Talk:2006 United States immigration reform protests

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

Timeline

This has a lot of incorrect information. Many pieces of information are unsources, and some are outright incorrect. One article regarding the walkout in Las Vegas said that the grand majority of businesses suffered no impact, but this Wiki page stated they did. This part especially should be improved. Panfakes 13:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upside down flag caption has incorrect information

The following information is found on second link ( "The American Flag Comes Second" by Michelle Malkin, posted March 29, 2006 01:15 AM. Both accessed April 14, 2006.)

that references the photos information:

My name is Barry Schwartz, Activities Director at Montebello High School. I would like to correct the information on your web site. The students that took done the American flag and put up the Mexican flag were NOT from Montebello High School…they were from El Rancho High School (Pico Rivera) and from the Whittier area high schools (app. 800- 1000 students were involved). Our students were in class at this time. If it weren’t for these students, our students were not have left school...Our school is getting a bad rap…the Administration, Staff, and students do not condone this action.Dreday13 18:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article cant be edited based on no source (you could be anyone pretending to be who you claim you are). If there is a verifiable media source of this that you can provide a link to, it will be changed. Panfakes 13:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing needed

Like its companion H.R. 4437, I believe that this is a good topic idea. However, it likewise needs significant editing.

I'd be happy to work on it when I have time. But I hope that a more experienced Wikipedian takes an interest and starts editing before then. -Scottwiki 01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article needs some editing to make the sections more organized and coherent. This is an important topic that should be addressed in a cogent and accurate manner. Chushimp26 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both?

As I'm unaware how to read this correctly, I thought I'd leave it to people who aren't getting the news from the Wikipedia. However:

at least 50,000 people rallied for both pro-amnesty and anti-amnesty.

That reads that 50k people rallied for both causes at once (as though they cannot choose). I somehow doubt that's what is meant.

Name of article

Should this article be called "2006 immigration protests", "2006 illegal immigration protests" as it's currently been renamed, or something else? -Scottwiki 06:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets leave it as is for now. Its a current event dealing with illegal immigration, so most people searching the site for info the protest will imput something similar to the article name. When the legislation is passed we can do one of two things: consider moving the article to a more apropreite title, or merge it with a larger article. It all depends on public reaction. TomStar81 06:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the new name "2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests". This accurately captures what the protesters claim to seek (immigrant rights), which goes beyond the instigating legislation. --Krubo 15:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outnumber by 2/3rds majority. Very well, move it to where ever you think it best. I wont argue. TomStar81 20:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahould ne called illegal immigration protest to be completely factual.

I believe we are doing a disservice to all legal immigrants if we don't distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

What are you suggesting exactly? Kaldari 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apogees, I should have been clearer. I believe we should change the title to "2006 illegal immigration protests". Legal immigrants, such as those that have lived in the country for years, are not affected by the proposed changes.

Definitely not "immigration protests", since that would mean a protest against immigration, which they are all in favor of. Semantically, I'd say "illegal immigrant criminalization protests" would be most accurate, though it would be a mouthful. "Immigrant rights protests" is good enough for now, though. -Kasreyn 04:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "illegal immigrant criminalization protests" wouldn't be accurate either. Illegal immigrants are already criminals - that's why they're called 'illegal'. Coming into the country without documentation is already a violation of several laws and a crime. This bill doesn't "criminalize" anything that isn't already criminal. If "felonizes" them, meaning that they would be in violation of federal laws. They're already criminals for violating state and local laws.--Daniel 18:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous entry reflects an ignorance of the legal situation. Undocumented immigrants are not violating any local or state laws, just federal ones. -- [Qwints]

I wasnt aware that Federal law was unimportant, nor do I see that the poster before you mentionwhether its state local or federal, just that it breaks a law

The point is that HB4437 introduces criminal penalties for illegal aliens in the country. Currenty, the only penalty is deportation. This is a qualitative change in the status of undocumented people in the U.S. [Qwints]

I think that this article and Great American Boycott should be merged, to make "American Immigration Boycott". [SatanSucks]

Let's not rush that. The boycott is a one-day event, this article covers the many events. -Will Beback 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to remember that the protests were in response to HR4437, which would have criminalized those that provided humanitarian services to undocumented immigrants, and would have criminalized undocumented immigrants (this has more to do with the distinction between civil and criminal federal legal jurisprudence). As a legal point, illegal or undocumented immigrants are not technically criminals. As an aside, pledase note that there is a lively debate about whether immigrants without papers should be referred to as illegal, undocumented or otherwise. Finally, the marches were also taking place at a time when immigrant activists were pressing from comprehensive immigration reform legislation that did specifically address the needs of both legal and undocumented immigrants, and other issues and concerns with regard to the immigration system. Finally, the marches themselves reflected a remarkable burst of activity but were themselves part of a longer tradition of immigrant rights marches. So I'd strongly recommend keeping the name 2006 United States Immigration Reform Protests or 2006 Immigrant Rights Protests. I'm happy to provide further documentation if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.117.227 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed

The policy on Wikipedia is that statements in articles should be supported by reliable sources. At the moment, there are several statements, a grab bag of external links, but little connection between the two. -Scottwiki 07:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links on sources 7, 8, 10, 13, and 15 are broken. 168.213.7.58 12:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that alot of linked sources aren't available anymore. The ones I tried were #12, 13, 14, 18. Not sure if the'yre supposed to be removed or links changed? Dandan 03:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is the first I've heard of the Minutemen organization unravelling. As it is unsourced, perhaps it should be sourced, or removed:

"...the Minutemen embarked on a caravan across the United States in an effort to bring attention to the need for border enforcement. The caravan was expected to reach Washington D.C. on May 12. But as the group continues to expand on their agenda, their internal cohesion is disassembling due to the federal investigations of embezzlement of donated monies." 66.57.225.77 07:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not from a completely trustable source

Over 60 events (around 3 million people) have protested so far.

