 1918, the King of Spain formally granted what is now called South Gate to Don Antonio Maria Lugo, Spanish aristocrat and soldier. He later became mayor of Los Angeles. All of this is in Los Angeles county. The original name of Los Angeles is El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles. So yes, non-Hispanics moving in did indeed change the demographics of this Amerind and then Spanish land. O3000 (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Unauthorized immigrants and illegal immigration

This is regarding this revert. "Immigration" is an action, while "immigrants" refers to people. Since it is possible for an action to be prohibited by law, but implying that a human is prohibited by law would be misleading or loaded, the phrase "illegal immigrant" has been declining in formal writing. Regardless, as an encyclopedia, this should use the more neutral, more precise term. Grayfell (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The phrase 'illegal immigrant' is perfectly clear in the meaning it conveys: a person who is an immigrant of a country but, by law, shouldn't be. It is not 'the person' per se who is illegal but 'the person in that country' that is illegal. Birtig (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Many of the cited sources do not use the term "illegal immigrant", which is a dehumanizing pejorative term. We should use more neutral, less pejorative terms, which are more in line with those used by the sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I have proposed that Illegal immigrant population of the United States be moved to to Unauthorized immigrant population of the United States. That discussion is here: Talk:Illegal immigrant population of the United States#Requested move 24 August 2020.
As I mention there, I think it might be worth starting a more centralized discussion on this terminology. On several talk pages and in several edit summaries I've seen editors cite precedent for why the term should remain "illegal immigrants". Consistency is important, but this term is non-neutral and increasingly obsolete. How common the term is does matter, because we should reflect common usage. Still, being common is not sufficient justification for us to use non-neutral language in Wikipedia's voice. Grayfell (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Are editors really suggesting that to describe a person as 'unauthorized' is in some way better than describing them as 'illegal'? Even if they are, the problem is that the definition of who is allowed to be in the country is a matter of law and being in the country in contravention of the law is 'illegal'. Birtig (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah. Well, this doesn't matter. Wikipedia is not a platform for editors to share personal interpretations of one country's laws, and make no mistake -this is just your interpretation. Reliable sources, including civil liberties experts, lawyers, journalists, etc. avoid this term for various reasons. It's not appropriate for us to editorialize on the law and use a non-neutral term contrary to sources (because if it were, I would point out that unauthorized immigrants are innocent until proven guilty, and calling a person "illegal" presumes guilt). As a simple fact, usage has shifted away from describing humans as "illegal", and Wikipedia should follow that shift. Grayfell (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but the pressure to not use the phrase 'illegal immigrants' is one part of a political agenda being pushed in a few countries but it appears especially strong in the USA. While some reliable sources avoid the terms 'illegal immigration' and 'illegal immigrant' other reliable sources continue to use the terms. My view is that there is no consensus for Wikipedia to change approach in the face of this political pressure. Birtig (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
In 2013, there was indeed a renewed push to change how journalists covered the topic, such as the AP Style guide, the LA Times style guide, and a few others. Calling this a political agenda tips-the-hand that you believe this was about political preference instead of accuracy. Regardless of political motives, this shift reflects actual changes in US attitude and policy, since the purpose of these guides is to advocate for clear and neutral coverage of complicated topics.
It doesn't really matter if this was "a political agenda", or if this was especially strong in the US. The article should strive for neutral language either way. "Political pressure" is not automatically a bad thing. This article's topic is a subset of US politics. Since the article is about a political issue, dismissing this as on those grounds is not productive. The underlying concept is political no matter how we describe it, so we should use a more neutral term.
If you oppose this wording, please explain why without appealing to precedent or consensus. To say that this shouldn't change because there is no consensus is circular reasoning. Many sources which formerly used the term have stopped and some have updated their style guides accordingly. As far as I know, there are no reliable sources which have started to use the term "illegal immigrant". Grayfell (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Per Contentious labels, we should avoid value laden terms and per Use commonly recognizable names, we should use the words that are commonly used in reliable sources for article titles. Per etymological fallacy, it doesn't matter whether the expression we use is a good or poor description. Some expressions become objectionable over time. Anyway the point about innocent until proven guilty makes sense. Some undocumented immigrants are legitimate refugees and hence in the country legally. Others may have entered the U.S. legally, as tourists, students, refugee claimants, temporary workers, etc., and are no longer legally resident. TFD (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
You make a very interesting point: "Some undocumented immigrants are legitimate refugees and hence in the country legally." Since this article is about those who are in the country illegally, the term 'undocumented immigrants' would clearly be the wrong title for this article since, as you say, some of them would be in the country legally. Birtig (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Except that reliable sources rarely make this distinction when describing larger populations, and more importantly, this distinction cannot be made until after they become authorized. They are treated by sources as "illegal" until they are authorized. If sources do not treat them differently, then neither can we. This is why the term "unauthorized" is both more neutral and more precise. Grayfell (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This argument seems absolutely upside-down. The "neutral" term is the one commonly used, which is "illegal immigrant". I've never even seen "unauthorized immigrant" outside of this page. The more common alternative is "undocumented immigrant", and the most PC term is just calling everyone immigrants to prevent any distinction. However referring to the argument that sources don't distinguish between immigrants who are legally or illegally present is irrelevant to a webpage whose sole purpose is that very distinction. Most people say "Americans" when referring to the population of the United States, that doesn't mean you can't have an article titled "Famous tax evading citizens of the US" and then argue because most people just refer to everyone as Americans that it's against the rules to isolate and specifically call these people "tax evaders".

