Jump to content

Talk:Illegal immigration/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Requested move 3

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: Not moved. The request seems to request a rescoping as much as a renaming, a request which did not gather a consensus. Most responders assumed any non-illegal yet still irregular immigration would be notable enough to stand alone as its own article while leaving this article here. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


Illegal immigration → Irregular immigration – The article covers undocumented or irregular migration, which is not necessarily illegal. Irregular immigration is a term used by the European Commission here - it is undocumented but not necessarily illegal; indeed under international law everyone has a right of asylum. The term "undocumented immigration" is used in the US and elsewhere, for example here to cover the same concept. It is factually wrong and discriminatory to classify the process of undocumented or irregular migration as necessarily "illegal". Whether or not it is true in the US (for which there is a separate article, Illegal immigration to the United States), is irrelevant; this is a global encyclopedia, and the article takes a global perspective. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose The articles does clearly relate to the topic of illegal immigration, changing the title to Irregular immigration certainly seems like a change is scope. The "global perspective" doesn't make sense given the sub articles to this one are "Illegal immigration to X country" and is employed as a naming format for almost 40 articles geographical related articles.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that much of what is discussed in this article is not "illegal immigration" - it deals with the process of migration before its legality can be considered. The migrants drowned in the Mediterranean recently were not acting illegally - they never got to the point where the legality or otherwise of their actions could be considered. But the motivations and actions of such groups still need to be the subject of an article. "Irregular immigration" was merged into this article in the past. It needs to be decoupled from this article, or this article renamed, so that it can be addressed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it could even be decoupled because the term Irregular immigration doesn't even show in the article. If you want to create an article and their is source material to support go ahead and do so, but a move request isn't appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
So, there's a Human migration article which says a little about motives and purposes, and perhaps is the proper place for as much detail on this topic as would be encyclopdically appropriate. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a somewhat historical and theoretical article, which is not what I mean. There is a need for an article, specifically, on Irregular immigration to Europe (or Irregular immigration to the European Union). That article should have a parent article - which should be this article. But, it can't be this article, because this article, by its title, only covers a subset of irregular immigration - that is, immigration which has been deemed illegal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I question that this niche is as large as you seem to think it is. For sure, there could probably be 100 articles worth of content on immigration to europe alone, but "legal yet irregular" immigration seems a very, very small subset that can just go in Immigration to Europe & child articles for now. (And if it's really so important, spin off a new article specifically for this legal-but-irregular area, no need to change the scope of this one.) SnowFire (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course - but "Illegal immigration" and "irregular immigration" are not the same thing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason to refrain from covering motivational questions in more detail in the Human migration article. For the effects of EU upon national immigration law, I suggest starting with a new section of Immigration law, with links from appropriate EU articles as well as this one. Perhaps that or another section of the law article should explore more deeply the distinctions among "illegal", "irregular", "undocumented" and other notions that ought to be decoupled. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Possibly, but my knowledge of international law falls well short of being able to take on that task. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, per User:Labattblueboy. Heptor talk 22:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:Labattblueboy and User:SnowFire. The article's header paragraph also makes it clear this article is intended to cover illegal immigration. If there's something outside the scope, I'd suggest that you change it instead. --Article editor (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest editorial clarity as a remedy for the issues mentioned in the nomination. This article should be about that sort of immigration that is illegal, the common name for which is "illegal immigration". If it covers some conduct that is not illegal, removing or splitting that content will remedy the issue. If the nominator's concern is that it's bad to call illegal conduct illegal, well, WP:NPOV does not support this argument. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
No: my point is that until the immigration is shown to be illegal by being tested in a court somewhere, it is not illegal. People migrating to another country in order to, for example, seek asylum, are not acting illegally. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
So a thief robbing people on the street commits no crime until the court says he does? That's not how we treat the subject at Robbery. It is not how we should treat the subject here. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a presumption of innocence in your jurisdiction? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence." What I was looking for is an article like this, but it no longer exists. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
People are not actions, and actions are not people. When the law prohibits certain actions, those actions are prohibited - e.g., illegal. When a person is accused of committing a prohibited action, that person is generally entitled to a presumption of innocence as to whether they have committed those actions, but it does not change the fact that the actions are illegal, nor that actually committing the actions is a crime. Your position is that because people are entitled to a presumption of innocence, we should not describe illegal acts as illegal - but that is not the editorial position that we take in other articles about other classes of criminal actions, nor should it be. Actions that are illegal can and should be described as illegal, and especially so when the common name for the action is "illegal". 168.12.253.66 (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
This article does not charge anyone with a penal offence, it describes the offence itself. Presumption of innocence (and usually WP:BLP) applies if the article were to claim that a person X violated immigration laws, which it currently does not. The offence of illegal immigration in itself is illegal by tautology, you can't actually challenge that in a court. Heptor talk 20:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
How odd, if we had to rename Burglary, Parking violation and Blasphemy on grounds of presumption of innocence. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
No reason at all to rename those - the word "illegal" is not in the title. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The word "violation" is in the title of parking violation, it the same principle. Heptor talk 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
A "violation" is irregular, not necessarily illegal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
So, presumption of innocence requires renaming Criminal negligence as it has the word "criminal" whilst Murder does not? Jim.henderson (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
No, "criminal negligence" is not an act - it is a finding, after culpability has been established through due process. The problem with the title of this article is that it attempts to cover all forms of irregular or unmonitored migration, irrespective of whether that migration is eventually deemed to be illegal or not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2013 (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.