3/7 D.C. 20,000 3/8 Atlanta 100 in city hall 3/10 Chicago 300,000 3/11 Tampa “several hundred” 3/14 Topeka KS “several hundred” 3/17 Santa Cruz 500 3/20 Trenton 1,200 3/22 Providence 200 3/23 Milwaukee 30,000 3/23 Racine WI

3/24 FRIDAY

Phoenix 30,000
Tucson 1,500
Kansas City 2,000
Dallas 1,500
L.A. 2,700 students walked off at least 8 campuses, others rallied on

campuses and at least one highschool, students climbed the gate after administrators declared a lockdown

Atlanta estimated 80,000 workers boycotted, 200 rallied at capitol
Gainesville GA boycott, hundreds of students honor boycott (over 40% of

students)

3/25 Saturday

L.A. 1- 2 million
Denver 50,000
Charlotte, NC 7,000
Sacramento 4,000 +
Watsonville and Salinas 2,500 (with the march from Tijuana)
Houston 5-6,000 rally
Cleveland rally organized by latino pastors coalition
and tons of smaller cities I can't find turnout

estimates for, including Boise, Knoxville, and Reno

3/26 Sunday Columbus 4-7,000 L.A. 2,000 NYC/Washington Heights: 500

3/27 MONDAY San Francisco: 5,000? (hunger strike ends; march joins up with the March for Peace/Peregrinacion por la Paz from Tijuana) Santa Ana:700 rally while 200+ riot cops invade their neighborhood Watsonville march Detroit & Grand Rapids: over 50,000 Boston 2,000 Columbus ? D.C. 1,500 + 100 clergy Denver: strategy meeting, 200, mostly latin@ & some union organizers ending with work groups Louisville KY 3,000

WALKOUTS: L.A. 25-40, 000 (LA daily news) highschool walk out, blocking freeways, encircle city hall, from 52 high and middle schools Orange county highschoolers take over the Riverside Freeway Sacramento: 70 Fresno: over 500 San diego: 1,000+ Santa ana: morning, high school students shut down treasuer/tax collection office Phoenix: 400 walk out, march to capitol Farmersville (central Valley CA) 200 Also thousands of walkouts in Aptos, Hollister and Salinas.

3/28 Tuesday, ALL WALKOUTS L.A. 6,000 walkout from 25 schools Long beach: 400 San diego 3,000 walk out, rallies at chicano park, campuses Watsonville 1,000 Houston TX 1,000 Dallas 3,300 walk out & rally at city hall Springdale, Arkansas: 36 highschoolers Phoenix hundreds walk out, march to capitol again Farmersville walkouts day 2 Northern Virginia: 250 highschoolers, 8 middle schoolers

Number Forms

The forms in which numbers appear on this article needs to have a flow to it. For example, either express word notation (ex. seven-thousand) or express number notation (ex. 7,000). This is just for future reference for anybody who wants to edit and update this article. It may also recquire some clean-up. --EMC 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests, United States immigration debate, and H.R. 4437

What connection should this article have to United States immigration debate and H.R. 4437? My feeling is that all text concerning legislation should be combined, especially if and when one of the bills is enacted. The debate and protests should also be merged into one article, since the protests lack much meaning without the substance behind them. An all-encompassing article would be reasonable, since the bills, the debate, and the protests are all closely linked. Why make the reader jump from one article to two others, when a single article can tell the whole story? -Scottwiki 01:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it'd be better to have seperate articles, that way, when a person typed in what they were looking for, that's what'd they get...instead of a bunch of redirecting links where they have to sift through a much larger article to find the information that they wanted. --EMC 04:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Good points. I'm not sure what people will be typing in order to reach these articles. It's true that if every possibility (immigration bill, protests, debate, etc.) redirects to the same article, the article might potentially contain too much information. But I believe that the article can be concise and yet encompass all of these subtopics. In my view, the legislation, protests, and debate are all part of one ongoing event -- a controversy over proposed immigration reform legislation -- and shouldn't be in three separate articles. -Scottwiki 05:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support separate articles, given that there is a lot of information in each of them. They should all clearly link to each other, though...I'll add some links now. --Krubo 15:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the legislation passes, then this article and the "debate" article should be merged, as the debate is about the bill. If it doesn't pass then it should all be merged with the protests, which will be more significant than a failed bill. -Will Beback 21:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of structure, I think it makes sense to keep all three. United States immigration debate should probably be renamed to United States immigration policy (see immigration policy) and could be main article that would provide a historical context for immigration policy. H.R. 4437 and 2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests would be subtopics. (However, I could see merging H.R. 4437 into United States immigration policy if it eventually fails.) An argument for keeping separate articles is that some researchers will be interested in certain aspects of these events but not others. For example, a researcher of activism could be interested in what occurred during the 2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests, but they may not necessarily have a great interest in the general provisions of H.R. 4437. In any event, I certainly wouldn't want to see a merger at this point in time, since we do not yet know how large these articles may become. Accurizer 19:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toughest Immigration Laws in the World

Some countries such as Luxembourg, Japan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia do not usually accept immigrants. While the United States does, it takes decades for people to become citizens at the present. I know many people who have been legal residents since the early 1990s and now they don't even have a green card . 66.81.192.88 05:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point?Cameron Nedland 01:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about!?--143.92.1.33 11:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant to this article? --EMC 18:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you can't tell the difference between a Japanese from a Chinese or Korean immigrant living among Japanese, doesn't mean Japan doesn't accept immigrants. Even a gaijin can become a permanent citizen of Japan if you dedicate yourself to learning the language and culture (of course, that doesn't mean Japanese -people- will be friendly to you, but the point is the law isn't strict on immigrants like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait). --70.134.219.9 05:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unlike most countries, immigrants are required to choose Japanized names (either entirely new names, or kanji renditions of their western names, such as Arudo Debito, fmly. David Aldwinkle) --Node 13:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First piece?

and was the first piece of legislation passed by a house of Congress in the United States immigration debate.

This is rather odd. Are we making the contention here that America has never had any public debate over immigration before the Bush Administration? I'd think the Alien Act at least would count.

If no one can provide a source for the startling claim that the "immigration debate" is so young, I'll be removing this as original research. -Kasreyn 09:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Term "Undocumented"

The term "Undocumented Immigrant" appears in the introductory paragraph. I think this constituts a violation in our NPOV policy. Ive changed it for the time being.