This article is isolating and specifically mentioning people who immigrated to the U.S. and are here illegally. One's personal political or sociological desire to mitigate the psychological perception of them doesn't take precedence over being able to use words that specify these people for exactly why there's an article about them. I would further argue "unauthorized" isn't more precise, it's just a softer term than illegal referring the very same concept, a law exists that states this person is not authorized to be here. While it's accurate, technically 99% of people around the world are "unauthorized". Being unauthorized is de facto. The distinction is the illegal act. I'm not sure it's more neutral either, I am certain if it did become the common term it would be considered offensive too. "Criminal immigrant" would be more precise and removes the stigma of implying someone is inherently illegal. J1DW (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually no, that term would be entirely false. Immigrating to the United States without authorization is not a federal crime, and most unauthorized immigrants are not criminals. Crossing the border without authorization is a misdemeanor, but nearly two-thirds of unauthorized immigrants overstay their visas - which is certainly prohibited by law, but it is a civil violation, not a criminal one. Moreover, describing someone as a criminal requires a conviction in a court of law, not merely an unproven accusation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Tautological opening sentence

I see no reason why the bold title shouldn't lead directly into the second sentence, rather than having a sentence that says "a blue cat is a cat that is blue." 73.71.251.64 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Native Welfare

Research shows that illegal immigration economically harms African Americans and other minority U.S. citizens.[1][2][3][4] Such being the case, why was this removed from the "Native Welfare" subsection of the article and why does the introductory paragraph confidently declare that "illegal immigrants...enhance the welfare of natives"? Every single source which I've cited to is reputable and reliable. Wikipedia has really become a propaganda tool for the left, sadly. It is evident from the page of the user who undid all of my edits - Snooganssnoogans - that he or she has an extremely partisan, ideological agenda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chupster811 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources do not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
How about these? [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Citation eight contends with illegal immigration as well. Chupster811 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Those are op-eds (usually not by experts), and not peer-reviewed research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The only op-ed is the Toledo Blade article; fair enough, that can be removed. The others are high-quality, reputable sources. If the standard for including a citation in a Wikipedia page is a peer-reviewed study, can this standard be applied evenly throughout the article? Chupster811 (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The Examiner is a WP:BIASED conservative source and is explicitly labeled at the top "OPINION"; the NPR piece is an interview segment which can be cited for the interview subjects' opinions only. The Vanderbilt link is a press release, not a news article. I do not think these sources add up to what you say they do. They are opinions, not facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


Sources

  1. ^ "The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers" (PDF). United States Commission on Civil Rights.
  2. ^ "Effects of Immigration on African-American Employment and Incarceration". National Bureau of Economic Research.
  3. ^ "Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers". Politico Magazine.
  4. ^ "The Adverse Impacts of Immigration on Minorities". House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration.
  5. ^ "The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers" (PDF). United States Commission on Civil Rights.
  6. ^ SCOTT, DARRELL. "To the editor: Black America pays price for illegal immigration". The Toledo Blade.
  7. ^ Briggs, Vernon M. Jr. "Illegal Immigration: The Impact on Wages and Employment of Black Workers". Cornell University Library.
  8. ^ "The Adverse Impacts of Immigration on Minorities". House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration.
  9. ^ Bedard, Paul. "Report: Illegal immigration harms blacks, robs social services from legal Americans". The Washington Examiner.
  10. ^ "Writer: Illegal Immigration Stifles Black Community". National Public Radio.
  11. ^ "Illegal Immigration Hurts African Americans". Vanderbilt University.