Sham marriages in the UK

The source talks of arresting, deporting and prosecution. (page 11) How would this not be part of what is commonly referred to as illegal immigration? Celestra (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Prosecution there is for "e.g. perjury or facilitating illegal immigration" and arrest/deportation is just an example of a consequence that a sham marriage investigation can result in. Page 18 talks of there being "no clearly defined deterrent to entering into a sham marriage", with arrests only being for "sham-related offences". But on reflection the current wording (that sham marriages happen in the UK and are somehow related in an unspecified quantity to illegal immigration) seems fine, if vague. --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Whether sham marriages are illegal or not, they are certainly a way through which illegal immigration takes place which is the point I was making. You might even argue, if you like, over the difference between "sham marriage" and "marriage fraud". They are actually slightly different but somewhat interchangeable in common use, confusing when on the Wikipedia the one forwards to the other.
But it all adds up the same thing in the end. --Marriage of Convenience (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Brazil

"Most illegal immigrants in Brazil come from Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, China (mainly from Fujian), North Korea and sub-Saharan Africa." This is un-cited. Is there any source which states many illegal immigrants to Brazil come from North Korea? I find this hard to believe at face value. 147.9.117.227 (talk) 147.9.117.227 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I removed the unsourced dubious sentence (and encourage you to take such actions yourself in the future). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Recommend to Remove Racist Language

People are not "illegal" because they continue to breath air in a country without documentation while "looking foreign".

The language used in this article has the effect of altering how people vote in elections, which violates charity laws in the United States.

The article fails to mention that the term "illegal immigrant" only applies to people found guilty of a misdemeanor or felony in a court of law. You are "undocumented" if you lack documentation, not "illegal".

Example: People born outside the United States are not automatically categorized as criminals by US law. It is not a misdemeanor or felony to be born outside the US. It is not a misdemeanor or felony to lack documentation.

Only a judge and jury can determine if someone is "illegal" by establishing guilt involving a felony or misdemeanor in a court of law.

Lacking immigration documentation or a birth certificate is not a felony or misdemeanor in the US.

Immigration law is supposed to comply with international treaties, so the same is true for most other countries. That is why it is unconstitutional for individual states to control US immigration.

"Illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" are being used in this article to describe foreign citizens that are not criminals. This derogatory and racist language is an attempt to alter voting patterns of people that lack experience regarding immigration and employment. It is a violation of federal tax law for a US charitable institution to engage in political activity. The terms "illegal immigration" cannot be used in Wikipedia to describe an entire class of people that have not engaged in any misdemeanor or felony activity. "Encyclopedic" content is intended for students that will eventually vote. The use of "illegal" to describe a race or nationality is political activism intended to alter election outcomes. Taxes could be owed starting on the date when charity status was first compromised with that kind of language.

The correct word used to describe a person that lacks documentation is "undocumented". The correct non-racist terminology is "undocumented tourist" for visitors with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born worker" when the employer failed to pay the documentation fee for a foreign born worker, "undocumented foreign born student" for exchange students with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born resident" for people living in the US with an expired visa, etc.

The term "illegal immigrant" is only applicable to foreign born citizens found guilty of a crime, but the term is being used in this article to describe people that "look foreign" and lack documentation.

Many people born before 1959 in Hawaii and Alaska are undocumented because they cannot obtain a valid US birth certificate. Most people born before 1940 in places like Arizona and Oklahoma are undocumented because valid US birth certificate were not issued. Descendants of over 1 million US citizens deported to Mexico in the 1930s are also US citizens. All are undocumented. None of those people are "illegal", but the article implies that they are all criminals.

"Illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" would only be acceptable in a quote:

Arizona’s Conservative White Legislators: Illiterate and Racist on Immigration
SB 1070 is at best an inflammatory law and will surely come to serve as a rationale to justify violent attacks by the misguided against persons who appear to “look illegal.” ... Indeed, it is this ecology of fear that led to the murder of a young legal Ecuadorian immigrant in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn on December 7, 2008. The perpetrators of this crime were white youth who, like those convicted last month on Long Island for a similar crime, were out “Beaner hopping” or hunting for “illegal aliens.”

The difficulty is that the language used in this article is being used to encourage genocidal behavior, which obviously makes Wikipedia a political organization.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

The text of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

"Undocumented foreign born worker", "undocumented foreign born students", and "undocumented foreign born residents" become documented by obtaining documentation.

Non-academic examples of how the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" communicate racism help to illustrate how this article compromises the intellectual integrity and charity status of Wikipedia.

Remember:

Regards, nanoatzin (talk). — Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 16 March 2013

Just what "race" is an illegal? Trentc (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually they are criminals in fact seeing their violating the human right of national soveregnty to be honest calling undocumented immigrants is highly insulting to the people whose rights theyre violating it is a serious crime the accusations of racism are unfounded sence its based on what crimes were commited and not on race i recommend you drop your childish immaturity or leave wikipedia 98.250.4.115 (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you confuse, "citizenship rights" with "human rights", national sovereignty is not a human right, on the other hand right of mobility is a human right. Arendt, Agamben etc, talks about the contradiction between these two concepts. The declaring of someone being illegal due to their lack of visa, shows lack of legal knowledge, both in international law and the declaration of human rights. I urge the title of this wiki entry to be changed immediately to a more acceptable term such as undocumented immigration, as the term "illegal immigration" has fallen out of common usage in most countries legal correspondence, due to the inaccuracy of the term. DavidJakobsson (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

How is it raciest to refer to someone in this, or any other country for that matter, illegally an "illegal immigrant"? Anybody of any race can be here illegally. Also, we need to remember that Wikipedia is a neutral source of information. Whether or not you think people should have whatever degree of mobility, all viewpoints should be expressed fairly. Brainpen (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Brainpen, to refer to a group of people in dehumanizing terms is very problematic and as such could be considered in colloquial terms as "racist". I would argue that the term is not racist as well, definitely not neutral though and very xenophobic. DavidJakobsson (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The term "illegal immigrant" is gradually being phased out for professional communications, with the Associated Press recently adopting a policy against it: [1] The Los Angeles Times has also discouraged the term and the New York Times is said to be on the verge of following suit. Given these facts, it seems appropriate for Wikipedia to keep pace with standards of professional communications. Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. Civis mundi sum (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing dehumanizing or racist about calling people criminals. LA Times is still calling them "illegal immigrants", they did however stop calling them "aliens". http://www.latimes.com/news/local/readers-rep/la-me-rr-la-times-guidelines-immigration-20130501,0,5876110.story Heptor talk 22:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Immigrants Subject to "Disdain" by Native-born Populations

