Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

The claim that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens in the United States.

This is an extremely controversial claim that's being stated by the article as fact, and it's currently not backed by almost all of the sources used to make it. Let's go through them one by one.

The first source is a NYT article talking about how deportations haven't decreased crime in some areas that were studied. While this is a notable claim, it doesn't back the statement "illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens".

The second source is talking about all immigrants, not specifying illegal immigrants, so it has no business being cited for this claim.

The third source again uses statistics of all immigrants - of which illegal immigrants are included - to say "immigrants have lower crime rates". While that might be true when all immigrants are combined together, since it isn't controlled for legal/illegal status, it can't be used to make the illegal immigrant crime claim.

The fourth source only talks about general immigrants and "non-citizen men from Mexico" in California, and even then only notes these men "have very low rates of institutionalization", not that they "commit less crime" than native citizens.

The fifth source is just making the broad claim "most studies have shown that illegal immigrants tend to commit less crime than the native born"". Since we can't actually look at these studies, this claim seems highly questionable and it by itself isn't enough to justify the original sentence.

Finally, the sixth Politifact source merely says "undocumented immigrants are not more likely to commit crimes than US citizens". This does not back the claim that they commit less.

So out of the six sources cited, just one actually makes the claim that illegal immigrants commit less crime, but we can't even see the data that source is using to make the statement. Because of all this, I move to change the extremely controversial "Illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens in the United States" claim so it isn't treated as a statement of fact. It is not adequately backed by the sources cited and it downplays the large amount of crime committed on a yearly basis by those in the United States illegally. See https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2019/eroReportFY2019.pdf for some numbers on that. Edit5001 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm tired of your constant gaslighting and misrepresentation of sources. Per this peer-reviewed article, "most studies have shown that illegal immigrants tend to commit less crime than the native born"[1] Per the NYT, "Research demonstrates that immigrants over all and undocumented immigrants in particular are less likely to be arrested than the native-born population; that both are less likely to be incarcerated; and that immigration does not raise an area’s local crime rates (neither does undocumented immigration)."[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't have access to the full NYT article so I admit I missed that line. However, that's still just two sources out of the six, and all the others are still invalid. I think in order to make a statement of this magnitude you need more than just 2 sources, neither of which provides actual data on crime rates and just makes broad statements. This sentence should still be modified. I also find it fascinating you accuse me of misrepresenting sources when four out of six of these current sources are being egregiously misrepresented or said to mean something they don't say. Edit5001 (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

This is well documented by government sources. If you learn to read reliable sources, you are less likely to fall for fake stuff. O3000 (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000: What you just wrote does not even begin to address the issue that four of six of these sources don't back the claim being made. Also, please provide some of these "government sources" that back the claim "illegal immigrants commit less crime than native citizens" in the United States. Edit5001 (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion caught my eye. My own scantly-informed opinion about this would be WP:OR, so I'll mot mention it. WP policies do not require that sources cited by sources presented and cited as reliable here be vetted but, FWIW, I took a look at one source cited in the article which may be the fifth of the six sources mentioned above: Gonzalez, Benjamin; Collingwood, Loren; El-Khatib, Stephen Omar (2017-05-07). "The Politics of Refuge: Sanctuary Cities, Crime, and Undocumented Immigration". Urban Affairs Review. 55: 107808741770497. doi:10.1177/1078087417704974. On page 4 there, it says: "Because most studies have shown that undocumented immigrants tend to commit less crime than the native born (Lee, Martinez, and Rosenfeld 2001;Lyons, Ve’lez, and Santoro 2013; Ousey and Kubrin 2009; Wadsworth 2010;Wong 2017), ...". I have not looked at those sources and but, in case of interest, they are cited there as follows:

• Lee, Matthew, Ramiro Martinez, and Richard Rosenfeld. 2001. “Does Immigration Increase Homicide? Negative Evidence from Three Border Cities.” Sociological Quarterly 42 (4): 559–80.
• Lyons, Christopher J., Maria B. Ve’lez, and Wayne A. Santoro. 2013. “Neighborhood Immigration, Violence, and City-Level Immigrant Political Opportunities.” American Sociological Review 78 (4): 604–32. doi: 10.1177/0003122413491964.
• Ousey, Graham, and Charis Kubrin. 2009. “Exploring the Connection Between Immigration and Violent Crime Rates in U.S. Cities, 1980–2000.” Social Problems 56 (3): 447–73.
• Wadsworth, Tim. 2010. “Is Immigration Responsible for the Crime Drop? An Assessment of the Influence of Immigration on Changes in Violent Crime Between 1990 and 2000.” Social Science Quarterly 91 (2): 531–53.
• Wong, Tom. 2017. “The Effect of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy.” Report, Washignton, DC: Center for American Progress.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: Thank you, I'll take a look at those and see what they say. Do you have any thoughts on the rest of what I wrote here? Do you agree we should remove the sources that don't back the claim being made, and perhaps reword the entire sentence since it's extremely controversial and only backed by a scanty amount of evidence? I'd be happy with something along the lines of "Some studies have suggested that illegal immigrants do not commit crime at higher rates than native citizens." Edit5001 (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Haven't we been through this at least half a dozen times? Volunteer Marek 18:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Lot of previous arguments about this. [3] Some news sources state one thing and some another, depending on their bias on the topic. Many have stated there is no reason to mix in stats of legal immigrants with illegal ones unless you were trying to hide the actual crime rate among the illegal ones. The Justice Department of the American Government has some information about crime and illegal immigrants on its official website [4] and probably other government websites list information that can be found and used to clarify the issue. Dream Focus 18:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

No, actual reliable sources are pretty consistent on this. And who are these "Many" who "have stated"? You seem to be impugning bad motives on the part of others. We have sources that say legal immigrants have lower crime rates. We have sources that say illegal immigrants have lower crime rates. And we have sources which say both. Let's stop doing the pretend-dance. Volunteer Marek 19:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

These "reliable sources" only quote studies based on small random samplings. Texas is the only state that records the immigration statuses of anyone in prison. The only way to be certain is to find a government source that keeps track of everything properly such as the United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters at https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11187.pdf and other things found on government websites. Dream Focus 19:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @Dream Focus:'s sentiments here. Edit5001 (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

"Random samplings" are how statistical conclusions work. Your personal disagreement with those sources does not negate them. We're not going to change reliably-sourced material just because you think their findings are wrong.