Absolutely not neutral

The section about crimes committed by illegal immigrants is so biased and not-neutral. At least read this materials from US Congress, to see how illegal immigration is connected with gang violence [2], the name is "IMMIGRATION AND THE ALIEN GANG EPIDEMIC: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS". Dont forget this is Wikipedia, and not a political instrument for propaganda. M.Karelin (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Congress is not a reliable source, and a hearing transcript is a classic example of a primary source. Wikipedia is primarily based on reliable secondary sources. I have reverted your addition because it is not an improvement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
"Congress is not a reliable source" - well, one of the most weird statements I ever heard....At least check the list of the "WITNESSES" in that document: they are members of Governmental agencies. And you are telling me they are not reliable sources ?? Hmmm, that's why this article is very biased and not-neutral. M.Karelin (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Please review identifying reliable sources. Wikipedia should be primarily based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources such as Congressional hearing transcripts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Relationship between illegal immigration and crime

In the section on this in the articles, I added an assertion here saying, "A 2005 House hearing opened withy an assertion that it was 'apparent that aliens are members of many of the most violent gangs in America.'" (my typo there appeared in my addition), supported by a cite of: "IMMIGRATION AND THE ALIEN GANG EPIDEMIC: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS : HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION". commdocs.house.gov. April 13, 2005. That was reverted here with an edit summary saying, "that is a claim that should be supported by peer-reviewed research, not partisan rhetoric at a House hearing 20 yrs ago". I maintain that the source I cited is sufficient support for the assertion I made. It also seems to me that my added assertion adds some meat to the bones of that section, but I don't really know enough about this article subtopic to discuss that much. I have not undone the reversion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

As we can see, this article is clearly violates WP:NPOV. They claimed (see above) that "Congress is not a reliable source".Facepalm Facepalm And that is regardless of the list of the Witnesses (see the document). That hearings were bipartisan (members of the Committee from both parties were there). But no one cares. They just deleted the info. No neutrality in this article at all. M.Karelin (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
That's right, Congress is not a reliable secondary source. Secondary sources are newspapers, magazines, reputable web publications, academic journals, etc. A Congressional hearing transcript is the definition of a primary source, and the uses of primary sources on Wikipedia are extremely limited. Please read and understand Wikipedia sourcing policies before editing further. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Some quotes from this [3] document: 1) Immigration and Customs Enforcement conservatively puts the number of illegals in Mara Salvatrucha as a “majority;” police officers, by contrast, assert that the gang is overwhelmingly illegal. 2) The L.A. County Sheriff reported in 2000 that 23% of inmates in county jails were deportable, according to the New York Times. 3) The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around Los Angeles’s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002. 4) In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide in the first half of 2004 (which totaled 1,200 to 1,500) targeted illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) were for illegal aliens. (end of quotes). And those are only part of the document (the Testimony under oath before Congress). M.Karelin (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The Manhattan Institute is a conservative policy shop and their opinions must be cited as such. Why are you citing data points from 15 and 20 years ago? This isn't 2002 or 2004, it's 2021. Surely there's some more recent evidence, or are you suggesting that this was a problem in the past but is no longer a problem now? We have multiple cited studies from the last five years which say that illegal immigration is not linked to increased crime - against this you have put up a hearing transcript from 16 years ago, and are proposing to use data from more than two decades ago. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
1) Did you even noticed, that all information provided by them is based on official facts and statistics provided by Law Enforcement agencies, such as LAPD or LA county sheriff ?? 2) Why only "liberal policy shops" can have opinion here ?? 3) About the date of the hearings: do you have any evidences, that since 2006 less illegal immigrants are becoming members of very dangerous street gangs ? What have changed since then ? M.Karelin (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
1) Fifteen-year-old raw data from a single jurisdiction is of limited utility in an article focusing on current conditions across the United States. Much preferred would be actual large-scale analyses of broader data sets from across the country - which is what we have in the current article. 2) Which study cited in the current section was conducted by a "liberal policy shop"? I'm seeing lots of citations to reputable academic journals here. 3) It's not up to me to prove a negative - the burden is on you to justify inclusion of a single 20-year-old data point about a single street gang in a single city. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
(1) Aliens =/= illegal immigrants. This is something that gets brought up all the time on the immigration-related pages here. Possibly because of the same anti-immigration 4chan copypastas that repeat the same talking points and sources for fringe assertions about the evils of illegal immigrants. (2) Non-aliens are also part of these gangs. Should that be mentioned? How about we focus instead on the vast body of peer-reviewed literature (or even non-peer-reviewed high-quality RS) that focus on the broad relationships between illegal immigration and crime rather than anecdotes? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
1) We know that, and all that data is about illegal immigrants - believe me, members of Congress can distinguish illegal immigrants from others; 2) You can mention that, but this article is about illegal immigrants. When you read the section about crime (Relationship between illegal immigration and crime), it looks like they are not committing any crimes here, which is very much not true. The section is clearly violates WP:NPOV. Sad !! M.Karelin (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Wtmitchell A bare assertion by a politician at a 16-year-old Congressional hearing doesn't seem to merit inclusion here, particularly given the primary source nature. What does it add to our article? Surely many aliens are *not* members of "the most violent gangs in America," and many citizens are also members of "the most violent gangs in America." We don't need to include unsupported and unrevealing truisms - we have actual, recent, peer-reviewed data to provide our readers. Obfuscating the clear consensus of reliable sources and academic research that illegal immigration does not materially contribute to crime in America by "contrasting" it with 16-year-old partisan political rhetoric seems to materially make the article worse, not improve it. For that reason, I oppose inclusion of the material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I stumbled across this by happenstance and don't have enough specific interest in the topic to get into a debate over details. I will remark that Wikipedia is not a political newsletter, and WP articles generally take a view wider than the situation which is of strong political concern when documented in WP articles (I put that badly but I'm not going to take the trouble to restate it). FWIW, this edit is what caught my attention and caused me to look at the article -- the link to the cited supporting source was dead, and digging up an alternative led to my edit and its cite.The content of the section is one-sided enough to make me wonder about WP:DUE for alternative views. However, I'll leave debating that to others who may be more interested in pursuing this subtopic than I. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The current section does not include any quotes from politicians - only cited scientific studies. The proper contrast to the current section, if any exists, would be similar peer-reviewed scientific studies which find that illegal immigration increases crime. We do not have to create WP:FALSEBALANCE - if all the science is on one "side" of the issue, then that's the end of it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"Illegal immigration" vs. "'Illegal or undocumented immigration"