P.S. Wow, someone beat me to it! Anyway, we should probably decided on a policy regarding the term anyway Keeperoftheseal 15:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is "undocumented" biased in comparison to "illegal?" Are you saying there is nothing biased about dubbing a human being's mere presence in society "illegal?" Please kindly explain this difference.--Pinko1977 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The law states that non-citizens must follow a specific process to become a citizen, and another to enter the border and stay in the country. Not doing so by sneaking across the border is a violation of many laws. Therefore, yes, a human being's mere presence in that society is illegal. That's not a slander, it's just a simple fact. Aliens that are 'undocumented' are illegal simply by their mere unauthorized presence in the nation. "Illegal alien" is the proper term. "undocumented worker" was a term created to try and dodge this simple fact and make it sound nicer for political purposes. It would be akin to calling thieves something like "aquisitionists" - a clear attempt to avoid the connotation that is proper for the act. --Daniel 18:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nation has a large problem with "undocumented" drug use too --mitrebox 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Drug users are innocent until proven guilty. Guppy313 04:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have an "undocumented immigrant" article either; it redirects to Illegal immigration. There's similar arguments on the talk page for that article for anybody who's interested. --EMC 19:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the use of the term "undocumented immigrant" is inappropriate. It is a politically correct term to make it sound less serious.
Actually, most people object to the terms "illegal" or "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" because they are racist and are used solely against immigrants from Latin America. When was the last time you heard of undocumented immigrants from Europe being referred to as "illegal?" In fact, the term "illegal alien" was invented decades ago to invoke the image of Mexicans "sneaking across the border" to invade America. No matter how you want to slice it, calling a human being an "illegal" has racist, xenophobic implications. You may also want to remember that much of today's Southwestern United States was once Mexico, and was seized by our government in an "illegal" (at least by moral standards) war. How can you accuse people of "illegally" occupying land that belonged to their ancestors?--Pinko1977 04:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Illegal Alien" refers to ALL aliens that are in the country without documentation (which is a crime), regardless of where they come from or what their race is. It's true you don't often hear people refering to Polish illegal aliens or Australian illegal aliens, but that is simply because there aren't as many of them. I've also never heard of a "Polish undocumented worker" - that's simply because they are rare. Most nations are separated geographically, which is why there is less illegal immigration. Canada is the only other nation with a similar adjacent location, and the Canadian economic situation is such that there isn't a big incentive to come across the border in an illegal manner. If some other poorer nation were directly adjacent to the U.S., we'd have more illegal aliens from there. Just because it INCIDENTALLY turns out that the bulk come from Mexico and most people in mexico are of one race, doesn't mean the very term "illegal alien" is racist. If I was a citizen of Japan, and I snuck into China without documentation, I'd be just as much an illegal alien. For something to be racist it has to be more than merely incidentally applicable to a group that has a high number of one race. It has to be something which was unjustly applied to a group BECAUSE of their race. There is no evidence here of that - and in fact, much evidence to the opposite: such as the fact that the U.S. has MANY legal hispanic citizens and legal citizens from many other races and nations, and no one of any significance or number has a problem with considering them as fully their fellow Americans. --Daniel 12:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entering the country illegaly is a criminal offense. Being in the country without documentation is only a civil offense punishable by deportation. [user:Qwints]

True, Qwints, with one minor quibble. Your use of "criminal" and "civil" offenses suggests they are two different categories. This is a mistake. On one hand, you have "criminal" and "civil" *COURT CASES*. A CRIMINAL case is one that involves the state charging you with violation of a law (any law: city, county, state, federal). A CIVIL case is one that may or may not involve any laws being broken, but is between two people (NOT the government and a person) - one sueing the other for damages. You can have a civil case where no laws are broken, but if laws are broken it sometimes affects the ruling. A person can sue you because they don't like the color of shirt you're wearing, and that would be a CIVIL case (one that would likely get thrown out before even being tried, but a civil case nonetheless). In short, *criminal* cases are when a law is broken and the government is prosecuting you. *Civil* cases are when one citizen sues another person.

But none of that has anything to do with illegal immigration. ANY breaking of a law (city, county, state, or federal) is a CRIME, and therefore a CRIMINAL act. If the city council in a small town passes a law against spitting on the sidewalk and a person in that town does so, they have commited a criminal act.

Therefore, ALL cases of illegal immigration are criminal acts and would be a "criminal case" in a court of law. The only question is whether that criminal case would take place at the city, county, state, or federal level; and that would depend on the level of the law being allegedly violated.

I think, what you meant to say is better said as this: "Entering the country is a federal offense. Being in the country without documentation is a state offense punishable by deportation." -- I'm not sure if that's exactly right, but it's as close as I can imagine your statement being to the structure of the law I outlined above. --Daniel 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest difference between the legal terms (at least in the context of immigration)"illegal" and "undocumented" is mostly that the term "illegal" has negative connotations attached to it... Therefore, if we want the article to be NPOV we would use the word without the negative connotations so that the reader would decide for themselves, right? Otherwise the readers would be biased against the immigrants from the first couple of sentences... 206.15.236.254 16:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, the term "illegal" has negative connotations because breaking the law is frowned upon. The article on John Wayne Gacy says he is an "American serial killer." Perhaps we should rewrite that article..."serial killer" certainly has negative connotations. Please note that I am comparing illegal aliens to Gacy only in the fact that their actions are both undeniably illegal, albeit of widely different magnitude. IMO, it is not a violation of NPOV to say that a person or group of people has committed an illegal act when they have, without a doubt, committed that act. Applejuicefool 14:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many Americans don't like the term "undocumented" because that is seen as whitewashing the fact that the immigrants are technically illegal. I am opposed to using the term undocumented.--Alabamaboy 17:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undocumented may leave uninformed readers into believing that we haven't located them. Their legal status is living here without having a legal right to do so yet. that is, if the government brought them to court, they would lose. Until they obtain legal status, be able to win in court they are not undocumented but without legal status. We usually use the short hand illegal not to imply crime but the absence of legal protection. Many illegal acts are not criminal. John wesley 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Also they are aliens because they are not yet citizens while an immigrant is a citizen who has been naturalized, just like Robin MacNeil of the MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour on PBS who was born in Canada. John wesley 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling an immigrant "undocumented" implies that they simply don't have their paper work yet. As if the whole issue is a technicality and they are just waiting for a rubber stamp. However, it's not a technicality. If you're in this country, and you're neither a citizen nor part of some kind of temporary stay program, then you're here "illegally". You're not just "undocumented". You wouldn't call someone without a driver’s license, an "undocumented" driver. If they drive a car, they are doing it illegally. Likewise, you wouldn't call someone without a Medical Degree, an undocumented Doctor. If you practice medicine without a medical degree, you're doing it illegally. Likewise, we don't call illegal immigrants undocumented. If you are in this country without the consent of the law, you are here illegally. If you want to say that the law is flawed, and everyone should be allowed to live here without consent from the law, then that is a different issue. As it stands now, if you don't have consent to be here from the law, then you're here illegally.--146.244.138.238 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using "illegal" implies that a migrant that crosses the border without documentation broke the law. It conjures up the conscious criminal act that several responders have used of "sneaking" across the border. On the contrary, "illegal" immigrants are for the most part recruited and hired by United States businesses. Therefore, the term undocumented captures the complex situation without putting value judgement on the migrant. It used to be illegal for slaves to escape from their master's to the north. If wikepedia were in that context they would label runaway slaves as "illegal runaways." --Jimmy P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.205.60 (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid "illegal" is absolutely correct, even if pejorative if used to apply to an individual. The "act" of the person crossing the border is illegal, whether or not encouraged or sponsored by a citizen or resident. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV policy states the following, "The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in." Labeling recruited workers from another country "illegal" does not fit this description because it creates an "opposition to its subject." If by "illegal" you mean violates a current law, then that would be fine. But we both agree that that is not what it means in this context; we both see it rather as "pejorative." Again I conjure the runaway slave "illegal runaway" analogy. It was indeed illegal for a slave to runaway from her/his master. But to label this act as illegal would, in context, support the institution of slavery, which was obviously [in hindsight] "in opposition" to the slave. Therefore, "undocumented" would actually be more in line with the NPOV statement in that it acknowledges both the violation of the current law [that's why it is important to even note a migrant is not documented, a fairly recent requirement with the creation of the border patrol in 1924] and the complex and "neutral" acknowledgement of the debates concerning why the migrant is here. "Undocumented" therefore would not hold the "pejorative" bias that you have readily acknowledged is attached to the term "illegal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.205.60 (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, undocumented clearly violates WP:WEASEL, even if it were the commonly used term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does "undocumented" violate WP:WEASEL? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's inherently POV, and is used solely to avoid the term "illegal immigrant." dcandeto 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could Arthur explain why and how "undocumented" violates WP:Weasel? Also could Dcandeto explain how it is POV because the opposite could also hold: "illegal immigrant" could be used solely to avoid the term "undocumented" and purposely or not inject an explicit bias. Also, even if "undocumented" violates WP:Weasel, which it still has not been demonstrated that it does, then the debate would then turn to the question: do you use the term "illegal" that violates the NPOV or use "undocumented" that apparently [again, not demonstrated] violates the WP:Weasel? Why one over the other? I think eliminating bias and establishing more neutrality would be the primary goal in an encyclopedia-style text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.205.60 (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "undocumented" is inaccurate. The term commonly used is "undocumented workers", which wouldn't apply to families, and so is inapplicable to the article. "Undocumented aliens" is not commonly used. "Undocumented workers" is also a WP:WEASEL violation, as it implies that the problem/law could be resolved by providing documentation. In fact, the documentation could not be legitimately supplied. I might accept "undocumented workers" as a true meaning is that they are workers who do not have the (legitimate) required documentation to work. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of this article, you are correct that it is not about workers. However many of our articles on illegal immigration do deal in part with workers, and in some of those cases "undocuemnted workers" is a perfectly appropriate term. Likewise when referring a variety of identification issues. Due to several laws a citizen cannot get a job without documentation either. There are legitimate objections to "illegal immigrant": the crime of crossing the border is like any crime - once you've committed it you are not an "illegal person" - you're a person who has committed a crime. People with lapsed drivers licenses are not called "illegal drivers" - they are "unlicensed drivers". Of course "illegal alien" is a popular term, but it isn't the only term used. We shouls use whichever term fits best in each situation.