It's unclear what changes you think that GAO source would support, so please explain what you think it says and how that should be included in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit by Edit5001 for several reasons; among them, "ConservativeReview.com" is not a reliable source due to essentially being little more than a partisan blog and unusable for anything other than attributed opinions of Glenn Beck and other punditry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, here's some additional reliable sources which discuss and support the current statement:

• First, despite possessing characteristics usually associated with crime, undocumented immigrants are 33% less likely to be institutionalized compared to US natives - Oxford Economic Papers, 2019
• We find that SC-driven increases in deportation rates did not reduce crime rates for violent offense sor property offenses. - Institute of Labor Economics, 2019
• But anecdotal impression cannot substitute for scientific evidence. In fact, data from the census and other sources show that for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated and the least acculturated. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population. - Social Science Research Council, 2007
• As for Texas, Dream Focus, The homicide conviction rate for illegal immigrants was 16 percent below that of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015. The conviction rates for illegal immigrants were 7.9 percent and 77 percent below that of native-born Americans for sex crimes and larceny, respectively. For all criminal convictions in Texas in 2015, illegal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 50 percent below that of native-born Americans. Legal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 66 percent below that of native-born Americans. - Cato Institute, 2018

Against this unchallenged weight of reliable secondary sources, we have hand-waving, misquoting, the production of context-free factoids, scare tactics, gaslighting, and FUD. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Are there any government websites that confirm this? The Cato Institute's numbers are all based on the number of illegally immigrants in Texas being at 1,758,199 at that time. If there were that many, then percentage wise then illegal immigrants do less crimes than citizens in Texas. But if they just raised that number up to get the results they wanted, that'd be a problem. I don't see how anyone would have an accurate number for those hiding their existence. Also is this a reliable source? Cato was founded by Charles Koch. Dream Focus 02:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

You once again cite sources that don't back your own argument. Literally the only sources you've provided there that actually claim illegal immigrants do anything like commit less crime is the Oxford Economic Paper - which is questionable, due to it just looking at INSTITUTIONALIZATION rates, and not crime rates. The second source is the CATO Institute, a well known pro-immigration lobbyist think tank. Edit5001 (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Tendentious editing and gaslighting

The editor Edit5001 has now on multiple occasions edit-warred a line from the lead about how research shows that illegal immigration increases native welfare, and has on numerous occasions claimed there's nothing in the body to substantiate the claim. However, there's an entire sub-section called "native welfare"[5], which is full of peer-reviewed research. This gaslighting comes in the wake of brazen falsehoods from this editor that the body does not contain sources that say illegal immigrants have lower crime rates than natives (another thing this editor has edit-warred over). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Four out of the six sources being cited to claim "illegal immigrants have lower crime rates than natives" do not in fact show or say that (I gave detailed reasons why above). I didn't say it contained "no" sources - that's a completely made up accusation from you. And if you go and look, you'll see I'm not the only one who thought the sources were inadequate. Edit5001 (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the lead has to reflect the body, and the body currently says A number of studies have shown that illegal immigration increases the welfare of natives. If you want to change that, you should start by getting a consensus to change the relevant part of the body that that part of the lead summarizes. --Aquillion (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Questioned section on "History"

Edit5001 has charged that my recent edit expanding discussion of naturalization history is obvious, blatant, unacceptable political slant that isn't fit for the "History" section. Given that my edit is entirely based upon content in this interesting and useful reliable source that they themselves introduced, I'm inviting them to describe their issues with the content. Much of the source is literally devoted to explaining, in deep and compelling detail, how difficult it was to interpret and enforce laws purporting to define "racial" categories — is Japanese a race? What about "Hebrew"? Are Mexicans white? Are Brazilians? Are Hindus?

From the source: Unless the courts issued enough decisions to determine the eligibility of every possible "race" that might apply for citizenship, or until the Supreme Court might issue broad guidance on the definition of white persons, federal officials continued to live amid uncertainty. Those at the Department of Interior's General Land Office were frequently embarrassed by the fact that they accepted homestead applications from aliens racially ineligible to citizenship, then had difficulty issuing final patents when the homesteader was unable to naturalize. Often, judges frustrated with contradictory federal rules would admit racially ineligible homesteaders to citizenship as a protest to conflicting federal practices. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

My goal adding the line was simply to describe what the naturalization criteria was defined as during that time period. There's no need to give comments or views on what people thought about the law/criteria. Including that information puts a political slant. Please remove it. Edit5001 (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You don't get to decide that there's a "political slant" to that information. If the naturalization criteria are relevant, it's also clearly relevant that even in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, those criteria were contentious, unwieldy, and ultimately unworkable, and were criticized as racist. You provided the source, and most of the source is devoted to exploring those issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't contentious or unwieldy; The sources don't use the language "unwieldy" or "contentious", you do. Many courts had absolutely zero issue enforcing it, most used their common sense. Of course the policy was racist, everyone in those times was racist.