I added the phrase "the experience of visible or verbal disdain by native-born residents in the host country" since I imagine that this must have a psychologically negative affect on immigrants who experience this phenomenon. I have no scholarly citation for this; I have witnessed it many times, but I realize that is anecdotal evidence of very limited value. I'll let those more knowledgeable on the subject than I decide whether to keep the addition, or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.148.67 (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Undocumented Immigration

I'm wondering if this should change it's language focusing on the derogatory term "illegal" to a more neutral term like "undocumented" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.186.22 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Lets change it. Having a page about undocumented immigrants titled "illegal immigrants" is like having a page on African Americans and titling it "N*ggers" Its derogatory and unacceptable especially in 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.189.195 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but in many jurisdictions, "illegal" is still an accurate term, reflecting the criminal nature of unauthorized immigration to that jurisdiction. For example, unauthorized immigration to Mexico is a felony offense and therefore illegal. 24.165.15.189 (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The use of "illegal immigration" per se can be seen as less offensive than "illegal immigrant" or similar choice of words. It's problematic because it leads to the use of "illegal immigrant" instead of the appropriate term "undocumented immigrant. That is why i opt for the name of the article to be changed as well to undocumented immigration, a snippet can be added with "in some areas also referred to as "illegal immigration", but is starting to fall out of fashion due to the problems attribute "illegal" to a group of people, such as in the case of "illegal immigrants". 94.255.140.42 (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that "undocumented" is more of a liberally biased word then "illegal". "Undocumented" implies that there was an administrative mistake. There wasn't. We call heroin an "illegal drug" when it's here against the laws of our country, not an "undocumented drug." Why shouldn't the classification of immigrants be the same? Brainpen (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Undocumented is currently the terminology used, See the discussion. And undocumented implies that they don't have the correct documentation see french sans papiers. A drug can be illegal but not a human being, to call someone illegal shows dehumanizing language and that's why it's not used in governmental documentation apart for in direct quotes. DavidJakobsson (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I can give you a better analogy. Is it dehumanizing to call someone who robbed your house a robber? No, it's an accurate description of them. Just the same, someone who immigrates illegally is an illegal immigrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainpen (talk • contribs) 23:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
To Quote Malary Tenore from the New York Times.[1] "But in referring in general terms to the issue of people living in the United States without legal papers, we do think the phrases “illegal immigrants” and “illegal immigration” are accurate, factual and as neutral as we can manage under the circumstances. It is, in fact, illegal to enter, live or work in this country without valid documents. Some people worry that we are labeling immigrants as “criminals” — but we’re not. “Illegal” is not a synonym for “criminal.” (One can even park “illegally,” though it’s not a criminal offense.)" 72.91.227.48 (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/is-illegal-immigrant-the-right-description/
"Undocumented immigrant" is an activist neologism. What's next, undocumented drivers? Undocumented physicians? -- Heptor talk 21:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, no, "undocumented immigrant" is neither an "activist neologism" nor a "liberally biased word." There are two compelling reasons why it is preferable to "illegal alien." First, under legal definitions, refugees and bona fide asylum seekers, crossing a border without papers, are not entering "illegally." So the terminology that all people entering a country without papers are entering "illegally" and that such migration is "illegal immigration" is factually incorrect. Under the Geneva Convention, which is the legal standard, a refugee is not an illegal immigrant, but you'd never know it from the media that regularly ignore international law. And Wikipedia, as an expert source, should not ignore international law either in its terminology. Also, people who enter with visas, which is to say legally, and then overstay their visas, are also not "illegal immigrants" since they entered legally but later remain unlawfully or without proper visas, but their act of immigration was not "illegal." Second, and perhaps more important, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect NPOV, and social scientists use the value-neutral (which is to say NPOV) term "irregular migration." So if we as Wikipedians want our encyclopedia to have respectability in schools and universities, we need to adopt the same NPOV language that real social scientists who study this topic use (and, in fact, some of us are actual social scientists). The term "illegal immigration" is POV pure and simple. Bruxism (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree the term "illegal..." is poor, at least outside the US (I don't know the legal position there). The European Commission uses the term "irregular" migration, which seems to cover it in a NPOV way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
PS: Note this report - "Under international law refugees fleeing persecution have a right to asylum...". They are not "illegal" immigrants. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
@Ghmyrtle: This sentence in the lead where illegal immigrants are given a path to naturalization or citizenship is incorrect. The status of the migrant changes to become legal, they don't become an illegal immigrant with citizenship. In my opinion this article talks a lot about the reasons for migration (though not in a clear way) with not enough emphasis on the host nation's legal system. It is the legal system that defines someone illegal. The article could be improved by making a clearer distinction between an Economic migrant and a Refugee. Interestingly Wikipedia also has articles for Immigration and Human migration. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The article is called illegal immigration. It's not ABOUT refugees and asylum seeker, it's about people coming into a country in violation of that country's laws. "Undocumented Immigration" might be a nicer term, but it's not what this article is about- where the article DOES mention asylum seekers, it specifically says that 'illegal immigrant' may not be the appropriate term. "Illegal immigrant" can't possibly be racist, because it's not referencing any race, or even any difference between races. It can't be xenophobic because it's not referencing any clear other. It's talking about the global phenomenon, which could be people of any race, religion, or ethnicity sneaking into a country populated by any other race, religion, or ethnicity. Lastly, Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV with regards, I thought, to the politics of the issue being discussed. It's a well-known fact that the social scientist community slants way, way, WAY left compared to the general populace, so the idea that using a term is NPOV just because that's what social scientists do is transparently false, to the degree that the people suggesting it had to know it was false when they made the argument. I think we all know 'value-neutral' is not the same thing as NPOV; it's taking the side of a group that thinks some particular thing is value neutral. 72.227.98.109 (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
So, a company that sold its goods or services in a foreign country despite laws to the contrary would be an "illegal seller" or "illegal company"? I don't think so! (But what you or I think does not matter anyway. The article faithfully reports that there is public debate about these terms and that is what the article is supposed to be doing.) Leegrc (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The term undocumented immigrant is not in universal use in the English speaking world. The term undocumented in the context of 'not having the appropriate legal document or licence' is American English - see "unˈdocumented, adj." - OED Online. Oxford University Press, March 2015. Web. 13 April 2015. 1.121.105.43 (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Because heroin, itself illegal. Simply by existing it is breaking the law. The people who move to another country without going through the required channels are not themselves illegal. Rather, they performed an illegal act. Calling them illegal immigrants is simply incorrect. It would be like me calling a squatter an illegal sleeper. GeekX (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Has a consensus been reached elsewhere on the wikipedia standard for what to call undocumented/illegal/irregular immigrants and immigration? Generally I'm more okay with illegal immigration than I am will illegal immigrants, but I think ideally there would be a consistency between the two. Undocumented immigration sounds weird. So I like what was proposed earlier, and what is apparently used by social scientists[citation needed], I think WP should use the terms irregular immigration and irregular immigrants on all of its articles on the topic. GeekX (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This has come up multiple times and the enduring consensus has been "illegal" since that is the unifying descriptive of the scope of this article. "Undocumented" is a political euphemism largely confined to very contemporary usage in the United States. GraniteSand (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to European Union

