Talk:2014 American immigration crisis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RaginiGhosh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... it is a notable event. --User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

An event? Reads much more like a diatribe against a group of people. AlanS (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, fix it. It is intended to simply be a report of a current event. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the declining Admin; I was about to decline speedy deletion as this is not attack page, and was beaten to it. It does have issues though. It is view pushing (calling it a "crisis" is pushing a point of view unless it is widely referred to as such by third parties) and appears to be pulling together references to make a point. I would recommend AFD/Improve, and I would suggest working together to achieve a better article rather than point out the problems. Stephen! ^Coming... 13:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree: Fix, not delete. I'll add some edits. --Cayzle (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Washington Journal

Washington Journal on C-span 2 is devoted to this and other immigration issues today, July 11, and might make an appropriate external link when it is available as a video. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Framing

The key to making this a great article is adequate handling of the political attempts to frame and exploit this issue as either an alien invasion or as a refugee crisis. That will, of course, be limited by availability of sources that address the matter in that way. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Title

Per the results of the AFD, the consensus is that this article should be kept, but renamed. Suggestions? I'm leaning toward Unnacompanied child immigration in the United States or something similar. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a general topic, not this particular crisis, and what it currently is IS a crisis. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

My choice would be Surge in unaccompanied children migrating to the United States from Central America. It is more or less neutral and mirrors language being used in official documents and news coverage. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2014 American immigration crisis. Jenks24 (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Children's immigration crisis → 2014 children's immigration crisis in the United States – It is a long title, but necessary to reflect all the elements. It did not become a crisis until 2014 and will differentiate any other, and tells who, what, when. This somewhat longish title appeared to have some support at the AFD. Until the sources settle upon a singular alternative name, this is the most accurate. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

My choice would be Surge in unaccompanied children migrating to the United States from Central America. It is more or less neutral and mirrors language being used in official documents and news coverage. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I find the word "children's" a bit suboptimal. Every time I see it, it reminds of the incorrect word "childrens", and anyway I don't think that the crisis really belongs to them per se. Is there a way to use the world "child" or "minors" instead? Maybe something along the lines of '2014 child immigration crisis in the United States'?

  W/r/t the 'surge in unaccompanied children ... from central america" suggestion, I think it's overly wordy. I don't think the "unaccompanied" aspect or the "from Central America" aspect is necessary. It's sufficiently specific to refer to the 2014 American immigration crisis involving minors. Nobody will be confused, and using the date is actually more specific. And I also think the word "surge" is problematic because, to me, it has a vaguely military connotation, which brings to mind a sort of invasion of children, which is not really neutral. YMMV. AgnosticAphid talk 03:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • children's --> child isn't a bad idea. To me, the word "crisis" is almost mandatory, however. I lived in Texas over 20 years and a couple more in Arizona, illegal immigration was common and almost laughably easy to do, but this sudden wave is different; overwhelmingly so. I agree the above is too verbose and oddly worded. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 08:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• How about Youth immigration from Central America to the United States? The article structure could be split into two: situation pre 2014, and current situation. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel like that title misses the important fact that the current situation is widely seen to be approaching critical mass, and instead characterizes the phenomenon as more of a type of ongoing immigration, which is not really the focus of this article. So I think I agree with Dennis' comment above. AgnosticAphid talk 18:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• 2014 American immigration crisis seems best--there are no other 2014 immigration crises to confuse this with. WP:CONCISE governs. Red Slash 05:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  Actually, I do like that as well, but I wonder if that would also be lumping together all the other immigration problems we have this year, and not just this one single child problem. That isn't necessarily bad, but would this title change the scope? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  Good point, but I would think not, unless you could call all other issues "crises" Red Slash 22:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  As always, it depends on what the sources call them :) I'm torn between the two names, either would be satisfactory to me at this point. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• To me, 'crisis' seems POV / crystal-ball. It seems to convey a conclusion that some decisive turning point has been reached. While some people may think that is true, that is not necessarily objectively the case. Perhaps there are various news organizations using that word, but to some extent that may be just to attract readers by conveying a subjective sense of urgency. Articles probably get more clicks if the headline calls something a 'crisis' than if it calls it a 'surge' or 'increase' or 'controversy' or 'problem'. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should try to convey a more objective tone. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times has a Q&A about this that specifically calls the problem a "crisis" and does not have the word crisis in the headline to "get more clicks." I am sure there are others, but I don't have time to drag them up right now. If media organizations call it a crisis, we are bound to do the same. I have a problem with the word "surge" as I said above. It's too military and brings to mind the word "invasion" which to me is clearly POV. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to "controversy." I dislike the word "problem" but I am not exactly sure why. AgnosticAphid talk 01:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about the potential military overtones of "the surge". A decade ago, the word 'surge' didn't have that meaning (e.g.,Wiktionary does not mention any military overtones). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• I like, 2014 United States Immigration Crises If anything, it should be "minors," not "children," because most of them are actually teenagers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob3gd (talk • contribs) 03:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed move and support a move to either Youth immigration from Central America to the United States, with an article treating both past and present migration, or 2014 American immigration crisis. "Children's immigration crisis" seems to violate WP:POVTITLE, since it's based on a subjective interpretation of events and I've never noticed the phrase outside of the given citation in the New York Times. 2014 American immigration crisis might be acceptable if it mainly describes the perceived crisis and the American response in 2014, since such an article would satisfy WP:NDESC. G. C. Hood (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mexico