This is a WP:BRD discussion. Here, I've reverted an edit which changed this in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE of this article. The edit summary of the reverted change read: (undocumented immgrants is a term recommended by UN). I looked for a UN document where this recommendation was made, and the closest I found was this mention of General Assembly Resolution No. 3449/XXX. UN, 1975 titled Measures to ensure the human rights and dignity of all migrant workers., and that does not appear to justify this more general change. @Tomastvivlaren -- did you have something more general in mind? Please discuss below if needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Marines scandal

HHelmsley10 and 21TVXQ , I reverted the section about the Marines "scandal" for the reasons given in my edit summary: (1) this is a non-notable incident, (2) smuggling happens all the time (3) this is not an "international controversiy". 21TVXQ, no need to shout at me, and this seem like a reasonable story to add here cause it shows corruption for both sides is not a good reason to include something in Wikipedia. So, instead of edit-warring, I invited you both to discuss it here at the talk page. The section was added, reverted, so the next step should be to discuss it here. -- Mvbaron (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Mvbaron ---- Jayron32 Why am I being accused of edit warring? After my edit was undone I don't undo/revert again. To me seemed reasonable to keep it here because I think it shows ways how illegal immigrants receive help from both sides or how they get here. The article saying a Mexican state Yucatan helps illegals with a guide and Id cards so showing both sides is fair and neutral. - -- 21TVXQ (talk) 15:49, 19 April 22. 2021 (UTC)
Can you please show me where I accused you of edit warring? I'll answer your other questions once you acknowledge that I did no such thing. --Jayron32 16:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi 21TVXQ, I didn't accuse you of edit warring (EDIT: sorry I kinda did, you reverted my revert, so I said instead of edit warring I'm happy to retract it), I pinged you because you might be interested in a discussion about the section you re-added after I reverted the initial BOLD edit for the reasons above. --Mvbaron (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Jayron32 I tagged/included you here because you're the one that undid my edit revert and thought you should part of this debate. I was referring to Mvbaron when I said editing warring. I al ready give my reason here, (see above) why I think it should be readded. - -- 21TVXQ (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I have no pony in this race. Instead, I just want to see the issue with the disputed text worked out on the talk page. Once consensus is reached, it can be re-added as far as I am concerned. We don't have consensus yet, and disputes need to be worked out on the talk page and not continuously adding the same text over and over. --Jayron32 16:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello editors Mvbaron, Jayron32, and 21TVXQ. I open for a discussion and I do not want any problems. "International controversies" could perhaps be renamed to "Controversies"? I noticed that within this article there is a section called "military involvement"; maybe moving there is a better option, or should it be moved to another article such as this one? Illegal immigration to the United States and crime. Also for your claim of it not being notable seems not to be true. Here is a youtube video with over 1 million views from the CBS channel - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7_mK2js9yw Fox news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1zxAti1_TM and ABC news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM2y55wmLVw covered the story too. Also I agree what 21tvxq said about Wikipedia Neutral point of view. -- HHelmsley (talk) 1:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