The section about illegal immigration to the European Union seems to be rather disorganized. I think what it needs is more information about following topics:

  • The common european border control (Schengen) and freedom of movement (residence permit in one country = can live anywhere).
  • The most important drivers of the refugee influx into Europe, such as the civil war in Syria and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa.
  • The recent refugee crisis, including some quantitative information.
  • The efforts by the EU and member countries, such as Mare Nostrum, as well as operations agains the human traffickers and efforts to assist the people who remain in the countries of origin of many refugees

Anything else?

Heptor talk 17:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Schengen, not EU

Having a section devoted to the European Union was a bit unprecise. European Union allows a freedom of movement for the citizens of its member countries. This is hardly relevant for persons who travel illegally. What matters here is the abolishment of border control, which follows the Schengen agreement, not the EU. I replaced the EU section with a Schengen Section, quite appropriately moving the United Kingdom to a separate section right next to the United States. Heptor talk 18:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I refactored the section as described here. This didn't seem to raise any discussion, so I think this issue is now closed. Heptor talk 20:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Terminology section POV

The terminology section has had the following section reinserted several times now after I tried to make it less biassed:

'Advocates of unrestricted or less restricted immigration policy tend to use terms such as "undocumented immigrant", "unauthorized immigrant" to refer to people who reside in a country without authorization. Several major news organizations in the United States avoid using the term “illegal immigrant”, however it is still the phrase newspapers most often use to describe foreigners living in the United States illegally.'