While tihs is a fsscinating linguistic topic, we're not going to resolve it here. I propose we leave well-enough alone. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term Alien

In state law, a foreigner is out of state. There are foreign insurers. Alien insurers are say UK insurers -- Lloyds of London. Lloyds of Lubbock Texas would be foreign in any state but Texas. An immigrant is a citizen, while an alien could be a permanent resident (right to remain indefintely) or a tourist or a student or an illegal alien. Technically there are no illegal immigrants except for all the reporters who don't know the legal terms. John wesley 14:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caption of the picture...

Should the caption of the picture near the start of the article start "Thousands of stupid mexicans gather...", as well as including the words "illegal Gay Mexis" in the article? Sounds like it violates NPOV, as well as being racist.165.165.127.248 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This vandalism has been fixed. Kaldari 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to expand references

The headline pretty much explains it all.--Jersey Devil 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro sentence

In the intro sentence about the march I have removed the mostly hispanic statement and it's corresponding ref as unworkable. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 14:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

does that even need to be cited? --Grocer 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Companion Senate Bill Number ?

It's unusual for the US Senate to work off a house bill directly on major legislation until they are ready to go to conference. So accordingly, there should be a companion Senate Bill number to cite. Joncnunn 16:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Senate version is S.2454 [1]--Rockero 21:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Merge

I suggest we move this article to a much more suiting title. Some of these protests aren't even about immigrants rights, yet they're included. This title is too narrow, and I feel needs to represent a more broad subject. --EMC 18:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the word "justice" would suffice? It encompasses their need for awareness on this issue, winning rights, dignity, and purging criminalization. -- 71.255.104.101

To IP: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. To EMC, I think the title seems ok, but if you have any suggestions for a name change I'm listening.--Jersey Devil 19:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"2006 illegal immigration protests", or for those who might think that's too much of a POV title, "2006 immigration protests". --EMC 19:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind changing it to the latter, the former however does have some POV. Let's wait for a few others to comment on this.--Jersey Devil 19:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I attended the protest in Austin. It was promoted as a "Rally for Immigrant Rights." I think it's fair to use the label the protesters themselves have chosen. While there is certainly a diverity of views among protesters as to the best policy, the central theme at the Austin protest at least was the dignity of immigrants and their rights. -- User:Qwints

Don't forget to check out the "Name of Article" section on here, for it's relevant. --EMC 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the protests were over the reform proposals, I think that "2006 Immigration reform protests" would be an appropriate and NPOV title. They are not protesting illegal immigration, and they are not directly protesting for immigrant rights either. -Will Beback 20:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that I think is the best proposal except that it must say U.S. in the title. "2006 U.S. Immigration reform protests".--Jersey Devil 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we know whether the decision is unanimous or not? And I'm all for "2006 U.S. immigration reform protests". That works. --EMC 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of the involved editors on this topic have piped in , let's go with "2006 U.S. immigration reform protests" . Cheers, -Will Beback 22:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. Kaldari 00:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article should be merged with the Great American Boycott, since they are both about the same thing. dposse 19:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Please see my comments at Talk:Great American Boycott for more detail. -Harmil 20:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. These are separate events, with many of the protest leaders (like Cardinal Roger Mahony) opposing the boycott. Perhaps one day, after historic perspective changes on all of this, a merge would be justified but at this point it is not.--Alabamaboy 20:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the "in the news" section of the main page today? even that says that they are both the same.

"Immigration reform protests in the United States, sparked by proposed legislation H.R. 4437, continues with the Great American Boycott."dposse 21:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Financial statistics?