By just including "criticisms" of the law but not arguments for its support you are by definition putting a political slant. You are only representing the side against the naturalization laws, not the side that was for them. That is a slant. Just giving the information about what the law said by comparison has zero slant in either direction. Edit5001 (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

'Contentious' and 'unwieldy' seem like reasonable summaries of the paragraph quoted above. Remember that neutrality isn't about saying what we think is neutral - it's about reporting what the sources say in a neutral tone. When the sources say things like federal officials continued to live amid uncertainty and talks about judges frustrated with contradictory federal rules, we have to cover that somehow - omitting it simply because some people might object to what it says is WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

We could cherry pick any information from the thousands and thousands of words in that article to push any type of narrative we want. For example, it also says that thousands of judges simply "relied on their common understanding of race" and had no trouble enforcing the laws. The only neutral way to report it is to not cherry pick information from the source and simply report on what the laws actually were. Edit5001 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I actually think we should just re-gear the entire History section. At the moment it's basically just giving a rundown of regular US immigration history, but this is a page about illegal immigration. The History section should be about the history of US illegal immigration. Edit5001 (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Including a "Crime" section

This page currently has a "Relationship between illegal immigration and crime" section, but no section to actually list or mention the number/nature of crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the United States every year. I propose to add a section of this nature. Edit5001 (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a very large section on crime, of which "relationship between illegal immigration and crime" is one of four sections. We also have a whole separate article about it that's linked from this section. But no, we should not add a coatrack on which to hang a list of specific crimes if that's what you mean by "list". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add actual crime numbers to these articles. It absolutely stuns me that on pages about illegal immigration and crime, there is no actual information about crime numbers. Where do you suggest I can add some recent figures? Edit5001 (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, direct crime numbers raise WP:OR / WP:SYNTH issues. It's better to rely on secondary sources that summarize and report on them, and cover their conclusions. --Aquillion (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Well the sources reporting on these numbers tend to lean right, for obvious reasons, so if I cite right leaning sources simply for numbers they shouldn't be removed. Edit5001 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not obvious at all. If only WP:BIASED sources think certain numbers matter, then it is not widely-accepted fact that those sources matter; we can only report it, at best, as the opinion of those sources rather than as uncontested fact. And when reporting such opinions you have to consider the quality and prominence of the source - whether it's a reliable source, whether its opinion is WP:DUE, and so on. "Here are some numbers we think show we're totally right about everything" coming from a partisan blog or from a source with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy isn't something we can put in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing large chunks of content

This article uses a list-defined reference format, where some of the references are defined in the References section. When removing large chunks of content, as seen here, the references also must be removed or commented out. Otherwise it creates multiple cite errors as seen in the References section, and lists the article in pages with incorrect ref formatting. Use the show preview button and check the reference section for possible cite errors. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

He removed entire sections without consensus anyway, and I object to every removal. Edit5001 (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to re-gear the history section

At the moment the History section is basically just a rehash of what's found on the regular "History of US immigration" page. This page's History section should instead focus on the history of illegal immigration in the United States specifically. Edit5001 (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this section can be expanded, however current version looks OK, and it does focus of the legality of immigration, as it should. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Do you agree with my recent changes to the History section? Edit5001 (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I think you incorrectly summarized what this source tells, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I took the most relevant information regarding illegal immigration from the source, the goal wasn't to summarize the entire thing. If you think more information from the source should be included, which and why? Edit5001 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Where the linked source/reference tells that "Illegal immigration from Asia and Central/South America began to increase after the United States had secured its border with Mexico"? I do not see it in the source. Other than than, I do not see anything obviously problematic in your version. My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Seemed like it added history of law enforcement personnel. Was something controversial? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

As above, there's no source for the claim about "illegal immigration from Asia and Central/South America." Additionally, your rewriting of the section about non-white immigration removed a reliable source and watered down a sourced statement. It's relevant to this article because, in many respects, it was "illegal immigration" made legal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I objected to your change to the naturalization section and you never gained consensus for it. You piggy backed off a minor adjustment I made to the section to make a huge, politically charged change without consensus, and which I actively and continue to object to. As I object to it for reasons explained in the above section, there is not standing for that line to be in the article until you reach consensus (the previous status quo gets preference). In fact, rather than try to negotiate something about it, you just stopped responding. I was willing to negotiate by partially adding in the paragraph you added in my last edit, but you completely undid that.

If you have issue with that one line about illegal immigration increasing after the border was secured, I'll remove the line in question. Meanwhile, the facts about the history of border patrol and the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 absolutely belong in the article, and you've given zero reason as to why you keep removing them. It doesn't get more relevant to the "History" section of an article about illegal immigration than these things. Edit5001 (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I went to that page, and did some searches, and did not find it talking about asian immigration and whatnot. Exactly what are the sentences for that? Or maybe that sentence should be removed. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: It was based on this line in the source; "In March 1915, Congress authorized a separate group of Mounted Guards, often referred to as Mounted Inspectors. Most rode on horseback, but a few operated cars and even boats. Although these inspectors had broader arrest authority, they still largely pursued Chinese immigrants trying to avoid the Chinese exclusion laws." I may have been too broad in the sentence but I'm fine with that one sentence either being modified or removed. Edit5001 (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The section "Public opinion and controversy"

This section is bonkers. it's nothing but random, cherrypicked and mostly 10-15 yr old polls that not only misrepresent public opinion but add nothing of value (the section is virtually unreadable). Here are some examples of content in this section:

• According to a 2006 Gallup poll, 84% of investors believe that illegal immigrants mostly take low paying jobs that Americans do not want. However, nearly 62% of investors say illegal immigration is hurting the investment climate.
• In general, some say that illegal immigrants are taking away jobs from Americans; however businesses and agricultural groups disagree and say that migrant workers are needed to fill unattractive jobs. This is further supported by a May 2006 New York Times/CBS News Poll report that 53 percent of Americans felt "illegal immigrants mostly take the jobs Americans don't want". However, there are others who say that illegal immigration helps to "decimate the bargaining leverage of the American worker. If you use a form of labor recruitment that bids down the cost of labor, that leads you to a society where a small number are very, very rich, there's nobody in the middle, and everyone is left scrambling for crumbs at the bottom.
• In 2007, an ABC News Poll indicated that most respondents (67%) believed the United States was not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from coming into the country and, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll most Americans believed that US immigration policy needed either fundamental changes (41%) or to be completely rebuilt (49%).