The term 'illegal immigrant' calls the person illegal rather than the act and so is not an accurate description. To suggest that one could not understand this without having a particular attitude towards what one country or another's immigration policy should be is simply rediculous. Numerous media associations such as the American Press Association, Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (Australia), Association of European Journalists and the British Press Association have all issued statements suggesting that hte term illegal immigrant should be avoided, so what teminology the tabloid press uses most often is essentially irrelevant. Most homophobes call gay people unpleasant things, that does not mean Wikipedia should do the same. Just the same, the number of xenophobes who use derogatory terms for people who break immigrtion regulations should not effect the terminology we use. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The version you put in stated that the term "illegal immigrant" is still used in the "tabloid press," implying that it is restricted to that venue. Do you have a source for that? Plazak (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, you have a point. I could be accused of WP:PR there, but is there any evidence that only people opposed to immigration restrictions are against calling individuals illegal? Is it fair to describe the press associations listed as "some US media organisations"? The immigration debate is a global issue, and so those with a focus only on the US need to take their blinkers off. There are other countries in the world also trying to manage migration and as far as I know all have laws which make some acts of migration illegal but this does not make the individual illegal. Djapa Owen (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
As for your comment "those with a focus only on the US": a quick google reveals mainstream news sources in the UK (Guardian, BBC), Canada (Globe and Mail), and Australia (Australian, ABC) using the term "illegal immigrant." This appears to be the common term in the English-speaking world. As for your previous, but now abandoned, tabloid characterization, I see that those "racist" "xenophobes" (your terminology) at the NY Times and Washington Post use the term; these are not tabloids, either literally or stylistically. As you note in your first post, news organizations using other terms are described in the article as "Several major news organizations in the United States"; I don't know where the quoted description of your second post: "some US media organizations" comes from. IMHO it would be fair to name notable ones such as the LA Times and AP. Of the organizations you list, I see that some have wiki articles, and so are also presumed notable. As for who is favoring other terminology, most news stories on the terminology topic, such as on the AP ban of the term "illegal immigrant" note that those pressing for terminology change are immigration advocates; the article does not say that every last person favoring other terms also favors legalization. If you doubt that immigration advocates are leading the campaign for terminology change, you should put a [citation needed] tag on the statement; but I think that it can be reasonably documented. Regards. Plazak (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about the late response, I was away travelling for a few days. A quick Google search reveals that "Illegal immigrant" is currently used much more frequently than "undocumented immigrant". It appears that this term is not widely considered to be offensive at the present time. For example, in this CNN article, Ruben Navarrette argues that this term accurately describes the unpleasant reality. I'll try to re-write that section based on that source. In any case, describing the opponents of using this term as "human right advocates" is biased. Heptor talk 21:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
There is certainly a very strong case that the term "irregular immigrant" (or "undocumented immigrant") is more neutral - or, perhaps, wider in scope - than the term "illegal immigrant". See this EU Commission document, for example. We should not be guided solely by US terminology or by mass media coverage. However, I have failed to get the article title changed - thread down below. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The term "illegal immigration" accurately and neutrally describes the reality of people immigrating into countries against the law of those countries. The discussion here is about applying the term "illegal immigrant" as a possible label on person. Associated Press is still using "illegal immigration", which I think is unclearly formulated in their blog. Heptor talk
I agree that the term illegal immigration is accurate in the terms of this article. The problem is in turning that term into a noun "illegal immigrant" as this implies that once they have committed the crime the perpetrator becomes an illegal person. We do not refer to people who have committed other crimes in this way, so why this crime?
I rushed my comment before and did not quote the phrase "Several major news organizations in the United States" accurately, but the meaning is pretty much the same. The number of papers or publishing companies which use one term or another is about as relevant as the number of Google hits you get for one term or another. Both those sets of statistics are irrelevant to an encyclopaedic article. It does not matter how many web articles there are claiming the world was going to end in 2012, they did not make it true and we did not die. What we should be worrying about are the peak bodies, the press associations where journalists engage in discussion and peer review of their industry. That is why I referred to the perfectly notable peak industry associations of the US, UK, Australia and Europe (Press Association, Association of European Journalists, Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and Associated Press there - I linked them for you) instead of individual papers. Any list of papers is likely to be dominated by News Corp family companies which all push Murdoch's POV, so that is about as objective as a Google search. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what an 'illegal person' is. I don't even know what it could possibly be. People who want stronger illegal immigration laws don't think there are 'illegal people', and people who want weaker illegal immigration laws don't think there are illegal people. I think 'illegal immigrant' does a fine job of meaning "A person who came into the country illegally" to anybody who speaks English as their first language, and I've never even heard of anybody interpreting the term in any other way, so I don't why you think it implies what you say it does. 72.227.98.109 (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that "illegal immigrant" implies an "illegal person." We should also note that all the other proposed adjectives have the same supposed problem. Can you tell me what an "irregular person," "undocumented person," or "unauthorized person" is? Plazak (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I do. To me it seems very clear that "illegal immigrant" refers to an immigrant person as being illegal – as if it is illegal for some person to exist at all – as if the person is tainted with a property of illegality that can only be erased by the person ceasing to exist (or the law being changed). But so does "unauthorized person" – it means that the person is not authorized – presumably, it means that the person is not authorized to exist, and implies that some authorization may be needed for a person to be allowed to live. Unless, in some jurisdiction, people can be considered illegal to exist at all, we should try to use terms that refer to the legality of actions, not people. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This article needs to reflect universal usage in the English speaking world, not merely usage in the USA. The term undocumented immigrant is not in universal use in the English speaking world. The term undocumented in the context of 'not having the appropriate legal document or licence' is American English - see "unˈdocumented, adj." - OED Online. Oxford University Press, March 2015. Web. 13 April 2015. 1.121.105.43 (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It may well be American English, but the term "undocumented immigrant" is widely used in British academia and in some British media. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Undocumented immigrant" may have some currency in the UK, but "Illegal immigrant" seems to be by far the most common term in mainstream British media, and not just the Daily Mail (although the Daily Mail does use the term). Just do a quick Google search, and you'll come up with recent examples of "illegal immigrant" in news from the BBC, the Telegraph, and the Guardian. I could go on the list of British papers, and give many more examples. Plazak (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I realise that. I was just responding to the suggestion that "undocumented" was only in use in American English. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree this article needs to reflect universal English. We need to consider how the term 'illegal immigrant' is used in every day language becoming a racist slur. I'm British (yes UK media use this term a lot!) and currently witnessing 'illegal immigrant' being used as a derogatory term on social media and also in conversation - the recent increase in discussion on the European refugee crisis has highlighted this - I'm alarmed when confronted with expressed beliefs, demonising foreign people, claiming that "illegal immigrants" are given free social housing, given jobs, receiving welfare benefits. In this way 'illegal immigrant' is being used to describe a group of people who are illegal, criminal, don't belong in our country, drain the economy and get special treatment (immigrants without appropriate permission don't receive any such priority). The way in which 'illegal immigrant' is used by politicians and the media enforces these xenophobic false narratives, by repeating that they are 'illegal persons' the held belief of ignorants will be that the person is inherently wrong, bad, unlawful, it dehumanises the immigrant entirely. 'Undocumented Immigrant' sounds like not being on a list, therefore entry is forbidden, like freight without documents cannot have it's source or destination confirmed therefore is unclaimed and may as well not exist, or they have no documentation at all - some asylum seekers may have no documents without performing an act of illegal entry - it suggests the person is entirely undocumented - only the act of immigration is undocumented. 'Unauthorised Entrant' deals with entry only if caught in the act, and is then past tense if found in the act of working non-permitted 2 years later. Why do we need just one term to refer to people who are deemed to be illegal in their actions when there should be several terms very much dependant on the circumstances. If an asylum seeker or migrant worker knowingly attempts to enter a country without permission there act is clandestine. Are they not clandestine entrants? If a person is found to be working without permission having entered the country without permission are they clandestine workers? Another term could be Unregistered. They may have a very strong claim for asylum. Does their status as an immigrant need to be confirmed in the narrative? A child born in a country, from a mother who migrated without permission, did not migrate and therefore cannot be termed an illegal immigrant, but is unregistered. A child brought into a country without permission may not have acted knowingly. Are these people 'Unregistered Children' or 'Illegal Immigrants'? Terms I think are fair are 'Clandestine Entrant' 'Unregistered Worker' it removes the foreign status of the person and the criminality aspect. cearul37 (talk) 04:41, 08 September April 2015 (UTC)
It is not the business of Wikipedia to create new terms. You say that "illegal immigrant" is a racist slur, but the term itself refers to no racial or ethnic group. To which race do you believe it refers? Your stated intent is to find a euphemism that obfuscates the key fact of people being in a country in violation of that country's law. Wikipedia should strive for clarity, not obfuscation. Plazak (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 September 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