I was wondering if someone following this issue closely could cite some financial statistics for the proposed law. How many immigrants do they plan to have imprisoned for how long, and how much is all that going to cost? How much do they expect the law to deter illegal immigration, and how much is that expected to save in tax money? Mike Serfas 03:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the government were to actually enact such a law, the burden on the judicial system would be enormous. Imagine 12 million people trying to get jury trials at the same time. That's one of the main reasons why the Bush administration won't support it. Kaldari 05:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical (Insignifance)

I'd really like someone to address, or write a paragraph in, representing the opposing view here. I mean, every poll, every day, says that >80% of US citizens favor clamping down on the borders; and this entire article makes it sound like the rallies and riots were universally accepted as over some civil rights issue. Most of the opponents (again 80+% of Americans) would be offended to see themselves written off as racists--it's more accurately seen as a discussion of whether the immigration issue has become so widespread in its own nature as to justify amnesty as part of a broad program of closing the borders. Again, until there is a truly statistically and politically significant number of people either protesting or sympathizing with said protestors, descriptions of protests need to reflect both positions semi-equally. --Mrcolj 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Most of these protests do not fall under those "80% of U.S. citizens". Although there are some protests that are in favor of tightening the border and immigration policies, there honestly haven't been any impressive protests from that spectrum of the argument; however, we do state in the list of protests, protests from both sides, but there's no comparison between a quarter-million rally in favor of amnesty, and a three-hundred person rally against amnesty. But you're right, the article does seemed partial, and we do need to make a section which expresses "80% of U.S. citizens" more clearly (please check out illegal immigration). Thanks. --EMC 23:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the pro-immigration rallies, not the opposing point of view (the "80% of Americans"). The opposing point of view should be presented in the United States immigration debate article. Where it is directly relevent to this article's subject, it should be discussed, for example, in the section on the flag backlash. But I don't believe a discussion of the attitudes of Americans in general on the topic of immigration is within the scope of this article. Kaldari 00:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to know what "riots" you are talking about. Kaldari 00:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I would like to point out that most people in the US agreed with the war in Iraq, but now they have changed their minds ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War ). This is because they have been flooded with information and made them think and realize why that war was so wrong. If the media gives the immigrant "issue" as much press as the war in Iraq you will see that "80%" number going waaay down. Peple are afraid at what they don't understand. Make them understand and they won't fear it. But of course this means explaining a lot of external policy and the reasons why american countries are poor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Condor is a good example ), so it will take some time. But you can't just ask someone uninformed "whats your opinion" if they are not informed.

This section shows a basic ignorance of the current political climate. A Washington-Post-ABC poll found that 63% of Americans favor letting immigrants who have been in the country for a long time begin the citizenship process. A Time magazine poll in March found that 78% of Americans favor " allowing illegal immigrants in the U.S. citizenship if they learn English, have a job and pay taxes. A similar number of Americans also favor increasing border security. I would argue that there is no need to keep out hardworking people who want to be Americans but that we do need to control borders to maintain national security. [user: Qwints]

As the person who wrote the flag controvery and backlash section, I agree with Kaldari that the views of most Americans on immigration policy should be addressed in United States immigration debate. This is an article about the protests and the direct reaction to the protests. Now, if someone had a poll showing the reaction of Americans to the protests, that I could see being in this article, but otherwise no.--Alabamaboy 22:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many photos

I think the article now has too many photos for its length. Not only is this visually distracting, I believe it turns a NPOV article into a pro-protest article by now looking (from a visual point of view) like a propaganda piece. Any thoughts on how many pics we should have? I liked having two pictures, with the Nashville picture being a great pic for the top of the page and any one other pic. Any thoughts on this?--Alabamaboy 17:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't particularly like the Salt Lake photo (featuring the back of someone's head). And the photo of the students should at least be moved down next to the paragraph about student walkouts. Kaldari 19:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the photos are unrepresentative of the scale of the protests. I would suggest at least one arial shot of the downtown Los Angeles protests.

Contradictory

The intro says there were protests in 94 cities on April 10th. The timeline says 102 cities. Kaldari 06:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone resolved it, although the figure is still unreferenced. Kaldari 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right To Protest

Aren't the majority protests illegal,don't you have to be a citizen to protest? Dudtz 5/1/06 6:33 PM EST

No. -Will Beback 02:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great argument there Will. I believe that illegal Mexicans don’t have any rights as far as I’m concerned because there not Americans. You have to be an American to be covered by American rights. -Barthalamule 10:19, 4 May 2006

Will is right here...Freedom of Speech, constitutionally, is not just reserved for citizens. It's the the way they got here in the first place that's illegal, not what they're saying. 12.189.54.36 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only citizens are protected under the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. I am not saying that them speaking is illegal,but they have NO RIGHT to protest our laws and bills. Citizens of the US should shape the US,not a forigen people. Dudtz 5/6/06 5:10 PM EST

Sigh. Maybe you should read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.231.28 (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Own Country??

The thing I dont understand is why they dont go to Mexico city and demonstrate, and protest there. I could really care less if all of those illeagal immigrants left. Also, I completely agree with you Dudtz. El bender 23:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because that way stupid people like you will never find out. Do you see news from other countries than US? The idea of the protests is for YOU AMERICANS to notice the situations. Mexicans are informed enough so they don't need a protest. Besides there is no point on making a protest for a US law in Mexico. It surprises me how STUPID are you man.

Why the hell can't they make Mexico better,if you want to be American,go through the legal process. Stupid preople say that "Mexicans take the jobs that we don't want",tell that to somone who lives in a place like, Flint Michigan . Dudtz 5/1/06 7:54 Pm EST

Completely agree with both. --CrazyAmerican 02:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page exists only to discuss how to make this article better, not to resolve political issues. Please find a different forum to offer opinions. -Will Beback 02:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should then be a link to a common forum to discuss these issues, so all wikipedians with words to say can be heard, and people like me, who are interested in hearing what people are saying, can go to. Having a million readers come to this talk page, do a random google for an even more random forum to speak on, doesn't bind us together well. Because this is not the right forum... where is? -Chewbacca 10:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shut up......... Do you know what is like having a family of 8 living in a 2 bedroom house and everyone in your household picks tomatoes and fruits no you don't so be quite... any poll or news station will tell you central americans do all of America's dirty work! We are all humans and should help each other--HurricaneRo 01:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hear of many Mexicans working at farms in places like New Hampshire,so they don't do all the dirty work. Dudtz 5/4/06 6:13 PM EST

So what if they take our jobs we don't want? The fact is they broke the law by coming here illegaly. Therefore, they should get deported. If you want a better job, come legaly. Th e Gerg 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of protesters

Since the stats on the page say 300k in Chicago and 700k elsewhere, shouldn't the opening sentence say "a million people were involved in protest" rather then "millions"

300k + 700k = 1M (maybe a little more due to rounding). Millions means like 3M-6M. Ghostalker 03:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, they ARE there. They EXIST. Don't try to minimize them, don't try to act like they don't exist. Even the white house recognized the immigration system is broken, because there are 12 million illegal immigrants. Is that enough "millions" to be plural for you?