I deleted the whole section because there was nothing redeemable in it[7]. My edit was immediately reverted by Edit5001 (who went so far as to restore newly added content by himself to this section). This is a topic that has been covered by countless peer-reviewed publications (including publications that specifically look at the public opinion on the topic). There is no reason at all why there should be a whole section full of random individual 10-15 yr olds polls. The section is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The polls are in the article because they're polls done on the subject. If you think other polls should be added, go ahead and add them. If you think the section could be better worded, reword it. Removing all polling done on the topic is absolutely outrageous. You claim the polls "misrepresent public opinion" - but they don't, and it's fitting that you don't even try to explain why they somehow "misrepresent" public opinion. The fact of the matter is that very little, if any, public opinion shows Americans favor or don't mind illegal immigration and you know this. You have also given absolutely zero justification for why you removed the section I added, that used multiple reliable polls and sources.

There is absolutely redeemable information in the section. There's nothing wrong with the ABC News Poll you listed, for example, nor with the polls (and research) I recently added to the section. Could it all be better structured? Sure, but that warrants restructuring, not removal of all of the useful information the section contained. Edit5001 (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Come on, the whole thing is one big nilly willy mess and unencyclopedic. Volunteer Marek 02:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If you think it's willy nilly, restructure it so it's more orderly and less confusing. Removing all polling done on a topic, by reliable sources, from a page is insanity. And there was nothing wrong with the polls and research I added.Edit5001 (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Was there a stable version before this latest kerfuffle started? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: Yes, the "Public Opinion and Controversy" section prior to my addition to it on January 6th had been stable for quite some time. I tried to add to it, but then Snooganssnoogans eliminated the entire stable section, on top of eliminating what I added. Edit5001 (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Well, perhaps one should use newer polls... However, I noticed removal of content sourced to this, i.e. a website by Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. Is it an unreliable source? More importantly, do these data contradict other sources? If not, then in theory, they might be restored, but I do see a serious problem here. Instead of blaming criminals who are responsible for human trafficking, this text (as written and placed on this page) effectively accuses the "illegal immigration" (read "illegal immigrants", i.e. the victims). That is not what the source tells. Place this content on another page, about human trafficking, and it would be OK. Hence, I would actually support such removal. My very best wishes (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

In terms of polling , this is a topic that is incredibly sensitive to what kinds of questions are asked and over what time periods. If we are going to use poling, then we ought to use peer-reviewed research on the topic or overviews by recognized experts. There is not much value in plucking random individual polls, in particular when they appear to have been cherry-picked to demonstrate hostility towards undocumented immigrants when public attitudes are far more nuanced (as demonstrated in the RFC above). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That', frankly, ridiculous. As I said, if there are reliable sources with polls on the subject, they're good enough to include. The fact that you're opting to delete everything instead of just adding more polls you think would improve the section speaks volumes. Edit5001 (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"Stable version" is absolutely NOT a justification for keeping junk material in an article. Agree with Snooganssnoogans that if we are to include polls we should use secondary sources, preferably peer reviewed ones, not just put in the polls ourselves. Volunteer Marek 19:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The entire section had some valuable information, it was mostly not "junk". Furthermore, the study I recently added was literally a synthesis of overall research, that's a pretty good source, and I have yet to recieve a single ounce of justification as to why it wouldn't be included in the page. Edit5001 (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This[8] is not a study, and the author is not a recognized expert on the topic. Furthermore, it's 12 years old and is describing older polls than that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It's still reliable information. As for its age, being 12 years old doesn't invalidate something from inclusion - if you have more recent sources you should add them, not throw old sources in the trash as if they don't exist. Edit5001 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd support ripping out the whole thing. Generally speaking a lot of polls are WP:PRIMARY sources inappropriate used to argue a position, but even when we rely on secondary sources a section like this still tends to turn into a bloated mess of random statistics. What it's trying to say -- evaluating public opinion -- is better cited to secondary sources that discuss the topic of public opinion in-depth and with its full context, rather than relying on individual polls ourselves. --Aquillion (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Many of these polls were conducted by non-partisan organizations, so those are not arguing for a position. In regards to your second point, if you think the statistics were poorly organized it's better to re-organize them to be less messy, not simply remove each and every poll done on the subject from the page.

Not all of the citations were even polls. Reference 248 was a book connected to Harvard University. Source 253 was an academic paper. Edit5001 (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The partisanship isn't the issue; the point is that polls are raw data, which is generally tricky to use. If we're going to discuss opinion we should do it from a few steps further back by relying on sources that actually discuss opinions in-depth with full context. The overarching structure of this section was ultimately a pile of WP:SYNTH using raw data to try and produce an argument about the nature of public opinion on the topic, which isn't useful to readers and isn't an appropriate way to approach this aspect of the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the Gang Activity section

User My Very Best Wishes recently removed an entire section of long established content relating to gang activity, justifying it by essentially saying that "yes crime is committed by illegal immigrants but citizens also commit crime". That is not valid justification for removal. The information about illegal immigrant gang activity is good and well sourced, and including these facts does not create a POV problem. This page isn't about citizens, it's about illegal immigration. If you applied the logic that any fact about illegal immigrants also needs to be compared to citizens to the entire article, you'd have to make hundreds of changes. Simply stating facts that might make illegal immigrants look good/bad is not a POV violation. In summary, the gang content should be restored because it was well sourced and already neutrally written. Edit5001 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

