Talk:Mass deportation of illegal immigrants in the second presidency of Donald Trump

Notification

@Superb Owl: @FactOrOpinion: @BootsED: I created this article with extensive text from the immigration section of the Trump campaign article which you have edited. I realise the creation may be premature, but it continues to be widely and reliably discussed. No Swan So Fine (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this might be a bit premature. I like it and the work that's been put into it, but I'm not sure it can pass WP:CRYSTAL. Is there another example of a similar page on political plans that have been made? BootsED (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The Trump Wall has it's own article. Originalcola (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Just passing by here but I don't believe this need t's own article. It's very weird to have a whole article on a planned individual policy and I don't believe it should be a standalone article as it could easily be included in a larger article about a broader topic. If content should be spun off for its own article, it would probably have to be something like Immigration policy of Donald Trump's Second Presidency rather than just one part as per WP:NOARTICLE. Whilst there's clearly been a lot of effort put into the current page, the article as it currently stands read more like a newspaper than an encyclopedia as well. An editor has already mentioned WP:CRYSTAL which it doesn't seem to pass. Originalcola (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that this falls under WP:CRYSTAL. This is not "a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions." There's plenty of verifiable RS coverage that Trump plans this, along with discussions of what the impact would be, and I think it easily passes "the subject matter would be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." It might make sense for it to be a large section of Immigration policy of Donald Trump's second presidency; if it remains a page of its own, I'd omit "illegal" from the title, as the plans he's spoken of are not limited to deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally. I haven't had time to really dig into the text, but expect that you'll want to link to and perhaps draw some ideas/sources from Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign § Violent and dehumanizing statements against undocumented immigrants, Donald Trump and fascism § Dehumanization and racism, and Donald Trump and fascism § Internment camps. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I personally am glad this article is here. I think this specific topic has a lot of interest. Nowa (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Article title

"Illegal" when applied directly to human beings is a loaded, disparaging, or even racist term. Whether they are "illegal" also depends entirely on perspective. For example, Native Americans now also targeted by this anti-immigration policy might consider Europeans to be there illegally, and Greenland and Panama certainly would consider Trump's threats to invade their countries to be illegal under their own laws. And so forth. The article should be moved to the neutral and non-racist Mass deportation of immigrants in the second presidency of Donald Trump. --Tataral (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have to go by what sources call it and they call it deportation of illegal immigrants, though the article does include the fact that non illegal immigrants and just non immigrants are being arrested. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing "loaded" or "racist" about the term. The rest of your comment is pure WP:OR and irrelevant. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that call them "undocumented immigrants," not "illegal immigrants." You can find more pretty easily. Many immigrants and advocates find the term "illegal immigrants" dehumanizing. Catboy69 (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States, Economic impact of illegal immigration to the United States and Illegal immigration both refer to this situation as illegal immigration. Both articles are established and the first has survived several attempts to rename it. There are also many other articles that use the verbiage illegal immigrant. EarlyRetirement (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tataral "Illegal immigrant" refers to people who immigrate illegally, not to immigrants who are illegal, though I can see how it could be considered disparaging. I think that "Mass deportations under the second presidency of Donald Trump" would be a good title. Kaotao (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I have nothing against using the word "illegal" in the title, but the title itself is overly long. Maybe a better title would be "2025 Mass deportations" or something along those lines? TJD2 (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

We can't name it that, because the article would cover all deportation efforts during the presidency of Donald Trump, which means they could extend all the way until the beginning of 2029. A lot of articles will have longer titles becauase of the whole "second presidency" that had to be added to distinguish non-consecutive terms. EytanMelech (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Undocumented" immigrants. Human beings cannot be "illegal", not even if they are in a country illegally, if that's the word some use. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @Drmies "Illegal" and "undocumented" isn't applied to immigrant, but to immigration; undocumented migrants aren't illegal, and they aren't never-before-seen cryptids either. Kaotao (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Kaotao, are you trying to be funny with this "cryptid" stuff? It's failing. And the article we're talking about, this one, says "illegal immigrants". So yes applied to "immigrant", and undocumented migrants are routinely called "illegal". Drmies (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