HHelmsley, hi thanks for the discussion, First of all, a youtube video is no reliable source and not usable as guarantee for notability really (coverage in notable newspapers is). Re-reading the proposed text, I have my doubts about the notability of the accident. I think the following is too detailed and unimportant:

The ring leader of the human smuggling operation was identify as Francisco Saul Rojas-Hernandez. Some of the Marines in court said Francisco Saul Rojas-Hernandez would pay them $1,000 per person that they helped transport.[113][114] 8 Marines plead guilty, however some of the Marines had their charges dropped after a judge said that the arrest of the 16 Marines in front of a battalion formation was a violation of their rights. The U.S. Marine Corps still took administrative or judicial action against the 24 Marines involved. According to 1st Lieutenant Cameron Edinburgh, one Marine received a general discharge under honorable conditions, at least one Marine received a dishonorable discharge, two received bad conduct discharges, and 19 received other than honorable discharges. The Navy sailor was also removed from service with a bad conduct discharge.[115]

If the incident is notable enough, there will be some better reliable sources (national newspapers) that report on it too and give more relvant details. In any case, if you ask me, I guess I don't have anything against the text until the quote above, but I wasn't the only one who was against the insertion of the text. --Mvbaron (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Mvbaron Okay, here is one from the NY times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/marines-human-smuggling.html and Businessinsider https://www.businessinsider.com/24-marines-discharged-after-human-trafficking-and-drug-allegations-2020-2 The youtube videos that I provided are from the official CBS, Fox news, and ABC news channels. Nobility is not an issue. The only Wikipedia user that had a problem was Snooganssnoogans and he reverted my edit without a summary explaining why. I don't know why you have an issue with the other half of the story. The other half gives detail on who was the leader of the crimes committed and what happened to the ones involved. If I left that part out it would have been most likely reverted for being "incomplete". I added good sources and it was well written explaining details from start to finish. I'll vote for re-add. -- HHelmsley (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Trends?

Currently the trend section states that: 

In 2017, illegal border crossing arrests hit a 46-year low, and were down 25% from the previous year.[76] NPR stated that immigrants may be less likely to attempt to enter the U.S. illegally because of President Trump's stance on illegal immigration.[77][78]

Considering these graphics from the recent 2019 homeland report (btw the graphics in the article are outdated by couple of years) there seem to be no trend even the opposite, and in either case this event doesn't seem to be more than blip that was given undue weight with clickbait title about '46-year low'. Furthermore the homeland report states notable trends, it made no such note here. So we need some better sources here that actually states that there has been a trend and or actually put things into context. --77.127.97.155 (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