There is already a section on the relationship between illegal immigration and crime. Content that merely says that immigrants commit crimes doesn't belong. Just as we wouldn't list cases of undocumented immigrants who do not commit crimes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. If anything, it'd make more sense to merge the two sections, not delete all information about illegal immigrant involvement in gangs and issues with law enforcement. Actual statistics and research into gang activity among illegal immigrants matters and is relevant to the page, which is what the section provided. Not to mention it was long established as part of the page, which gives weight to improving it rather than removing it. Edit5001 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• By the same logic one could select any sub-category of USA population, let's say American Jews, and include big section about crimes they commit. Would that be appropriate? Of course not. You need to have studies which specifically connect crime and the subject of the page. In that regard, section "Relationship between illegal immigration and crime" is appropriate. However, simply listing various crimes committed by a sub-category of population is not appropriate as POV-pushing and promoting xenophobia. This is because by placing such info on the page without comparison with other categories of population you are making the point that this category of people commits more crimes that others. However, this is precisely the opposite according to studies mentioned on the page. Placing sourced info about crimes like here might be easier to justify. My very best wishes (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Gang activity and identity theft are two big issues that illegal immigration is consistently and infamously connected with. The US government has literally had hearings on finding solutions to "the alien gang epidemic". That's why it should be included. The page isn't going down and listing the crime rate of illegal immigrants on every single specific issue, it's describing two issues that are very relevant to illegal immigration on multiple levels. Edit5001 (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, some gangs may be formed mostly by "aliens". Other gangs can be formed mostly by "white people" or varuios specific ethic groups. So what? See my comment above. Do we have reliably published studies which show that total gang activities in general by "illegal immigrants" are significantly greater than such activities by other groups of population? This text does not say it. If we do, then it might be worth inclusion. If not, then no. According to your source (US government), "While there are an estimated 750,000 to 850,000 gang members in the United States today, there are no firm estimates on how many of those gang members are aliens and how many are citizens." So, no. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The issue of white people being in the United States is not famously and repeatedly linked to gang activity - the issue of illegal immigration is. If you read the US government hearing a bit further, you see they report that some gangs have up to 60% of their members from illegal immigrant backgrounds and that the majority of the members of the most dangerous gang in the US, MS-13, are in the US illegally. They also note that gang leaders are disproportionately illegal immigrants. They wouldn't have had hearings on the issue if it wasn't a notable, high profile topic. To this day, MS-13 is a frequent topic brought up in regards to illegal immigration and there's bipartisan concern about their activities. Edit5001 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Oddly, the lead of MS-13 only has a single sentence mentioning their use as a talking point in politics. It used to go into much more detail, but that was removed after an RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean a single sentence is adequate, even for this article, there should be some mention of these things rather than their total removal. Edit5001 (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• The section was cited to just a single primary source (a government report.) That's not great. If it's noteworthy, reliable, mainstream secondary sources ought to have covered the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

[[User:Edit5001] wrote that " The US government has literally had hearings on finding solutions to "the alien gang epidemic". That's not accurate. First, the link was to one hearing only. Secondly, it was a House subcommittee haaring, not the government. There's a distinct difference. Subcommittees hold all sorts of hearings and agenda decisions are made by the chairperson - that's not the same as the government. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Even if we should include something about MS-13 here (I doubt), this should be done as described in secondary RS. For example, here, this is described essentially as a propaganda stunt by the current administration ("a frequent target of President Trump's rhetoric"), and it tells that "MS-13 isn't exactly a foreign invader — it originated in Los Angeles.". My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

In the sentence before that it says "MS-13, or "Mara Salvatrucha," is one of the largest gangs in the world, a menace in several countries..." So to point out the threat they pose is not "propaganda" by any means. And the article goes on to say the gang formed in Los Angeles... fueled by illegal immigration from El Salvador. "Hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans fled as the war progressed, and many arrived to the U.S. undocumented.... Marginalized Salvadoran youth in LA neighborhoods joined gangs or formed their own." So yeah, not exactly a "native" US gang. And that's just from the source you're using.

Meanwhile, the National Geographic did a whole film on MS-13 where it refereed to them as the "World's Most Dangerous Gang". The CIS reported how [9] 92% of MS-13 affiliated aliens arrested by ICE were illegal aliens. Edit5001 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't MS-13 created in Los Angeles and exported to South America where it is now causing, in part, flight to the US? So to point out the threat they pose is not "propaganda" by any means. I suppose if you accurately document all of the threats to whom. In any case, that sounds like WP:RGW. O3000 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The CIS is not a reliable source, since it is a hate group with a documented history of falsehood and misrepresentation. Using a shoddy (and white nationalist) source as a way to inflate the significance of a specific, controversial opinion, is inappropriate. Repeatedly arguing this point is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you brought it up, I and many others don't think the infamous SPLC's "hate group" designation holds much weight as they are a transparently left wing, pro-immigration activist organization. Furthermore, in this case, the CIS is just reporting on ICE statistics, this isn't even research they conducted. Edit5001 (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

To answer Objective3000, the gang originated primarily from illegal immigrants from El Salvador in Los Angeles, and then as time went on expanded its operations on an international scale. It's most successful in Central/South American countries because their governments are far more ill-equipped to deal with their activities than the United States. Edit5001 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Your personal opinion on the SPLC is irrelevant to this discussion, as has already been explained to you elsewhere. The source is not reliable, and it is not usable for this article.

Even regardless of its status as a hate group, or that its founder was a white nationalist and eugenicist, the CIS is not a reliable source for compiling/summarizing WP:PRIMARY sources, nor for explaining the significance of those sources. The list of experts who have disputed their work is long and ideologically diverse. Further, no factoid is significant in a vacuum. This statistic is unremarkable and almost tautological, and its relevance to this tedious issue is not automatically important. Grayfell (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• As I already said above, making sections like Relationship_between_illegal_immigration_and_crime with results of studies might be OK, even though Correlation does not imply causation. However, simply listing various criminal activities by a category of population (immigrants, different ethnic or social groups, etc) is not OK because that creates wrong impression that immigrants (for example) are more prone to criminal activities than other groups, which is not true according to studies. My very best wishes (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

If we were to use so much space on illegal immigrants who commit crimes; shouldn't we also include stories like that of Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa, an illegal immigrant who became a Professor of Neurosurgery and Oncology, Neurology, and Cellular and Molecular Medicine and director of the Brain Tumor Stem Cell Biology Lab at John Hopkins and is now the William J. and Charles H. Mayo Professor and Chair of Neurologic Surgery and runs a basic science research lab at the Mayo Clinic Jacksonville? O3000 (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• The gang section in question begins with a link to Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act. It then has a brief bit of information relevant to the article.

A US Justice Department report from 2009 indicated that one of the largest transnational criminal organizations in the United States, Los Angeles-based 18th Street gang, has a membership of some 30,000 to 50,000 with 80% of them being illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America. Active in 44 cities in 20 states, its main source of income is street-level distribution of cocaine and marijuana and, to a lesser extent, heroin and methamphetamine. Gang members also commit assault, auto theft, carjacking, drive-by shootings, extortion, homicide, identification fraud, and robbery.