Illegal immigration → Undocumented immigration – "Illegal" is an inaccurate and defamatory term according to many major news sources and writing guides (see Illegal_immigration#terminology). No person can be illegal. However, they can be undocumented. Using "illegal" in this title is a violation of Wikipedia's "do no harm" and neutral point of view policies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm). Anon523 (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The term "illegal immigration" is most widely used. While the term "illegal immigrant" may have fallen out of common usage in favor of "undocumented," the same can not be said about the term "illegal immigration," which is the title of the article. The Wikipedia article you linked to even noted that. Calidum 11:08 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • Oppose "Illegal immigration" is the most widely used term. The term is precisely accurate, which is more than anyone can say for the various obfuscations proposed to replace it. "Undocumented" is terribly inaccurate. Many of those you would call undocumented in fact have plenty of documents, just not the proper documents to allow them to immigrate legally. On the other hand, there are people who own no identity documents whatsoever, yet have every legal right to live in a country. If a nation were to open its borders completely, and not even keep track of people coming in to stay, that would be true "undocumented immigration", but not illegal immigration. The "no person can be illegal" line is a straw man argument, as I have never known anyone to say that a person is illegal per se, by his very existence. However, people are certainly capable of illegal acts, including illegal immigration. But thank you for taking this to the Talk Page. Plazak (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Technically a person's very existence could be illegal if they were the result of a sexual act that is illegal or (potentially) of cloning or genetic engineering in jurisdictions where those activities are illegal. --Khajidha (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Split the two topics are not identical, they are different topics. Not all undocumented immigration is illegal, and not all illegal immigration is undocumented. There are many cases where immigrants lie, and that lie makes their immigration illegal. Indeed, citizenship have been stripped from people due to this. And showing up without documentation is not illegal in all countries. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
"Irregular" is another imprecise and confusing euphemism. "Irregular immigration" might describe immigration that is highly variable and unpredictable; or it might be used to describe cases where a government makes special exceptions to allow people to legally stay in a country, who would otherwise not be allowed to. Plazak (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but Wikipedia generally goes by what reliable sources say, and many reliable sources use "irregular immigration", in part because people may migrate legally but then have their visa expire and become an "illegal" immigrant without having immigrated illegally. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose No one is saying that "illegal immigrants" are illegal persons, only that they are people who have immigrated illegally. Plazak explains it all quite well. --Khajidha (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent changes

Leegrc, unfortunately I will be reverting the changes that you recently made to the article, for the folllowing reasons:

  1. The first sentence that you added, "For tens of thousands of years, immigration, including illegal immigration, has been driven by the essential desires and needs for resources, security, and perceived opportunities", is tendentious and unsupported. The phenomenon of migration is not unique to Homo Sapiens, and as such it is at least tens of millions year old. Illegal migration is different. Historically, large groups of people migrated by either finding unpopulated areas or forcefully removing previous inhabitants. To simply state that illegal immigration existed for tens of thousands of years is not representative of the topic. If you have examples of historical immigration laws and how they were enforced, please do contribute your information to the article.
  2. You replaced the sentence "The same article also states a right to freely move within one's own country.", with "Generally, immigration restrictions are peculiar to national borders and the right to leave or enter a governmental unit such as a city, township, county, state, or province within a country is nearly universal.". How is that an improvement? You basically made a partial list of subnational governement organisation units which contribute very little to understanding of the topic, the formulation that "immigration restrictions are peculiar" is biased, the "nearly universal" and "Generally" clauses dodge important exceptions.
  3. You deleted several good references, why?

You also made a remark in the edit comments about perceived ownership of this article. Please consider that very little of the text that you removed was written by me. The only part that was is the sentence "The same article also states a right to freely move within one's own country." I don't think this text is necessary for the article, and I only added it in response to your sentence in the second bullet point. Please consider discussing controversial changes before editing the article. Heptor talk 06:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing these discussions to the talk page. If I may address your points:
  1. I didn't want to infringe on the copyright, so I did a minor rephrasing of the text found in the citation. The original text is: "Most forms of immigration (legal and illegal) are driven by the same essential desires and needs: resources, security, and perceived opportunities and have been ongoing since modern Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa some 60,000 years ago." If you believe my text misconstrues this citation, please explain. If you believe the text that you have reinserted is supported by this citation, based upon this sentence or otherwise, would you be so kind as to explain it here, highlighting the specific place in the source if you would.
  2. The goal is to indicate not merely that some (important) document says that intranational movement should be a right, but that it is a right that is actually respected by laws. If we use my text, but change "peculiar" to "unique" would that be satisfactory? My goal was to indicate that national borders are different in practice, not that the difference is bad.
  3. The references did not support the text that they followed. If you disagree please give specifics. (It is hard to prove a negative; otherwise I would now be specifically highlighting the places where the source did not support the article text.) I did not replace those citations with "citation needed" markup, but perhaps I should have. Without citations that actually support that text, the next step would be to discuss removing the text.
  4. I apologize for calling you the owner of the article. I was feeling frustrated by the fact that pretty much every edit I have made to this article has been undone by you. Nonetheless, my calling you that was inappropriate and I apologize.
Thank you Leegrc (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Let us discuss the proposed changes and see if we can work together to improve the article. I will proceed to comment the points that you raised.
  1. It is not necessary to rewrite short excerpts from the sources, they can be included under "fair use". The issue I had with your rewrite is that your rewrite implied a claim that illegal migration has been going on for tens of thousands of years. This isn't stated in the source and is also misleading. The source is basically saying human migration is as old as homo sapiens, wich is also uninformative borderline tautologic. There is no reason to use this in the article. More useful is that this source mentions something about motivation for the migration, that the main causes are "desires and needs: resources, security, and perceived opportunities". This I think could be used.
  2. That is a gross oversimplification of the state of affairs outside of the US. I know for a fact that the Chinese government places significant obstacles against people moving between their provinces and cities; it's over 1 billion exceptions right there. Other countries may be doing this as well; regulations like this tend to be untransparent, so this isn't an easy topic to write about.
  3. I did write that text and I did not read those articles. If you believe that they don't support the citations the best thing to do is to use the template {{Failed verification|date=}}. This would give the other editors time to re-check and update the citations. Simply removing the references might easily deny this opportunity.
Thanks, and happy editing! Heptor talk 17:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Heptor, I haven't really been following this, but I just spotted your comment that "It is not necessary to rewrite short excerpts from the sources". That might be true, but any quotes should be put in quote marks, otherwise it is plagiarism. I presume that you're aware of that, but just wanted to clarify in case there was a misunderstanding. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Cordless Larry. I was actually quite sure that short excerpts that are followed by a reference to the source are not plagiarism per fair use. Is there a policy on the quote marks that I have missed perhaps?.. -- Heptor talk 20:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Respecting copyright states: "Limited amounts of text can be quoted or closely paraphrased from nonfree sources if such text is clearly indicated in the article as being the words of someone else; this can be accomplished by providing an in-text attribution, and quotation marks or block quotations as appropriate, followed by an inline citation". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Cordless Larry, it looks like I misunderstood the policy. Don't think I actually infringed on it though, come to think of it it does feel unnatural to copy off significant chunks of text. Nice to have this cleared up.-- Heptor talk 16:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Illegal immigration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Illegal immigration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Problems faced by the host or receiving country