– WP:NEUTRAL term. The Hill Bloomberg NPR. Voice of America Vox The New York Times NBC News CBS News Forbes The Economist ABC News CNN Politico The Christian Science Monitor Newsweek USA Today NPR WP:COMMONNAME. Showiecz (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Struck per WP:TPG#sockvote. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Observation:
Google Trends shows that "illegal immigration" is consistently much more searched for, than "undocumented immigration" (click)
Google Trends shows that "illegal immigrant" is more searched for, than "undocumented immigrant" (click) though to a less dramatic degree than "--- immigration"
The issue here seems to be the relative weight given to WP:NEUTRAL versus WP:COMMONNAME. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support with such a long list of the top tier of reliable sources using a different term, it seems untenable to keep it at "illegal immigration". However, this should probably be largely centered on the parent article illegal immigration" and the fate of that. --Cerebral726 (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Apart from activists trying to legalize certain forms of entry to the US, "illegal immigration" is the common name. There is more-accepted pushback against the term "illegal immigrant" but those arguments don't apply to the similar construction "illegal immigration". The suggestion that "undocumented" is the "neutral" term is absurd. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The descriptor is fair and valid. People violating immigration law are illegal immigrants by immigrating illegally. Liberals can’t just change words to get amnesty for everyone and increase their voter base. TheUSConservative (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The purpose here is not to push an agenda, it's to reflect what sources use to describe the subject of the article and come to a conclusion regarding the WP:COMMONNAME and other relevant Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Perhaps if you can't have an impartial stance on this subject you should recuse yourself, instead of taking the opportunity to fight against "Liberals increasing their voter base". --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NEUTRAL and the wp:rs listed above—blindlynx (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Several complications arise here. First of all, everyone should be able to agree that the subject of these articles are immigration to the United States in violation of federal laws, regardless of whether or not we agree with those laws. The gradual adoption of "undocumented" over "illegal" has been the result of the actions of people and organizations who dislike the latter because they feel that it is offensive. I feel that this makes "undocumented" a wp:EUPHEMISM, and therefore not the neutral term. We can't just censor everything that someone objects too; everyone is offended by something to some degree. The discussion has been spread far and wide about this with so far no consensus. However, most media outlets, including all of the ones cited above, have not prohibited or discouraged the use of the term "illegal" to refer to the action of illegal immigration; just the use of this term to refer to individual persons. Since the subject of these articles cover (once again) an unlawful activity, this most certainly needs to be denoted in the title. I currently know of no other unlawful activities that the word "undocumented" is used to describe. I think there is sufficient evidence to conclude, based on evidence presented above as well as the usage by most media outlets, that "illegal immigration" is still the common name. This may not be true in the future; however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And finally, while this discussion is about whether or not the subject should be referred to as "illegal" or "undocumented", and not the accuracy of each term, I will point out that nearly half of all instances of illegal immigration result from people who enter the country lawfully, but overstay their visas. Therefore, these people are not "undocumented" in the common sense because there is documentation that proves that they are (or were) here. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The sources provided by the nominator concern "undocumented immigrants" not "undocumented immigration". "Illegal immigration" remains the term most commonly used for entering the country without the necessary paperwork, even if the people who do enter that way are more commonly referred to as "undocumented." -- Calidum 20:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm ok with moving Illegal immigrant population of the United States → Undocumented immigrant population of the United States, but oppose the other moves. -- Calidum 15:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The term "undocumented" is usually used to describe the person who engages in something "illegal". Many of the sources listed only use the term "undocumented" when referring to persons, while saying "illegal" when referring to the action. Here's the AP guideline, for example: [4]. funplussmart (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current page includes information on the history of illegal immigration. Were it changed to undocumented immigrants, then this section would necessarily delve into immigrants who arrived in the Unied States prior to the Page Act of 1875 as well as other immigrants who arrived legally but without being documented. This would therefore change the intent of the current article. Elminstersage (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Taylor 49 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC) It is NOT "illegal" to migrate. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    • No, but it is illegal to immigrate without permission if a country's laws deem it to be so (as almost all countries' laws do). Wikipedia's job is to report facts, not to change them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Undocumented is a relatively new name, it has usually been referred to as illegal Nameomcnameface (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Nameomcnameface
  • Support Per Wikipedia:Article titles, names should be non-judgmental and accurate. Also, the ngram viewer shows that use of the term "illegal immigrant" was in decline by 2006, and by 2014 the term "undocumented immigrants" was more common.[5] TFD (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Soft oppose: Both the current title and the proposed title do carry some possible problematic connotations, and in such circumstances the preference has to go to the more common term, which per Ngrams is "Illegal immigration". Further, even if the proposed title was perfectly neutral, the considerably disparity in use would strongly indicate we should continue with the current term.
However, "Irregular migration to the United States" is, in my opinion, more neutral than either option, and while "Illegal immigration" still has greater usage than "Irregular migration" the disparity is small enough, particularly given the trend line of both terms, that I would be able to "Soft support" that proposed title, either in this RfC or a future one. BilledMammal (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose with an exception. While "undocumented immigrant" has become the common name over "illegal immigrant," there doesn't seem to be a parallel adoption of the phrase "undocumented immigration." (For instance, "undocumented immigration" doesn't appear in any of the sources linked in the nomination - just "undocumented immigrant.") Therefore, while I support moving Illegal immigrant population of the United States to "Undocumented immigrant population...", I don't think there's a case for the rest of the proposed moves. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Illegal immigrant population of the United States → Undocumented immigrant population of the United States - I had initially !voted on a duplicate move request at that page and I'm not sure that it's right to bundle it here. If we're talking about people (as opposed to actions), "undocumented" is certainly the preferred term. –dlthewave ☎ 13:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Pyaarkarona (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Struck per WP:TPG#sockvote. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