I have reverted its removal. They are illegally in this nation, and some of them do other illegal activities, and this should be listed. Dream Focus 01:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Its only source is a single WP:PRIMARY government statistic page. If you want to keep it in the article, you will need to find better sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This is far too flimsy for an entire section. Grayfell (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The source is indeed a primary RS, but I think main problem here is selecting and emphasizing negative information about the illegal immigrants from a single or a few sources. This is not the way per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It clearly states the information is from the US Justice Department. There is nothing wrong with primary sources being used for things like this. Trying to whitewash the article of anything that shows anything negative about illegal immigrants is wrong. Dream Focus 16:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I agree that the main problem here is selecting and emphasizing negative information. O3000 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

According to another source from US government (see above), While there are an estimated 750,000 to 850,000 gang members in the United States today, there are no firm estimates on how many of those gang members are aliens and how many are citizens.. Keep in mind that "alien" is not necessarily an illegal immigrant. Also, the gang originated in US according to another source (see discussion). My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Question If I am understanding Snooganssnoogans, Grayfell and Aquillion correctly using the primary source demographics without secondary source analysis may be outside the scope of the article. I agree with Greyfell's point that it needs better sourcing. Some sources may argue illegal immigration is a factor, others will weigh economic factors more heavily so a legal person can be just as likely to commit crime. It might have a place in an article about demographics of criminal activity in the United States, but what does it have to do with illegal immigration (the article topic)? Dartslilly (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Some quick slapdash googling, looking for secondary sources which touch on illegal immigration and gang activity turned up the following:

• Ko-lin Chin (2000). Chinatown Gangs: Extortion, Enterprise, and Ethnicity. Oxford University Press. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-19-513627-2.
• A. Wroe (2008). The Republican Party and Immigration Politics: From Proposition 187 to George W. Bush. Springer. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-230-61108-5.
• Phil Williams (2012). Illegal Immigration and Commercial Sex: The New Slave Trade. Routledge. p. 125. ISBN 978-1-136-31551-0.
• Emmis Communications (2007). "Atlanta Magazine". Emmis Communications. p. 102. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help)

The quote from a Georgia prosecutor at the top of the third column on the cited page of that last source I've listed struck me as summing up illegal immigration vs. gang activity pretty well. That is from an article titled The Big : Authorities have weakened the Brownside Locos, thanks to information passed through a gang that has terrorized Gwinnet County illegal immigrants in the August 2007 issue of The Atlantic Antlanta magazine. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

From the article:

• Illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens in the United States.
• Multiple studies have found that undocumented immigration to the United States did not increase violent crime.
• A 2016 study found no link between illegal immigrant populations and violent crime, although there is a small but significant association between illegal immigrants and drug-related crime.
• A 2017 study found that "Increased undocumented immigration was significantly associated with reductions in drug arrests, drug overdose deaths, and DUI arrests, net of other factors."
• A 2019 analysis found no evidence that illegal immigration increased crime.

In light of the above, including a section on gangs is introducing bias into the article by cherry picking information to promote a POV. I does not belong in the article.   // Timothy::talk  15:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Identity theft

I have restored the removal of the Identity theft section in the same revert.

Identity theft is sometimes committed by illegal immigrants who use Social Security numbers belonging to others in order to obtain fake work documentation. In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Flores-Figueroa v. United States that illegal immigrants cannot be prosecuted for identity theft if they use "made-up" Social Security numbers that they do not know belong to someone else; to be guilty of identity theft with regard to social security numbers, they must know that the social security numbers that they use belong to others.

• Why was the section on Identity theft removed? They can't usually without a social security number, so mentioning they fake it, and what the law says is relevant to this article. Dream Focus 01:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I never understood this complaint or why it is called identity theft. Identity theft is when you steal an identity to harm another. But, when you make up an SSN to get a job, you actually help the owner of the SSN and contribute to social security, but can never reap the benefits. This is the opposite of theft. O3000 (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It causes quite a lot of harm by messing with people's medical history, work history, credit history, and if they file their taxes and find their child has been the victim of this and their income is listed too high to be listed as a dependent. The New York Times list some examples. [10] Anyway, anyone see any reason not to have this section in the article? Dream Focus 04:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The current section only summarizes two sources. One is a heavy-handed Fox News article about one specific case, surrounded by a lot of speculation and some cherry-picked statistics. I do not think this is good enough to include as it is. The second source (from 2009) specifically says that the most common relevant form of social security fraud doesn't fall under "identity theft" laws. Since the most common form isn't unambiguously identity theft, we cannot call it something it isn't unless our goal is scaremongering. Grayfell (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

What about the AP source listed there saying "Illegal immigrants turn identity theft"? PackMecEng (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I added in a reference to a New York Times article about it. There is ample coverage in many Google news result listing about this issue. Dream Focus 17:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would oppose to inclusion for the reasons explained in the previous thread. Yes, sure, there are many crimes which are "sometimes committed by illegal immigrants", but one can say the same about any other social or ethnic group. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sure other stuff exists. But when RS make the connection that is all that is required. PackMecEng (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Undocumented immigrants (or anyone else who is undocumented, for that matter) are more likely to commit crimes related to being undocumented. This is both undeniable, and also almost insultingly obvious. These crimes are specifically committed by some immigrants because of their legal status. If the article uses sources to explain this relationship, it could be appropriate. To gloss-over this important context and cram it in the article just because sources can be found which mention "crimes" seems slightly lazy. Grayfell (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Given that it is a key aspect as you say. What would you suggest adding to give a larger picture? PackMecEng (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• The section header doesn't make sense. How is it possible to steal something that isn't tangible? Cassianto^Talk 22:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