This article originally had a weird imbalance - Problems were explained as affecting immigrants, and affecting the host country, but the only actual bullets regarded the immigrants. I added a section to fix this problem, but it was deleted because another user didn't care for the referenced sources. Wikipedia is supposed to describe legitimate issues - pretending they don't exist violates NPOV. Ann Coulter has written a popular 400 page book on exactly this topic, but yes - she is controversial. Donald Trump is no stranger to controversy either, and he seems be articulating a view that millions of people actually have. Here's the relevant guidance I find: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. The challenge is that no one actually rebuts Coulter's points, so I see no source immediately available for the 'open borders' side. How can we fix this imbalanced article? PLawrence99cx (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

We can fix it by adding the section you want to add but by including a variety of viewpoints, rather than basing it entirely on the views of two people with extreme political positions. A good place to start would be research on immigration published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Illegal immigration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Illegal immigration. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Illegal immigration. 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:

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) 11:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Indians in Bangladesh

I have reverted this addition because the source states that there are 500,000 Indians residing in Bangladesh, not that 500,000 Indians are residing in Bangladesh illegally. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

But the source does say that there are illegal Indian immigrants to Bangladesh, "People who are migrating to Bangladesh illegally are from West Bengal, Meghalaya, Assam, Tripura and Mizoram." I have reworded it to "There are 500,000 Indians living in Bangladesh as of 2013, many of whom are illegal immigrants." That should be fine. A.Musketeer (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not fine, because the source says nothing about the proportion of the 500,000 who are in Bangladesh illegally, so "many of whom" is not supported by the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Then we can say "a number of whom are illegal immigrants". Now there shouldn't be any problem? A.Musketeer (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
"A number" could be two or 200,000. I don't think it's worth mentioning the 500,000 figure at all, now that I think about it. It tells us pretty much nothing about the topic at hand. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
"A number" could be "any number" which is why I reworded it this way. But anyway I have added new sources that explain it more clearly. A.Musketeer (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

the new term "illegalized immigrants"

A new term has been added, "illegalized immigrant". It has not become widely used, but the cited piece is trying to change that. But, I am not sure it is a helpful term here.

I read the source and have been debating the the aptness of this term. The author of the cited piece wrote that the government of the country of arrival makes these immigrants' status illegal. For example:

  • a "government 'illegalizes' those migrants who do not possess permission to enter by denying them legal status"
  • "illegalization occurs when a migrant initially enters a country with a visitor, student, or work visa or permit, but stays in the country past the expiry date"

An advocate for this term says it "draw[s] attention to the systematic process that renders people 'illegal' rather than blaming illegalized immigrants for the situation in which they are placed. Illegalization is a process created by governments and institutions enacting and enforcing migration and refugee laws." However, I am not sure the term is accurate, or at the least, not clear. For example, if I book a motel room but stay longer than the authorized time, by this approach it appears that I did not do anything illegal but the current law illegalizes my presence in the room. Or, if I enter a sporting event without a ticket, the local government has illegalized me.

Does the term "illegalized immigrant" seem accurate and helpful in this article? Should the text of the article address lack of clarity or accuracy related to this term.Pete unseth (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The accuracy and helpfulness of the term don't really matter at this point. "Illegalized immigration" is listed, as it should be, as one of the proposed replacement terms for "illegal immigration". If you have a source which discusses what it believes is lack of accuracy or clarity of "illegalized immigration," please add the info and cite it in the article. If you don't have such a source, then there is nothing to add. Regards.. Plazak (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Plazak. The present version of the article does not claim that the term is accurate or helpful; only that it has been proposed, notably and verifiably. Pete, if you feel that the wording of the article somehow endorses the term, do feel free to improve. Heptor talk 20:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Although it is quite debatable if the term meets the notability criteria. Opinions? Heptor talk 20:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I removed it. It doesn't appear to be in use except in very narrow circles, most notably its original proposer. Heptor talk 14:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
"blaming illegalized immigrants for the situation in which they are placed"? How are they placed in any such situation? Unless they were kidnapped and dropped across a border without their knowledge or consent, then they are the ones who have placed themselves in this situation. --Khajidha (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, this wording was problematic, as it insinuated something controversial in Wikipedia's voice. But read my previous post: I already removed the offending text due to lack of notability. Heptor talk 23:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Whole page largely copied, including word for word

Please see[1]. Copyvio says only 31% likely but URL comparison (see footnote) shows 99.1%. Michtrich (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC) I realised that the above 'source' I found may be a wiki mirror. But now I found another 'source' that has identical wording (96.4%)[2]. This doesn't look like a mirror. Other problems of that page are a too strong focus on the US and Mexico and - according to my impression - insufficient distinction and clarity between illegal immigrants and other kinds of immigrants or refugees, e.g. I am quite sure that the Cogolese that were expelled from Angola were (or should have been considered as) refugees. Bhutan section is about refugees, etc., etc. Michtrich (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to confirm, the first one is indeed a known mirror; they credit wikipedia on that page (see "citational source". Kuru (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There Are no Illegal Aliens.