"Wikipedia is not a place for free speech. It is a place where reality is created through concensus. A place where truth, like the truth that illegal immigrants are law-breaking criminals, is not important."

-The Managment

"Wikipedia is not the place to discuss that americans are the biggest criminals in history, with their wars and the racism and the thirst for oil have killed more people than any other country in this earth, and this is only to support the "american dream" of a house and two cars, which every people in this planet should envy and no one that wasn't born with pure american blood should enjoy. The rest of the world solely exists to make the american dream possible. But when the planes hit new york america woke up and realized -- everyone hates us. But they didn't understand why. Sooner or later they will, and maybe then "world peace" will become reality, and the world will not suffer hunger and death anymore. But while americans (the people, not the government) refuse to understand this, history will repeat itself."

@ whoever wrote the above^^^^ Actually, it was you Europeans that are the world's biggest criminals. You raped, pillaged, and murdered entire peoples then colonized their lands. You people started two WORLD WARS, at the cost of tens of millions of lives. Talk about criminal! The US fought very little wars when compare to what you Europeans did. Even the colonization of this country was done by you Europeans, not us Americans. After 1776 it was no longer colonization, we were native to this land. Just another tribe in the multitude of tribes in the fight for survival. -Proud Asian American Akaloc (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Europe doesn't have any of those problems, please. I'm pretty sure Britain is a lot better of than us (economically), and if I can recall China is going to use about the same amount of oil as America within the next year or two. And I would like to say that you made me laugh when you said "World Peace" idea. Yeah America does cause a lot of unrest in the world, but if memory serves me right people get pretty pissed real easy at other things. eg) The Danish Cartoons. -Barthalamule 10:30, 4 May 2006

Flag Controversy

"These actions were seen by some Americans as a sign of disrespect for both the flag and the United States.[13]"- That doesn't cut it. From what I've seen and heard, more than "some" Americans see this act as downright Treason, more than petty disrespect. I can understand waving a Mexican flag, sure, that's a protest. But hanging this country's flag upside-down, UNDER the Mexican flag? Sorry, but that's beyond disrespect. That's treasonous. If wikipedia is trying to document how people are reacting "currently," then 'some Americans' seeing it as 'a sign of disrespect' is too light a sprinkling of reality. People are pissed- don't leave out the truth, no matter how brutal it is. -Chewbacca 10:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd originally thought of using the words "most Americans" but I couldn't find any poll or other reference for this. I'd still support using the word "most" even without a reference.--Alabamaboy 17:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the word to "many Americans." If more people support going with "most," we can then make that change. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use the term most, then you need to cite a source. most implies at least more than 50%. --130.191.17.38 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very biased article

Please someone review this article, this is TOO biased. Remember this is the ENGLISH SPEAKING wikipedia NOT THE "AMERICAN WIKIPEDIA".

"Given the fact that no borders existed at the time and that Mexico itself was founded as a European colony the veracity of these claims is somewhat in doubt."

In any case, Mexicans have more native ascendancy than americans so if we were to give the land to whoever was here first, then america has to go. Also, considering that most places in Texas and California have spanish names, it's obvious "who was here first".

"There is some question as to the appropiatness of media outlets in organizing widespread civil disobedience. The stations in question may have violated the law."

This is coming from a country that had "THE" CIVIL WAR? Please, americans, don't try to teach us moral. Thank you very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

What does this have to do with anything? America is bad because we only had one Civil War and therefore refer to it as "THE" Civil War? Don't Brits refer to the Royalist/Roundhead dustup as "The Civil War"? Applejuicefool 16:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite biased yourself too, you know. If we wrote the article the exact way you'd want it it wouldn't be unbiased, just biased differently. --Cyde Weys 17:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was intentional, you know? Also I just realized, this is a COMMENT, which is not necessarily objective, it's a purely subjective opinion. An encyclopedia article it's required to be as objective as possible, and this article isn't.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.253.19.123 (talk • contribs).

Actually, the article is doing a very good jobs of taking a NPOV with regards to the protests. If anything, the article leans a little too much to the side of the protesters. --Alabamaboy 18:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just give everything back to the Mojave Indians and go back to the good old days when everyone ran around in loin clothes.--130.191.17.38 19:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the Aztec civilization (wich still has it's eagle on the mexican flag) was one of the crulest culters on the planet. The entire civilization was founded on the beliefe that they had to constantly rip peoples hearts out in order to please their god. The first Hueyi Tlatoani, Acamapichtli skinned his wife and wore her flesh to the wedding. Lets not get into the wars of our ancestors, it's a rediculous debate. History is full of injustice and we need to look forward, not backward.

If you want to look forward, why are you bringing up the past? This talk page isn't the right place for this sort of argument. Kasreyn 23:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The past was brought up by someone else,...."This is coming from a country that had "THE" CIVIL WAR?",... At least you agree that an article about illigal immigration protests isn't the right place for "this" kind of argument... which, really isn't an argument but more of a rant.--146.244.137.147 22:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riot Reported !!!!

I have found a California newspaper that has reported that a riot has taken place. Riot Reported During the May 1,2006 Demonstrations Where can this newspaper account be placed ? More reports of this nature will surface. Martial Law 23:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Wow

A LOT of controversy over THIS: Image:Flag of Mexico.svg

And, YES, it's mostly about MEXICANS, in spite of the fact that illegal immigrants also come from other countries. 204.52.215.107 04:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:New 2000 hispanic percent.gif

I've seen this on Jeff Rense's site and on the American Patrol site as well, Frosty Woolridge's site, News With Views website. Martial Law 20:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

I have some problems with that census map. The various color gradations have uneven amounts of the percentage applied to them. The lowest has a range of 5%, the next has a range of 45%, the next 35%, and so on. The map would look a lot different if there were five colors with a 20% range assigned to each. Imbalancing the colors like that is one possible way to skew the results. Kasreyn 17:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if The Mexican Flag can be interpreted as un-American,It has a bird killing a snake,The Don't Thread On Me Flag has a snake on it. Dudtz5/4/06 6:28 PM EST

It could, but the flag really symbloizes the moment when Aztecs found the omen from the god Huitzilopochtli to build Technochelotian (now Mexico City). Th e Gerg 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The National Anthem

USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 28-30, 2006. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which comes closer to your view? It is only appropriate for people to sing the U.S. national anthem in English. OR, If people want to, it is appropriate for them to sing the U.S. national anthem in Spanish." Options rotated

English Only 69%
Spanish too 29%
Unsure 3%

4/28-30/06

What the hell?