By definition, you can steal intangibles. But, I don’t think that’s the salient point. Identity theft is a crime based on scams generally designed to steal from the owner of the identity. In the context of undocumented immigrants, this is rarely the case. As such, it should not be included in this article without the context and reliable sources explaining that context. If at all. O3000 (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. To steal something means you permanently deprive someone of something; if I've "stolen" an identity, the rightful owner is not without it. They still have it. Identity fraud makes more sense. Cassianto^Talk 22:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a very old and narrow definition usually pushed by intellectual property thieves and not supported by the OED, even in the 1930s version, and lacking in nuance. But, you make a good point as the nuance is ignored by adding it here as, without context, it makes it look like undocumented immigrants are committing crimes to harm others. O3000 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The OED might omit it, but UK law doesn't. The 1968 Theft Act is very clear when it comes to what can and can't be stolen. But then this is an American article after all, so perhaps the Yanks have a different take on it. Cassianto^Talk 22:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The OED doesn't omit it. It specifically includes both tangibles and intangibles. But, I'm just being silly now. Point is that deprivation of property is not the purpose of using a made up SSN to get a job, knowing you will never get the money back that you contribute. This cannot be included without context. O3000 (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Illegal Immigration to the United States RFC: Should this article's opening mention how public polls about illegal immigration show a majority of Americans either oppose it or view it as a problem?

The consensus is against the proposed inclusion.

Cunard (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the lead mention opinion polls regarding US citizen's opinions towards illegal immigration? There is currently debate on whether the lead should including the following sentence; "Illegal immigration has been a matter of intense debate in the United States since the 1980s, and opinion polls show a majority of Americans either oppose illegal immigration or view it as a problem." Sources for these polls/surveys include (but don't have to be limited to) Rasmussen polls, Opportunity Agenda immigration attitudes surveys and Migration Policy Institute research. Edit5001 (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Poll

Support- Rasmussen notes "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 73% of Likely U.S. Voters consider illegal immigration a serious problem in America, with 47% who say it’s Very Serious. This marks the highest level of concern in four years."

Opportunity Agenda states "Overall, recent trends suggest that the American public clearly draws a distinction between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ immigration and are far more concerned with immigration issues around ‘illegal’ immigrants with feelings being a mix of admiration and concern. A synthesis of general views on immigration reveals that Americans: a) believe that immigration is a growing and serious problem, b) are most concerned with ‘illegal’ immigrants, c) favor a tough, but not punitive approach to immigration enforcement, and d) support a generous immigration reform provision to deal with ‘illegal’ immigrants, including a path to citizenship."

The Migration Policy Institute's research found; "Most Americans express distress about the phenomenon of illegal immigration but not about the people." and "Most Americans want to see effective measures to halt illegal immigration, but they also support measures that would eventually grant legal status to unauthorized immigrants already residing in the country." Edit5001 (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. (1) This is not a npov accurate summary of where Americans stand on illegal immigration. (2) This conflates seeing "II as a problem" with "opposing II". (3) American attitudes towards illegal immigration in surveys are nuanced, shifting and depend a lot on what they are asked to respond to.[11][12] An alternative way to phrase the content would be to say that "an overwhelming majority of Americans favor letting undocumented immigrants stay, most Americans do not want to deport illegal immigrants, an overwhelming majorty opposes construction of a border wall, most Americans do not believe II take jobs from natives and that most Americans do not think undocumented immigrants are more crime-prone"[13][14]... but that just illustrates the folly in trying to accurately summarize Americans' nuanced, shifting and context-driven attitudes on the topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The very sources you're citing say; "A recent survey by ABC News/Washington Post, for example, showed that a majority of Americans feel too little is being done to keep people from entering the U.S. illegally. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that only about a third of Americans believe the border is secure. And Gallup polling from a few years ago showed that 77% of Americans say it is important to control U.S. borders to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S.." They may have nuanced views on the intricacies of how to stop illegal immigration or what to do about those illegal immigrants already in the country, but the strong consensus here is that a majority of Americans either oppose illegal immigration or view it as a problem. Edit5001 (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least based on the provided sources. The polls themselves are WP:PRIMARY and it seems undue to grant them so much weight in the lead - determining the significance of individual polls, weighing what they mean in the context of their wording and breakdown and so on all require WP:SECONDARY sources for interpretation and analysis. Dropping polls straight in the lead seems inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I really don't understand this. Does a poll actually ask if people oppose an illegal act? There are a great number of views on immigration. This grossly simplifies the subject. Frankly, I don't like the idea of a poll in the lead anyhow. This is an encyclopedia. Polls relate to a certain time and can vary from month to month. O3000 (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• All polls are bias. How many people did they question? If you asked the same number of random people again would the answer change significantly? Does their location matter? I believe most people see it as a problem, that's why most voted for Trump. But no way to know what everyone is thinking without surveying everyone which isn't likely to happen. And news media that favor one thing always finds someone who did a poll that happens to agree with them. Dream Focus 03:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a pollster but see e.g., this re sample size vs. margin of error. My understanding is that other factors, and weighting to adjust for those factors, have more impact on results; see e.g., this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for two reasons. First, the description of public opinion on the page is very brief and therefore has no sufficient weight to be included to the lead. Secondly, the results of surveys can not be neutrally described just in one or two phrases as suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Aquillion and MVBW above. Plucking random polls and placing them in the lead? No thanks. Additionally, individual polls (as opposed to meta-analysis of polls over time) are highly susceptible to dramatic swings depending on the specific wording of the poll, the sample selection, etc. Note also that Rasmussen has a "C+" rating from FiveThirtyEight's empirical pollster ratings. Neutrality^talk 02:08, 8 January 2020 (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.