      You seem to have not understood my post. That is okay. If "undocumented immigrant" meant "undocumented person who has immigrated" rather than "person who has immigrated undocumented", then it would be referring to people not documented at all, in any way, as though they were totally unknown. If "illegal" truly was being applied to people rather than to immigration as you say, "illegal immigrant" would be used to refer to all immigrants who were considered "illegal" as people, whether or not they immigrated illegally. This does not occur. The phrase "illegal immigrant" is exclusively used to refer to people who immigrate illegally, because it is a back-formation from illegal immigration. You are absolutely right that illegal immigrant is the common name. Kaotao (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Doesn't matter if the semantics of the word make sense. as per Wiktionary, "illegal immigrant" is indeed a valid term in the English language. EytanMelech (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
    • "So, User:EytanMelech, it does matter. Wiktionary is not a source for Wikipedia, and I don't care if you call it a "valid term" in the English language. There are many slurs that are found in Wiktionary--would you like for me to list them?--including for instance the word "slave", which is another noun we shouldn't be using to refer to human beings. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

      I certainly wouldn't call another human being a slave but if we were writing an article about slavery I certainly wouldn't instead use the term "people of enslaved status". Also, the word "illegal" isn't a slur anymore than the word "tax fraud" is a slur. Describing a crime shouldn't be considered offensive. EytanMelech (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

      You basically keep saying that, and you are wrong. No one says "people of enslaved status", User:EytanMelech, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to make a joke out of this. You could show a little respect. One could say "enslaved people"--in fact, people do it all the time. Finally, what crime? This is much less straightforward than you seem to think. Drmies (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

      First of all, I'm not trying to make a joke out of this. I have no idea what would give you that impression, sorry if it is coming off that way. As for, "What crime?", the "illegal" in the title of the article refers to 8 U.S.C. § 1325, which makes those who enter the United States without permission eligible for a penalty. EytanMelech (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Somehow I missed all the trials where these folks had been convicted. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Objective3000 Illegal immigration is illegal because it's against the law, and things that are against the law are illegal, so if an instance of immigration is against the law it is illegal. American law is publicly available, if you're curious. Kaotao (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  I still missed the adjudication of cases relating to the shackled people of color shipped to other countries. The OP's suggestion fixes this, as well as avoiding the racist tone. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Objective3000 People who immigrate illegally are illegal immigrants. Pretending that sending people outside of where you can control them is comparable to slavery does not change that. Kaotao (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  Where did I use the word slavery? How do you know all these people immigrated illegally? They've been detaining and questioning Navajo Amerinds in raids of homes and schools, demanding their papers. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Objective3000 That's unfortunate. I wonder why they've decided to start scrutinizing people for no reason whatsoever. Kaotao (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  Presumably for the same reason that the US is not sending Canadians and Europeans who have overstayed visas back to their countries in shackles despite the fact that visa overstays are more numerous than illegal border crossings. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Objective3000 That's not illegal immigration; it's committing a crime after entering the country (not necessarily immigrating) legally. You're literally adding to our point that "illegal immigrant" is the most fitting term. Kaotao (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  "In the Thursday meeting in which President Trump complained about 'having all these people from shithole countries come here' — and singled out Haiti, El Salvador and Africa as examples — he also added that, 'we should have more people from Norway.'"[1] But we veer off course. How do you know all these people of color immigrated illegally? The Haitians were allowed in legally by one administration, and the next calls them criminals and shackles them. Do we no longer accept those with valid refugee status? When were the trials? Are we no longer a country of laws? The OP's suggestion takes this into account. I don't understand the resistance to a solution. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Objective3000 Okay, he said a bad word. Can you provide a reliable source that claims that mass deportations of legal immigrants are occurring? Or do you want us to Ctrl+R this whole article over a "complaint" in "the Thursday meeting"? Kaotao (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Or do you want us to Ctrl+R this whole article over a "complaint" in "the Thursday meeting"?

Pretending that sending people outside of where you can control them is comparable to slavery does not change that.

Illegal immigration is illegal because it's against the law, and things that are against the law are illegal, so if an instance of immigration is against the law it is illegal. American law is publicly available, if you're curious.