• NYT's article on what is happening in Mexico User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Needs Overhaul; Not Completely Accurate

I take issue with the framing with this article. First thing, the reasoning for unaccompanied children coming across the border needs to be further explained. Most of these "children" are actually between the ages of 14-17 years of aged, based on information obtained from the freedom of information act. Second, Most of these unaccompanied children already have family here in the states. These family members are paying thousands per person to Coyotes, also known as human smugglers. These smugglers are bringing children to the US and telling them to turn themselves in. Also, its not discussed that 80% of those released don't attend court dates, disappearing into US society. There isn't much talk about the conditions of the facilities either. Also, its not discussed that the overwhelming of these people came because of rumors of amnesty; a majority of them believed that they would be able to stay. Because of the prospects of immigration reform, many family members here thought it was perfect timing to get the rest of their family members here, especially the children. Coyotes also lied to them and found a way to exploit the child trafficking law. This is not, as been written in the article, some FOX News conspiracy, which discredits this piece for impartiality. This has been discussed and can be sourced. This article needs a major overhaul. I'm tempting to believe that it may even be biased and one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob3gd (talk • contribs) 03:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

173.165.61.69 (talk)The article is far more unbiased and neutral than what you just wrote. — Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No bias. Wikipedia talk pages achieve impartiality through something like our adversary system of justice. There's no name calling, though there is some "hit and run" to the post, since he/she does not cite sources, but I too have read the articles the post alludes to. Research could back it up. I believe the percentage that do not show up for their court dates is far higher, in fact. Talk pages aren't research, they're the "call for research" one finds in a scholarly publication. If you disagree, cite opposing articles. Profhum (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The following passage appears twice in the article

"Some conservatives see the sudden influx as being planned by the Obama administration (even postulating a Cloward–Piven strategy), based upon an advertisement posted in January of 2014 by the Department of Homeland Security seeking a contractor to manage and transport approximately 65,000 Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) "ages infant to 17 years of age." This number is set in contrast to an average annual number of 5,000 UAC. The Department of Health and Human Services stated in its "Budget in Brief" that the annual number of arriving UAC had increased from 6,560 to an estimated 60,000 for fiscal year 2014, and the Government anticipated awarding a five year contract to deal with them."

I would delete it myself, but I am an unregistered user and it would probably be marked as vandalism. Could someone with authority edit this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.61.69 (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It did appear twice, as it had been moved from where i remembered it originally was and so i thought it was deleted. Thus i restored it but as fitting with the chronological order. Someone then changed the section from Public and political response to Federal response and thereby justifying its removal as not being a federal response, but did not delete the Fox news report or the Mother Jones opinion which were also not federal, and apparently also missed the second occurrence of the info at issue.

I thus created a new section titled Public response and placed therein all three reports which did not belong under renamed Federal response section, and deleted the 2nd occurrence. Thanks for pointing that out. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Extended description on External links

Can we cut down some of the highly extended description that was added to few of the External links and further reading? These sections should be separate. VandVictory (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This article needs to show that this crisis still continues

"2014 American immigration crisis" is the article I am looking to edit. I feel that this crisis has a ripple affect not mentioned in mainstream media. I also feel that the U.S involvement and direct relationship with some of these articles is downplayed or not mentioned at all. I feel that I also need to focus on specific answer math and answer questions, as to why they stopped migrating? I also look to edit where are they now and what are those children doing. There is too many information that focuses on the U.S involvement when they get here but not much about the base countries this kids are coming from. This also a very brief description of what it is with a poor background story that does not answer many questions readers may have that pertain to this crisis.

These are some potential articles and sources I may use:

Online Articles:

Chinchilla, Norma Stoltz, and Nora Hamilton. "Central America." In New Americans: A Guide to Immigration Since 1965, edited by Mary C. Waters, Reed Ueda, and Helen B. Marrow. Harvard University Press, 2007. http://0-search.credoreference.com.dewey2.library.denison.edu/content/entry/hupnewam/central_america/0

Zong, Jie, and Jeanne Balatova. "Central American Immigrants in the United States ." Migration Policy Institute . September 2, 15. Accessed February 21, 2017. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/central-american-immigrants-united-states.

Books:

Payan, Tony, and Erika De La Garza. Undecided Nation Political Gridlock and the Immigration Crisis. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2014.

Reports:

Hiskey, Jonathan T., Abby Cordova, Diana Orces, and Mary Fran Malone. "Understanding the Central American Refugee Crisis ." Digital image. February 1, 2016. Accessed February 21, 2017. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/understanding-central-american-refugee-crisis.

Films:

Immigration: Central American Migrants en Route to Arizona. May 6, 2010. Accessed February 21, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOBCw-VkHKY.