Asserting that "illegal immigrants commit less crime than natives" is not the same as "sanctuary policies have no effect on crime rates"

Source 10 claims that there is no pattern as to whether sanctuary cities commit less or the same crime as non-sanctuary cities. However, this article claims the former instead of the latter, without making the distinction between sanctuary cities and illegal immigrants as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclover152 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Criminals evading justice in their home countries

Sock puppetry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Three times now this addition has been deleted due to not very convincing reasons: "DHS is not reliable source!", "Information from 2006 is outdated!" *According to law enforcement authorities, some people enter the United States illegally because they have been forced to leave their home countries as a result of their criminal activity. Dangerous criminals flee the authorities in other countries and seek to flee to the United States. Many of the operatives of cartels in Mexico live in the United States. Information from law enforcement agencies shows that criminals from Mexico are living in the United States and they enter the United States in order to escape apprehension in Mexico. It has been estimated that sex offenders have made up a relatively high percentage among illegal migrant population. In 2005, it was estimated that there were approximately 240,000 illegal migrant sex offenders in the United States. source Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC) The DHS is not a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Yeah, this would require very strong secondary sources. O3000 (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC) It's pretty bizarre to argue that DHS can't be used in an article that already cites DHS numerous times. Our Department of Homeland Security is actually a vitally significant source about illegal migration. It's also helpful to actually inspect the citation, too. The citation I used refers to the source "Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants" Schurman-Kauflin is cited in this academic paper Dr. Deborah Schurman-Kauflin (2006) found rather conflicting results concerning illegal alien involvement in crime and the dangerous threat from illegal alien sex predators. The 1,500 cases she analyzed occurred over seven years (1999 to 2006) and included serial rapes, serial homicides, and child molestations committed by illegal aliens in California, Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, New York, and Florida. Schurman-Kauflin interpolated the data from 1,500 to the estimated 12,000,000 population of illegal immigrants, composed mainly of young males.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC) I can find zero peer-reviewed academic publications by "Deborah Schurman-Kauflin", who currently works as a psychic medium. The journal that you link to is defunct and appears to have been run by a for-profit online college. This is a perfect encapsulation why content sourced to the DHS is not reliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Someone asked if she was a reliable source in Archive 4[15]. There was no response. O3000 (talk) Seems that a very difficult, sky-high bar is being set for certain content: "You need academic peer-reviewed papers!", when Schurman-Kauflin is literally cited in a peer-reviewed journal Professional Issues in Criminal Justice. Also, if our Department of Homeland Security cited her as a source, then she's reliable.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC) The journal that cited her no longer exists and used to be run by a university deceiving students about the accreditation of their programs.[16] Anyone can create a "peer-reviewed journal". There is nothing to indicate this one is more reliable than a self-published blog. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Two things. Thing1: Stating that a quarter million migrants are sexual predators does indeed require a sky-high bar. Thing2: This can't even pass a limbo bar. O3000 (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Ad hominem attacks/shooting the messenger isn't a convincing logical method. The number of sex offenders isn't really the main point. It's a fact that some illegal migrants evade justice or have evaded justice in Mexico/Guatemala/El Salvador and seek to flee to the United States.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC) And some have fled the US and gone there. Which is all irrelevant since you have no reliable secondary source. O3000 (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Our Department of Homeland Security cited the study, so it's noteworthy and reliable.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC) No, that is a political, primary source. Read WP:IRS. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC) You're setting up a high bar for the fact that some illegal migrants have been fleeing law enforcement authorities in their home countries. This very article contains the following sentence: "According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the countries of origin for the largest numbers of illegal immigrants are as follows", but all of a sudden the Department of Homeland Security is completely shady and untrustworthy about illegal migrants' criminal background?Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Yes, exactly. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. There is no consensus for this particular source for this particular content. In this context, it's shady and untrustworthy. In other contexts it might be useful, or maybe not, but that would have to be discussed on its own merits. Grayfell (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Government sources are, generally, both WP:PRIMARY and WP:BIASED, and sometimes (especially when coming from political appointees) aren't even reliable for direct citation outside of WP:ABOUTSELF due to questionable fact-checking. They can be used cautiously in some situations, especially to represent the opinion of the government, but are a terrible source for controversial or exceptional claims. There are a few situations where a particular government publication might be considered reliable due to having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but in general, outside of WP:ABOUTSELF you can't just cite a paper from a house subcommittee for statements of fact. --Aquillion (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC) "Context matters" sounds a bit like "if the source supports information that I'm in favor, then it should be cited to support that information. If the source supports information that I don't like, then I should come up with every excuse under the sun as to why it should not be used."Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Please remember to assume good faith. But, beyond that, that cuts both ways; multiple editors have told you that we can't generally cite papers from a senate subcommittee for things like this, since they're political documents that represent only the opinions and political positions of their authors. Since you've been told this so many times, why are you still so determined to use them? --Aquillion (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Shemakesmynosebleed, you are going about this the wrong way. You need to identify sources on the general topic of illegal immigration to the United States and see what they say about the issue. That way you avoid issues such as using old articles written by unqualified people and published in unreliable journals. Of course there are criminals among illegal immigrants. The question is whether the rate of criminality differs from people of similar demographics in the legal population. Your edit implies it does, but the sources don't say that. That turns the article into advocacy, rather than a neutral explanation of the topic. TFD (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

"Illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens in the United States"

Sock puppetry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a sweeping statement that doesn't really correspond to how in some regions, some communities that contain higher rates of foreign-born people (many of whom are not in the United States legally) contain higher rates of homicides. South Gate, CA has a foreign-born population of 43%[17]. It had 7 homicides in 2016, 8 in 2017, 1 in 2018[18] Newport Beach, CA has a foreign-born population of 14%[19]. It had 1 homicide in 2016, 0 in 2017, 1 in 2018. [20] Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC) First, the fact that someone is foreign-born is not evidence that they are an illegal immigrant. Second, you have cited no evidence that those crimes were committed by illegal immigrants. Third, you're cherry-picking to do original research and synthesis whereas the above cited statement is supported by a scholarly consensus published in a reliable source. You are operating completely out of your league here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC) How is it cherry-picking? There are something like 20 million people in southern California's 5-county region, and people born south of the border make up about 3-4 million of that number. I did provide evidence that southern California communities with illegal migrants making up large percentages of the population have higher rates of homicides than communities with relatively lower rates of illegal migrants.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Please read this guide to what original synthesis is. You are combining sources in order to construct a claim of your own making. You can not do this in Wikipedia articles. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)