I totally support the cause of the immigrants. However, adding this just took it too far: "In 2006, millions of people were involved in protests over a proposed reform to existing United States immigration laws were massacered by a huge evil army run by the evil President Bush. Apparently failing to kill them with his hurricanes, he decided to do it outright with his private army that took the oil from Iraq."

Can we please make this part less biased? AllStarZ 17:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft. Less biased? It's vandalism. The other two edits attributed to the same IP address are completely unrelated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.96.69 (talk • contribs).

Removal of "riot"

I've removed all instances of this word that I've been able to find, under Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Loaded words are inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Using "riot" implies the protestors started the fight, just as using "crackdown" would imply that law enforcement started the fight. "Altercation" has no insinuation of which side was responsible for the violence. The reader can follow the links to the news articles, and make their own decision as to who was responsible for the violence. Kasreyn 17:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locking the topic

We should lock the topic soon. 209.221.73.5 18:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backlash

Glenn Spencer is reporting that the Washington Post is reporting a backlash. One town no longer has a daylaborer center, two councilmen, mayor, all thrown out for being pro-illegal alien, and the states are reacting to the illegal aliens. More on www.americanpatrol.com RIGHT NOW. Martial Law 20:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Where can it be stated that "a backlash is forming" in the article, related articles, since one is forming ? Martial Law 21:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

In case you missed it: Labor Site Backlash Martial Law 21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

No.#2 article is Feds do nothing, States to deal with illegal aliens Martial Law 21:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

I noticed that someone deleted the entire section of this article dealing with the controversy and backlash. I've now placed it back in.--Alabamaboy 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

This section is out of control. People, this is NOT an organization. It's a blog of a single minuteman. His views do not represent the views of any single organization, and his calls to action do not have the capacity to mobilize hundreds, yet alone dozens of people on any action.

The only significant anti-illegal immigration organizations are the Federation for American Immigration Reform, Center for Immigration Studies, and the Minuteman Project.

I'm removing all the stupid other "organizations against illegal immigration" whose websites don't list a non-PO BOx address as contact address or list names of individual staff people or board members. --Yonghokim 04:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"against illegal immigration" section makes no sense.

First off, it's an overly long title. Secondly, it implies that there are others who are in favor of illegal immigration (that is, in favor of law-breaking).

The section is ridiculous and should be deleted. They're not against illegal immigration, because illegal immigration is against the law. A large majority of Americans are against illegal things. That's how things become illegal: a majority of us is against them. Duh! It's not illegal immigration they're against, Wiener and his ilk; it's immigration, pure and simple. But, it's not appropriate for us to say that, since that would be POV and Original Research. (Unless, of course, we could actually find a source citing Wiener saying he was against all immigration.)

So since our only options are to say something nonsensical (listing people who are against something most of us are against anyway) or to say something that violates NPOV (removing the "illegal" modifier), we really shouldn't have this list at all. Does anyone object to my removing it? Kasreyn 04:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about speedy service! Someone fixed it while I was typing. But there remains POV stuff to be fixed. Kasreyn 04:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of...

As of 5-5-06, the Minutemen will hold a counterprotest all over the US, final stop will be in Washington, D.C. Source: FOX News. Martial Law 05:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Cite your source (besides just giving the name of a TV channel)
Wikipedia does not speculate about future events.
After the "protests" occur, give number for protestors. 10 protesters in each city? 100 nationwide? --Yonghokim 05:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I caught was that the Minutemen are initiating a counterprotest and it will terminate in Washington D.C. Martial Law 06:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

sources: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
Wikipedia does speculate about future events [9][10]
the Minutemen Caravan Project stopped at Nashville’s War Memorial Plaza Monday night. Nearly 200 people attended the rally[11]--130.191.17.38 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signs in Quartzite,Arizona placed by the A.C.R.U.

I have seen two signs on the Arizona/California border that had this: You are entering California, Home of Illegal aliens as you enter California, and this when you leave California:You are Leaving California, Home of Illegal Aliens. Both were put up by the ACRU, website is www.acru.com. It means American Civil Responsibilities Union. I've seen the signs myself while there in Quartzite in 2000-2003. Martial Law 07:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

The ACRU is pro-America, anti-immorality, anti-illegal alien, pro-Christian, anti-ACLU, among other things. Martial Law 07:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

That seems very odd to me. For one thing, it makes little sense to say one is pro-America and yet be against the Bill of Rights, which the ACLU defends. But more importantly, I would think liberty and responsibility go hand in glove. Liberty without responsibility is anarchy. Responsibility without liberty is tyranny. We need both in order to have a healthy society. These two organizations should be working together. Kasreyn 17:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the real nature of this organization ? Martial Law 07:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Thats like asking PETA what there purpose is. ^_^ -Barthalamule 10:54, 4 May 2006

The problem with that is that even people within PETA seem to disagree over what its purpose is. :P Kasreyn 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protests Really VIOLENT

This is from Prison Planet, a news blog: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/040506violentinvasion.htm News Media Ordered NOT To Report Anything But "Peaceful Demonstrations". Santa Ana, CA Attacked in Bloody Riots, One County Employee SPEARED By Mexican Flag]. They charge that the "mainstream" media was ordered NOT to report anything other than "Peaceful Demonstrations", show a photo of a riot in progress, indicated that a person was assaulted, maybe killed by a illegal alien wielding a Mexican flag flying on a flagpole with a spearhead on it. Martial Law 07:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Where can this be placed ? Please don't harm the messenger. Martial Law 07:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