It could be that while use of the term "illegal immigration" has been in long term decline since 2006, except in anti-immigration literature, few people use the term "undocumented immigration." Instead they write about "undocumented immigrants" instead of "illegal immigrants," a term which is also in decline. Today use of the term "undocumented immigrants" has narrowly passed "illegal immigrants." Meanwhile the term "undocumented workers" has become less common.[6]

The link is to the ngram reader, which shows the use of the terms in published books. Actual usage for undocumented over illegal is probably higher in reliable sources, since the count includes books that would not be considered reliable sources, for example ones written by anti-immigration activists.

We might consider using a title with the word immigrants instead of immigration. While immigration is a point in time when someone enters the country, the article is mostly about these people after they immigrate, for example where they work, what benefits they receive, the degree to which they commit crimes. Many of these people are refugee claimants, hence may not become "illegals" until and unless their claims are denied and they refuse to leave.

TFD (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that changing to "undocumented" smacks of WP:EUPHEMISM and WP:OFFICIAL. It's also vague: what the Federal US government means is that it's not documented by them. But if the immigration (legal or otherwise) is discussed by reliable sources, it is documented: So to be neutral, we'd have to say "officially undocumented" or "not officially documented" or some other clumsiness.
However, I would not change "immigration" to "immigrants", since the articles are as much about the process as the people.
I don't think books written by anti-immigration activists are ipso facto unreliable sources.
85.67.32.244 (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC) 85.67.32.244 (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Language usage changes and terms that were acceptable at one time become less so later. See for example, "Stop saying 'illegal' immigrants" (Amnesty International UK). The term is derogatory and inaccurate. Using such terms causes readers to question the neutrality of the article and in any case goes against article naming policy. TFD (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing in favour of the term "illegal immigrants", and I clearly said so. (In my opinion the term "asylum seeker" gets far more frequently misused). The term "illegal immigrant" is not always inaccurate, and is only derogatory if you think it's OK to break the law: Amnesty's blogger – They do not necessarily represent the views of Amnesty International – is complaining that some people (particularly children) were branded "illegal" when they had no opportunity to legitimise their immigration status: a failure of government, not the immigrant. If "immigrant" by itelf is derogatory – and I am one – that's news to me. If calling something that is against the law "illegal" is derogatory, that's also news to me. We have illegal drugs, even though the chemicals themselves are not illegal, but acts with them (possession, supply, production etc) may be: presumably the redirect passes WP:RNEUTRAL. That may seem a bad analogy but think of it this way: you can't prosecute the drug. You prosecute the person who does something with that drug. Their crime is not being a person, it is committing a specific prohibited act. We have criminals, and "criminals" is used four times in the body text of crime. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV Lead

The lead section says "...increase the size of the U.S. economy . . . " and "There is scholarly consensus that illegal immigrants commit less crime than native." These words are meant to persuade readers about the benefits of illegal immigrants rather than explain what illegal immigration is. There also is no discussion about studies that have come to the opposite conclusion. Additionally "scholarly consensus" are weasel words that don't cite specific scholars. At minimum, these paragraphs should be placed in an alternate section, though, I would argue they should be removed altogether for failing to explain what illegal immigration is. Elminstersage (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that the entire paragraphs containing the disputed phrases quoted above are in question. Elminstersage (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"increase U.S. gross domestic product" is an interesting reason to want to bring people in. Why not annex Guatemala and other countries? The administration itself doesn't bother to justify illegal immigration in terms of economics or anything else. Psaki tells us that its all about "racial equity," like Biden is here to punish America and establish some equity. 99to99 (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The quoted paragraphs in the lead are sourced, you gave no sources and just stated your opinion that the lead is non-neutral. Without citing any sources to the contrary you’ll not get anywhere here really. I’ve removed the NPOV tag until the issue is discussed here. Mvbaron (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Per Mvbaron, the information is neutrally presented, well-sourced to reliable sources, and I don't see any contradictory evidence presented here that it is anything else but. Just some assertions and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT objections. --Jayron32 16:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Negative impacts from illegal immigration have been found on forests.[1] Impacts of wages have also been questioned [2][3] Elminstersage (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The forests issue seems like you're grasping at straws. If you're hunting that hard for a negative impact, cherry picking a single study from an obscure journal is not going to get you far. The article already discusses wages, and the preponderance of most recent sources seem to concur that undocumented/illegal immigrants have anywhere from a neutral to a net increasing effect on wages, as you can see from the article and the stuff already cited there. The Politico story is a nice data point, but does not by itself offset the numerous examples already cited in the article which contradict it. --Jayron32 16:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

