Talk:Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citation

No sources for the bill provisions.

I added a source from the Senate website, but being my first reference I did it poorly. Could Someone look over it

Name changes needed

This article needs to be renamed to "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006" so that this title is freed up for "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007". Jon 14:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

positive reactions section

why is there a positive reactions section but no negative reactions section. there certainly were negative reactions. this seems to reflect a POV. - Jieagles 16:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general I'd agree. However since the bill never passed maybe it'd be better to just trim the reactions entirely. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either cut the positives completely, or add a negative reaction section. Otherwise, the whole piece looks like cheerleading. DesScorp (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, by stating only positive reactions this article gives no clue as to why this bill was controversial or why it failed. Either add a negative section or delete that part entirely.76.167.202.17 (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we put this to a vote? This is an egregious violation of the NPOV matter. Seeing as how there is no defense here, it seems like it should just be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.172.224 (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section as this article is suppose to be about a piece of purposed legislation not people's opinion on it (regardless of what that position might be).--Jersey Devil (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]