If illegal immigration is indeed illegal there must be a law against it. You should quote this law, and the penalty.

My understanding is that immigration is not illegal but the person leaves themselves open to being deported. If this is indeed the case the term undocumented alien seems preferable.

Arydberg (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

There certainly are illegal aliens in many countries, and there are very clear laws against entering countries without permission, or staying on after their permission has expired. The debate about whether to use the term "illegal" or "undocumented" has nothing to do with the existence of such laws, but with some strong societal trends about how to refer to people who have entered a country without proper documentation. Pete unseth (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You may be right. All I asked for is to quote the applicable laws. What are they? Arydberg (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If the issue about illegal vs undocumented. There is a discussion about that at WP:NPOVN

But they do not come to any conclusion. They do include the statement " I heard a United States judicial member once clarify that no one is an "illegal" anything unless they are found guilty in a court of law. Until then, they are merely "undocumented" ". This is Wikipedia. Sources are paramount. What are your sources? What does the law say. Arydberg (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

United States

This was not documented, possible omission. Seems appropriate considering already documentation of Bush & Trump in wiki. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

In June 2013, then President Barack Obama remarked, "Right now, our immigration system has no credible way of dealing with the 11 million men and women who are in this country illegally. they broke the rules; they didn’t wait their turn. They shouldn’t be let off easy. They shouldn’t be allowed to game the system. We focused our enforcement efforts on criminals who are here illegally and who are endangering our communities. And today, deportation of criminals is at its highest level ever. We (have) made border security a top priority. the system is still broken. And to truly deal with this issue, Congress needs to act. And that moment is now. The (proposed) Senate bill as currently written and as hitting the floor would put in place the toughest border enforcement plan that America has ever seen."[3] Let us eat lettuce (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
In June 2013, then President Barack Obama remarked, "Right now, our immigration system has no credible way of dealing with the 11 million men and women who are in this country illegally. they broke the rules; they didn’t wait their turn. They shouldn’t be let off easy. They shouldn’t be allowed to game the system. We focused our enforcement efforts on criminals who are here illegally and who are endangering our communities. And today, deportation of criminals is at its highest level ever. We (have) made border security a top priority. the system is still broken. And to truly deal with this issue, Congress needs to act. And that moment is now. The (proposed) Senate bill as currently written and as hitting the floor would put in place the toughest border enforcement plan that America has ever seen."[4] Let us eat lettuce (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • You are just quoting an exact document of the president's remarks. That is WP:PRIMARY sourcing. We do not include content we personally think is important; we utilize secondary sources that confirm the importance of the content for us.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Illegal_immigrants#cite_note-logic-7
  2. ^ http://cdn.hisarjmun.org/documents/resreps/HRCReport1.pdf
  3. ^ The White House | Office of the Press Secretary, Remarks by the President on Immigration Reform, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/11/remarks-president-immigration-reform June 11, 2013
  4. ^ The White House | Office of the Press Secretary, Remarks by the President on Immigration Reform, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/11/remarks-president-immigration-reform June 11, 2013

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Illegal immigration. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 00:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Irregular Migration and Illegal Immigration

Those terms seem to be synonymous but not strictly interchangeable. Illegal immigration has a strict definition in the sense that it is a violation of the immigration laws of a particular country. Irregular migration seems to be a more general term. For example if a person runs over the border from North Korea to South Korea, then he is migrating irregularly, emigrating illegally, but immigrating legally. Heptor talk 21:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

International Organization for Migration

Its opinion on the terminology usage was recently included in the article. In a previous version of the article someone even presented their opinion as a statement by the UN [2]. I want to discuss if this organization is sufficiently notable for their opinion to be mentioned at all. They have a web site and a Wikipedia page, but this Wikipedia page mostly references the web site and a YouTube video. This don't appear to be notable enough to be mentioned next to New York Times and Rush Limbaugh, per WP:UNDUE. Heptor talk 21:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The IOM is a UN agency. It is a major player in the world of international migration policy, and it is certainly worth citing them here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Larry. That's fair enough, but could you source or substantiate what you wrote above? Is IOM officially a "UN Agency"? Who says it is a "Major player in the world of international migration policy"? The Wikipedia Article about IOM isn't exactly helpful. It describes IOM as a "related organization of the United Nation", and this statement is one of the very few in the article that are sourced somewhere else then IOM's own web site. Heptor talk 22:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The UN refers to it as a UN agency, for example here, though the term "agency" is perhaps being employed loosely. As for being a major player, this article states "the IOM today operates as a major source of intelligence, assessment, advice, and technical assistance in connection with national and regional border policies and practice...the IOM has become a major operator in the field of international borders and migration governance". This describes it as "the leading intergovernmental organization in the field of migration". Here is the introduction to a whole special issue of a journal about the IOM (which also discusses its status). There are many more sources if you search for them. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It appears that IOM's connection to the (rest of the) UN is somewhat loose, but it is there. I am happy to leave their opinion where it is.
For future use, it could be interesting to know how exactly IOM is integrated into the UN. What I think is especially weird is that 1) IOM has its own constitution, quite independent of the UN, 2) countries may join IOM directly and independently of their UN membership, and 3) IOM has a different, and more limited, membership compared to the UN. So this organization seems to maintain a reasonable degree of independence from the UN organization. Until recently the article presented their opinion as opinion of the UN, and I think this was highly inappropriate. Heptor talk 22:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

criminal law

present there is category:criminal law but since illegal immigration varies between being a civil or a criminal offense varying by region, does it belong under these specific categories or a broader parent category? ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Because this section refers specifically to US law, it belongs in Illegal immigration to the United States, not here. Plazak (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illegal_immigration/Archive_3&oldid=1136270567"