It doesn't appear that dialog with you is useful as you don't respond to what is said, but respond to straw men. Have a good day. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Objective3000 You too! Kaotao (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

References

this article is about the Trump deportation policy

it is not another opportunity to blame Biden, especially not with lousy partisan sources and disputable figures, and especially since Trump was an immigration hardliner long before Biden, thus I am inclined to remove the Biden presidency section unless someone can persuade me otherwise soibangla (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I totally disagree. Sm8900 (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I find that unpersuasive. Cato Institute analysis finds that migrant "gotaways" soared after Title 42 was instituted in March 2020, under Trump, then plummeted when Title 42 ended in May 2023. Odd the press has ignored this vital fact, and it might explain why Fox News ended their "border crisis" narrative in 2024.[2]] soibangla (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sm8900 despite the extensive rationale I have provided for removing the content, you have restored it with no rationale other than "I totally disagree," and with a blank edit summary. I do not find this to be good practice. soibangla (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Soibangla He did indeed yap about immigration before Biden; he also happened to be in office before Biden, and, as the section for his first presidency makes clear, he didn't take such extreme measures then. The Biden section provides context and pertinent information, and, with the relative absence of reliable psychoanalyses of Trump, the most likely explanation for his change of heart this time around. Including relevant, sourced information isn't "blaming Biden"; it's creating an encyclopedia. Kaotao (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kaotao, well said, agreed. . Agree Sm8900 (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

did you see all the garbage sources I removed?[3] the intent of this section clearly was to blame Biden, and it makes no mention of Title 42 which began in March 2020 and was a huge cause of the migration surge (if nothing else, see figure 1 [4])

so now we have a poorly-written section including an incorrect Snopes sentence and a sentence about legal port of entry crossings in the normal course of business that are totally irrelevant (but hey, look at that big 39.4 million number!). then it launches into what Republicans say, which politicizes it; there is no need for that, just stick with facts. the section then says crossings "reached record levels in September 2023," but does it mention crossings then plummeted for the remainder of the Biden presidency and the crisis ended? well of course not!

moreover, this article is about deportations, not border crossings. as it reads now, it's "Biden let them all in and Trump is throwing them all out," when in reality Trump is seeking many millions all over the country who may have been here for years before Biden.

certainly I want "context and pertinent information," but what we got ain't it. soibangla (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Soibangla The "intent" of the section is irrelevant. What matters is whether it is sufficiently relevant to the article. You've brought up some legitimate concerns, and I've addressed a few. However, you seem to think that the mere existence of that section makes this article into a propaganda piece... and as evidence you're providing information that could be added to into it. Feel free to add that info any time, or leave citations here so other people can do the work you're spending time talking about. Kaotao (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have the time or interest to address your comments, which should not be interpreted to mean that I concede any of them. soibangla (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Soibangla Okay. I will keep that in mind. Thank you for letting me know. Kaotao (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

soibangla, I believe you are correct and have removed what seemed like a very cherry-picked and not very neutral collection of data to me. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I think somebody said Trump was not extreme in his first administration. I disagree. The family separation policy was extreme. I think it is very relevant to include the facts about what happened under Biden as long as it is from a neutral point of view. T g7 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

What kind of information do you believe should be included? How could the section here[5] be improved? Kaotao (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate citations

The citations in notes a and b are the same. Kaotao (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Mass deletion of Biden content

Almost all of the concerns with the section on Biden brought up by the original complaintant were addressed, yet the section was deleted with the following explanation: "seemed cherry-picked and not very neutral to me". The Joe Biden section provided a brief, general overview of the border situation under him, vital background information for the political climate surrounding the topic of this article. Established, sourced, and important content shouldn't be deleted without any rationale whatsoever. Kaotao (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• Haven't been around this page in a couple of days, and I think that section changed since I first removed it. But I'll note a couple of things. First, the sources used in that section were both not super reliable, or very one sided (i.e Snopes, Christian Science Monitor, or the Cato Institute]]. Second, I would also say that it was written in matter that focused almost exclusively on the number of individuals who crossed over the U.S. Southern Border, without really touching on the policies of the administration. I would be open to having a brief paragraph (or a couple) discussing undocumented immigration during the Biden admin, but it should be completely re-written (from the ground up), and be based on references from the main article now linked. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  The purpose of that section isn't to provide a general summary of the main article; it's to provide background information for the topic of this article. Relevant policies should be added, but I think that for the most part, that section was relevant and due as was. Most of the cited sources were RS with liberal leanings and CSM was quoted, not cited. Could you float an idea for what a re-written paragraph would cover? Kaotao (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Day Without Immigrants (2025)