I wouldn't place this info because it does not reference a known news source. As Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources says, "Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website." While there is some gray area with this (for example if the blog report in question ends up making news, which is why the article references some blog commentary because that commentary was later reported in the mainstream news media) in this case the blog reference should not be used. There is enough news coverage of this issue that we shouldn't have to violate this guideline. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, you mustn't use prisonplanet.com's descriptions when you add the link here. It's not appropriate for a wikipedia link to bias readers by using loaded language and buying into the POV being pushed by a particular source. I'm not saying we can't include a source that has a POV, but we cannot ascribe to that POV here. So please stick to just the facts when titling a link. Avoid using loaded words or words that assume the source is right. The reader should have no barriers to deciding for themself who is right. Kasreyn 17:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person, who made the charges claims that the "mainstream" media" had covered up violent events, including, he says, the assault and/or murder of a county employee by a illegal alien, and states that the media is continuing to cover up these events. A check of the indicated city's news sources is in order. Martial Law 19:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Eh. If you ask me, the mainstream media have a serious problem with overreporting and focusing on violence associated with protests in order to increase sensationalism and sell copy. Violence sells ads, proven fact. All too often, several hundred or thousand peaceful protestors are ignored by the news in favor of covering the ten idiots who showed up uninvited and started throwing rocks at cops, and later that evening the viewers are treated to footage of a "riot". I'm guessing that's all it was. So when I hear of a news agency directing its reporters to focus on the peaceful side of "assembling to petition the government for redress of grievances", I'm all for it. Of course, if it really is a cover-up, which I doubt, then we should mention it if it can be properly sourced. Kasreyn 19:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the local media websites, and the closest I've found are that protesters have thrown rocks and bottles at police, protesters were arrested for refusing to follow police commands to disperse. Links are Rocks and Bottles thrown @ Police,Arrests In Santa Anna Following Rally,4 Protesters Arrested For Refusing To Disperse. Someone else may find more info. Martial Law 19:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Good job, thanks for looking it up! :) Kasreyn 19:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone place these news items in the article ? Martial Law 20:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Re.Citation Needed

Go see Re.: Backlash. Martial Law 22:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Already found the source material depicting the town that removed its "daylabor center", two aldermen, its mayor, all for supporting illegal aliens, and the source that says that the states will now deal wih illegal aliens. Source is the Washington Post. This is in compliance to the "{{Fact}}" template. Martial Law 07:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Backlash Continues: Sheriff Arpaio Goes after Illegal Aliens

Sheriff Arpaio Goes After Illegal Aliens. Since this link is malfunctioning on Wikipedia, go to www.americanpatrol.com/"Fighting Back: Sheriff's Possee Goes After Illegals". Sheriff Joe Arpaio stated on 5-3-06, on CNN that he and his Posse will go after Illegal Aliens. Martial Law 08:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Sherrif Joe Arpaio was featured on the CNN show Lou Dobbs Tonight on 5-3-06 when he said that he was going after illegal aliens. Martial Law 08:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Where can this be placed and can someone place this material ? Martial Law 08:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

I don't see how Sheriff Arpaio's statement has anything to do with the protests. While I'm the one who first wrote the controversy and backlash section and think the article benefited from having boths sides of the issue, that doesn't mean the article needs every reaction acgainst illegal immigrants in it. Only items directly related to the protests should be mentioned.--Alabamaboy 13:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a election year. Maybe Sheriff Joe Arpaio is up for re-election. He got in on a "Get tough on crime" mandate, and a person who is in the U.S illegally is committing a crime. Martial Law 19:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

You've got to see this link:Sheriff Enforces Law, Controversy Ensues. Martial Law 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

terminology

Usage within this article and in Wikipedia generally is inconsistent between undocumented immigrant, illegal immigrant, and illegal alien. A central guideline should be adopted. A proposed one, with different versions recommending "illegal" and "undocumented," is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration). Kalkin 18:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Gran Marcha complete

I merged this and redirected the article to this one. Most of the contents was here already. Mceder 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Debatus.com== I was reading over the conversations here, and there's alot of debate in this talk page. I think Debatus.com, a wiki, has figured out a really innovative way to structure debates. You may want to check it out. The immigration related debates are at this link: Immigration Debates

Photos from LA May 1st protests

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/May_Day_March_For_Immigrant_Rights_LA

Just added a collection of 75 photos to the wikimedia commons from the big may day 2006 march in LA.

Feel free to use photos where and if appropriate. --Fluxaviator 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix mayday protest

I was there. It may have been "economically insignificant", but it shouldn't be just minimized like that. It's undeniable that a huge number of people were there. I don't remember how many they were saying showed up, but it was standing room only, seas of people. At the very very very least 10,000 people, but almost for sure under 1,000,000 people. This needs to be added to the article, because the photos and video coverage of the event reflected a similar perception of a gigantic crowd. --Node 13:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why it should be promoted

Illegal immigration has been an issue for many years. Recently, it has become more of a greater issue ever since they have introduced HR. 4437 in congress. One of the senate bill provisions of HR. 4437 says that it is illegal to be in a car with an illegal alien that does not have a license even if the person driving is a citizen. The United States is a Nation of Immigrants. Immigration has always been a part of our country’s history and always will be. In fact, there are over 15 million illegal immigrants today. Many people migrate to the U.S. to escape from communism or to improve their economic status to help their families back home. Besides, why would anyone want to take away hard working people that provide us with the food we eat everyday? It would be wrong to take away these people’s opportunities because they support almost half of our economy.

NEW Editing needed

there is bias in the end of the first paragraph and the beggining of the "internet effet" one jsut thought id point that out -johnny Moreno 3-21-07

2007

WILL there be an article for 2007 protests?

Maybe, are you gonna make one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.198.70 (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial legislation

Now this article is deemed solved by this weird S.C. split ruling, no more problems with demos - The USA Supreme Court on June 16, 2008, per ponente Justice Kennedy ruled (5-4) "that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States." The lawsuit is about 2 seemingly contradictory provisions of immigration law. One prevents deportation by voluntary departure from the country. The other sectition allows immigrants who are here illegally but whose circumstances changed to build their case to immigration officials, and must remain in the US. In the case, Samson Dada, a Nigerian citizen, overstayed beyond the expiration of his tourist visa in 1998. Immigration authorities ordered him to leave the country as he agreed to leave voluntarily, to allow his legal re-entry than if he had been deported.supremecourtus.gov, Dada vs. Mukasey, No 06-1181, June 16, 2008 ap.google.com, Top court eases rules for foreigners to try to stay in US--Florentino floro (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massive overhaul

An editor deleted a considerable part of the article, including numerous references.[12] Could we please have some discussion here first? Regarding "dead links", many of them are available through the Internet Archive or other archives. Efforts to find them should be made before they're deleted. Will Beback talk 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure. This article isn't great and I think there is a lot of overlap with the "Great American Boycott article. Those links have all been dead for months, some for years and one of those citation requests has been up since 2007. I figured it was better to drop the chaff from the wheat and built up what can be verified. - Schrandit (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources can be verified with a little effort. That effort should be made before dead links are deleted.

As for the merger, I suspect you may be right, but we should probably have that as a separate discussion. Will Beback talk 20:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I made another smaller edit removing only the sections that have been tagged since last year or longer. - Schrandit (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Will Beback talk 21:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]