What about crime? The lead says, "There is scholarly consensus that illegal immigrants commit less crime than natives." I have to wonder if these studies factored in that two of 9/11 hijackers were overstaying. All of the hijackers can be considered illegals insofar as they gamed the system and put false information on their applications. In any event, this is an irrelevant apples-and-oranges comparison. Any crime committed by an illegal is a crime that would not have occurred if immigration law was being enforced. 99to99 (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

That argument makes of course no sense, but even if it did we cannot include our own unsourced speculation into the article, but must refer to reliable sources. Mvbaron (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Here is another blooper from the lead: "Stricter border controls have been linked to increased levels of undocumented immigrants in the United States, as temporary undocumented workers who used to enter the U.S. for seasonal work increasingly settled permanently in the U.S. when regular travels across the border became harder." The cited source is analyzing the period 1970 to 2010. It doesn't compare Trump's enforcement of immigration law to Biden's non-enforcement, although I suspect many readers will assume that it does. The metric it focuses on is the budget for Border Patrol. As the Border Patrol had to deal with more crossings, they could justify a bigger budget. There were also various legalizations and amnesties during this period. According to the chart in the article, the George W. Bush years were the golden age of strict enforcement. Who believes this? The tone set by the White House is at least as significant as the Border Patrol's budget. 99to99 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
"Scholar consensus" is not WP:WEASEL, because it makes a meaningful claim. It's not like saying "some scholars" or "many scholars." TFD (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0033-0124.00338. Retrieved 23 September 2021. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://www.gao.gov/assets/pemd-88-13br.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

The lead is highly POV by bragging about illegal immigrants' economic benefits and less crime compared to Americans, but then failing to mention ta high percentage of them having no high school education or low English ability compared to legal immigrants or native-born Americans, and their net negative cost on the government. Why only make some positive comparisons that are cited in the media but not the negative ones that are cited as well? That is not providing due weight to the issue. Bill Williams 21:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead section is not neutral

I think it is pretty clear that the people who worked on the lead section were trying to convince readers that illegal immigration is a good thing for the USA. Several of the paragraphs just start with positive comments that could easily appear in a political advertisement. It seems clear that the lead section spends too much time arguing for the benefits of illegal immigration (information that should be in the article but not dominate the lead section which inevitably will be the only thing many will read), and not laying out basic encyclopaedic information on the issue with broader scope. 175.39.143.206 (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality on Wikipedia does not mean treating all sides and all sources as equally valid. The lede here presents a variety of facts about illegal/undocumented immigration to the United States; that you or anyone else disagrees with those facts is not relevant. If the picture presented is that illegal immigration is generally beneficial to the country in a number of ways, and are not the scary boogeymen depicted in some media circles... well, that's the scholarly consensus. What would you prefer the lede to say, and what reliable sources support your preferred wording? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality of encyclopedia means only one thing to present facts and definitions and not arguments. The author of this article presented arguments, cited sources that he or she trusts. The reason these are arguments and not facts is choice of wording. For example it says "Research shows" instead of "Some researches show". The admin of this article whether it is the same person as the author or not feels like siding in his political view with the author. If it is not true please consider revising the leading section to include an alternative study from an not obscure source that for example shows that Total Fiscal Burden of Illegal Aliens on U.S. Taxpayers:$115,894,597,664 Vgrinberg (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[1][2]
Consider for example the article called "Electricity in the Puget Sound region". The lead section to this article could elaborate quite heavily on the benefits electricity has brought to the Puget Sound region. However it does not do that, instead it describes who produces the electricity and how much is produced. Don't you think a similar philosophy could and perhaps should be provided to this article? 175.39.143.206 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
No, this article should clearly delineate the effects of illegal immigration in the US. If a bridge or power plant has well-documented effects in reliable sources, then I would expect WP articles on those bridges and power plants to cover those effects. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Yet the highly covered topics of their cost to the government, and their education/English ability, both of which are worse than the average legal immigrant or native-born American, are not covered at all in the lead. That is providing undue weight to positive claims vs. negative ones. Bill Williams 21:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/Fiscal-Burden-of-Illegal-Immigration-2017.pdf
  2. ^ http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Federation_for_American_Immigration_Reform
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States/Archive_12&oldid=1093595282"