New related page: Day Without Immigrants (2025)

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2025

Mass deportation of illegal immigrants in the second presidency of Donald Trump → Deportation of illegal immigrants in the second presidency of Donald Trump – This is not yet a mass deportation. The mass deportation label appears to be, so far, more aspirational than actual. RS coverage that focuses on mass deportation as a term highlights that the actual numbers of deportees are not actually all that high and the term of mass deportation appear to be more relevant to messaging efforts than actual numbers of deportees. All articles from Feb 1 or later to reflect up to date RS coverage when ICE stats were more available.

The Guardian discusses how Google timestamps from ICE webpages are seemingly being gamed by updating old releases to create a "mirage" of mass deportation.

Politico mentions how there is substantial media coverage of supposed mass deportation, driven by messaging from the WH, but the number of daily Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests, trumpeted each day on X, are still about where they were at times under President Barack Obama., states in their own words: President Donald Trump’s mass deportation plan he promised during the campaign has not yet taken hold, and quotes an Obama era ICE director stating: it sends messages that are inaccurate about what ICE has historically done — that this is new.

Moreover, the common name appears to just be "deportation", and "mass deportation" when used by RS is typically for referencing political officials, namely Trump.

Ex: The New York Times - using deportation in their own words, and only using mass deportation referencing Trump's campaign promise.

Associated Press - uses deportation, and mass deportation when discussing Trump's promise.

WSJ - similarly uses deportation in own words, "mass deportation" is brought up as Trump's campaign promise.

NPR - uses deportation, mass deportation is brought up as Trump's promise.

There are a few sources that do appear to opt to use mass deportation, which appear to be from earlier articles before stats were largely available or lack of care in word choice, like this example from Forbes (liveblog?), which breaks up between quoting Trump for the term and using it without quotes in section headers. In which case, it's worth noting: inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; from WP:TITLE. KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Support: He's barely deporting any. Even Obama deported more than Trump. Its not exactly looking like a "mass deportation", so a renaming makes sense.2A02:810D:BCBF:FD88:3103:CFA7:5729:42DD (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Support per WP:CONCISE. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Support per WP:CONCISE; whether or not it's a "mass" deportation will likely remain debatable and may be subject to WP:WEIGHT concerns, whereas we should all agree it's a deportation effort. Carguychris (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Deportation in the second presidency of Donald Trump or Deportations in the second presidency of Donald Trump? The suggested title still seems a bit more wordy than necessary. Are there any similarly named articles? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

No, Obama and GWB, both of whom are likely to have higher deportation (removal) numbers at current rates, including on a deportations/year basis, do not have their own pages. I don't think any other president has deportation pages.

The closest is probably Immigration policy of the first Donald Trump administration, which did not see particularly high levels of deportations and had more prominent measures on border security.

The #1 deporting president (if you use removals as measure, which is what Trump is largely trying to do and most people think of as deportation), Obama, has Immigration policy of the Barack Obama administration linking to a section in his presidency page, which has one line about record deportations in 2012, falling later on.

The #2 deporting president, Bush (counting either removal or returns), has Immigration policy of George W. Bush linking to his unsuccessful efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform, no mention of deportations.

The alternative #1 deporting president, Clinton (counting returns and removals), has no immigration section in his presidency page or dedicated page.

Joe Biden has a dedicated Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration page, but his "deportation" section is mostly Title 42 expulsion, of which he had far more than Trump. No deportation page. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I see that Immigration policy of the second Donald Trump administration already exists. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

In retrospect, this should probably have been a merge request then. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Support: If efforts ramp up to any other level I would definitely think that "mass" could be debated, but now only around 10k have been arrested and who knows how many have been deported as of now? The general "deportations" without the mass descriptor seems like it would be a good choice. EytanMelech (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, merge with Immigration policy of the second Donald Trump administration. This is probably the better idea. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Also support merging with the immigration policy article, that is probably the smarter option, but either one would work. Carguychris (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)