They are all sources that provide qualitative as well as quantitative analyses. I am comfortable using these sources to not make an argument, but fill gaps in the current article. Collegekid2020 (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit Lead Section

I think there is more to be done on the lead section for this article. The lead section plays down this crisis as a one year event, when in fact it peaks in 2014 but remains a reoccurring issue. I think the lead should mention briefly what has become of that crisis, the reaction of the government, and the addition of legislation to "regulate" this immigration. There also needs to be a sentence or two about how these immigrants are getting to the United States— and why they are leaving their countries back home. There needs to be mention about what are the main push=pull factors for many of the young children that are coming to the United States. There is also not a mentioning of the detention centers and the certain conditions that these migrant children live in (U.S. custody or on their own) in the lead. There are also things missing like the trafficking and other horrible experiences that the children face as they make the journey to the United States. There is also nothing in the lead of the percentage or mentioning of kids who do not even make it to U.S. soil. or there is also no mention of those who do not make it alive in the lead. I know the lead is brief, but there is little to no information that shows the underlying major issues that revolve around these migrant children in the lead. I look to incorporate all those themes I just mentioned missing.Collegekid2020 (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible changes I want to make, just not ready to finalize them.

Specific court cases and policies have contributed to this immoral immigration justice system. Family, is undermined as they continue to break up families in the U.S. In his research, he makes an argument that the main fault as to why immigration breaks up families and leaves children in desolation, is because lawmakers see the parents as individuals and leaves the children as numbers and assets. Officials also undermine children who unlawfully travel to the United States and are subject to harsh immigration laws. So in return, these children who immigrate here, and need immigration reform the most, are silenced because of their inability to represent themselves. On the other hand you have other more desirable immigrants who benefit from these accommodations sa they are represented.

Marcelo Suárez-Orozco and Carola Suárez-Orozco are both prominent professors at UCLA who focus on demographics and family separations of immigrants in the United States who have followed closely, the continuous immigration of children to the United States as they are also immigrants. They discuss not only the fear of deportation but the struggles they face. Unlike other articles, the immigration crisis on the wikipedia article focuses on the impact as a country and an impact to policy/law but disregards what actually happens to the children. This talks about the literacy rates and the culture shock that the children experience by using literacy rates and scores to determine their assimilation to American schooling.

Mary C. Walters, Reed Ueda, and Helen B. Marrow are all well renowned professors who specialized in studies dealing with migrations of people with a focus of Latin Americans and based their research at their respective colleges on continuous migrations by those in the Central American region. Their evidence is compiled of studies done from 1965 and after from the Mayan region of Latin America. Their argument is backed up by the statistics of those who have emigrated since the start of civil wars breaking out in Central America. Their work also considers the first-hand experiences by those fleeing these areas.

Peer Review

I think if you follow up on the comments you made on the talk page, you'll be in good shape.

Peer Review Recommendations

Hi! I really like your ideas on the talk page, and would like to see you incorporate everything into the article. Also, I think the last section on the talk page was from you, but it wasn't signed, so go ahead and do that so people can know it was from you. I really like how you are going to add specific court cases and policies, but try and refrain from saying stuff like "immoral immigration justice system" because then you are on a fine line of being biased and making an argument.

Otherwise, I think you've thought about this well and the article could be really improved from the information you have so far.

Sezshana (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 American immigration crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140723144330/http://www.hhs.gov/budget/fy2015/fy-2015-budget-in-brief.pdf to http://www.hhs.gov/budget/fy2015/fy-2015-budget-in-brief.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ended in 2014? Many aspects are ongoing

Is this really just a 2014 phenomenon? It is true there a peak then, but I think we might need more of an ongoing article, similar to European migrant crisis.--Pharos (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Northern Triangle refugee crisis?

The framing of this article is geographically unbalanced to say the least. It's essentially a US-only perspective on a major regional crisis which somehow lacks its own article. I don't want to propose a move, but rather to suggest that we create a broader encompassing article that includes the causes and dimensions of internal displacement and external refugee flows from the Northern Triangle countries during this decade. Some possible sources:

• UNHCR global report [1]
• UNHCR resources on Central America
• Understanding the Central American Refugee Crisis
• Amnesty International report

--Carwil (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this makes sense, the sources certainly exist, and we want to cover this topic beyond the part directly affecting the US.--Pharos (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Walls

Oddly the word "wall" does not presently appear in this article. Surely a passing mention of the proposed Mexico–United States barrier belongs somewhere under "responses"?

Another wall midway through Mexico was also discussed in 2016 by the CIS thinktank:

• North, David (24 February 2016). "How About a Wall in Mexico That We Pay For?". Center for Immigration Studies. The railway bears the Spanish initials FIT (Ferrocarril del Istmo de Tehuantepec) .. Our notion is to build a strong pedestrian fence on the western side of the route, allowing Mexican officials to use the rail line, and roads parallel to it, to patrol it.

This was focused on the Northern Triangle aspect. 70.51.193.44 (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"US border battle" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect US border battle. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 14#US border battle until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 64.229.90.53 (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)