Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Citizenship granted by court

I rewrote this whole section to make it (I hope) a bit more complete and balanced. Let's discuss the issues before you erase this effort. Thank you. Morlesg 02:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not direct it to the Anchor baby article? There's more material there. You can cut/paste the stuff you wrote there. There's no need to have an article discussing the subject AND a section of this article discussing the same material. Its redundant and redundancy is a valid reason for deletion.198.97.67.57 15:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The material in this section is almost word-for-word the same as the material in the 14th amendment section on the same topic. This material is redundant. The relevant content in both articles should be replaced with a tag to Anchor baby. Unless there is any further objection, I will do so soon.198.97.67.58 18:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove. The term Anchor Baby is pejorative (says so in our own article). If the citezenship status of peoplo born un the USA (to illegal ot to legal resident parents) is a legal issue we must have a discussion in the artlicle. Are so called anchor babies an issue? If the answer is yes we need a text here. IMHO Maybe there's a Wiki rule about this or something. Thank you Morlesg 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"The term Anchor Baby is pejorative" may be relevant to whether the name of that article should be changed, but it isn't relevant to whether the content of that article (and of the relevant material in the 14th amendment article) should be combined with the same material in this article and ONE article created from it. "If the citezenship status of peoplo born un the USA (to illegal ot to legal resident parents) is a legal issue we must have a discussion in the artlicle" NOT true as is evidenced by the fact that we've already done the same thing with other content in the article.

Incidently, maintaining three different pages with the same content creates what is called a content fork (see Wikipedia:Content forking). From that page, "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject..content forks ..are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies."71.74.209.82 20:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

login 68.223.158.169

Sorry. I edited w/o loggin in. 68.223.158.169 is me.68.223.158.169 04:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Wasting way toooo much time here. It's me. Now I'm logged inMorlesg 04:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

edits regarding illegal border crossing

"Much of the anti-immigrant sentiment in this country is based on the unfounded fear that illegal immigrants are pouring over our borders in unprecedented numbers."

unverifiable

Dear Anon. Please revert this change. Here the source "according to the [Pew Hispanic Center] the number of migrants coming to the United States each year, legally and illegally, grew very rapidly starting in the mid-1990s, hit a peak at the end of the decade, and then declined substantially after 2001. Further, by 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000. [1]. If the numbers are down then the fear that illegas are "pouring over our borders" is unfounded. Thank you. Morlesg 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does this source mention anything about "unfounded fear" or that much of the anti-immigration sentiment is rooted in it?71.74.209.82 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"In fact, the vast majority of immigrants in our country have entered legally under the strict standards imposed by the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Act allows approximately 800,000 people to settle here each year as permanent residents including about 480,000 who are admitted to reunite with their spouses, children, parents and/or siblings; about 140,000 who are admitted to fill jobs for which the U.S. Department of Labor has determined no American workers are available; about 110,000 refugees who have proven their claims of political or religious persecution in their homelands; and about 55,000 who are admitted under a "diversity" lottery, begun in 1990, that mainly benefits young European and African immigrants."

this article isn't about legal immigration

From the Christian Science Monitor: "Whatever the total is, the annual number of illegal immigrants has exceeded those coming legally for at least the past 10 years: 700,000 illegally compared with 610,000 legally, according to Pew." This seems like something that ought to be in the article.

technically, the claims regarding Buchanan and the Binational Study on Migration are unsourced and, so, should probably be deleted. But I'm going to leave them in there for now in the hopes that someone will source them soon.198.97.67.56 12:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please get a username, as your ISP is generating dymanic IP addresses and it is quite impossible to follow your edits. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would if I believed that the focus should be on the content provider rather than the content.71.74.209.82 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Purported Border Patrol Violations

The following has been deleted as it is unverifiable "The Border Patrol's broad and virtually unchecked power to turn people back at the border has led to a long and shameful history of unjustified government violence against men, women and children whose only crime is attempting to enter the U.S. from Mexico. The violence is often unprovoked. Beatings, sexual assaults and even fatal shootings by U.S. Border Patrol agents against unarmed Mexican nationals are far too common. Juanita Gomez' experience was not unique. In 1993 this 22-year-old woman crossed the Mexico-Arizona border to shop on the U.S. side. She was stopped by a Border Patrol agent who abducted Gomez in his official vehicle and raped her. In 1994, 37-year-old Mario Fernandez was spotted by a Border Patrol agent near the Mexico-California border. He was handcuffed, thrown to the ground, kicked in the jaw, and then denied medical treatment for two days while in detention. He later required three operations to repair his badly damaged jaw which had become infected. These and many other incidents have prompted Human Rights Watch to call the border situation "one of the worst police abuse problems in the country."

The violence also usually goes unpunished. Abusive Border Patrol agents are rarely held accountable for their actions, and, fearing reprisals, few victims file complaints. When complaints are filed, they are often ignored, inadequately investigated, or simply abandoned.

The violence is inhumane. One recently adopted Border Patrol tactic, Operation Gatekeeper, seeks to deter migrants from traditional passage routes. Although some anti-immigration zealots extol Operation Gatekeeper's success at border control, the human toll has been very high: In the first ten months of 1997 alone, at least 72 people have died trying to traverse treacherous alternative passages over 5,000-foot Tecate mountains or through the 120-degree heat of the Imperial desert."198.97.67.56 12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

economic impact edits

"Most economic experts who have studied the relationship between immigration and U.S. employment report that immigrants create more jobs than they fill. "

weasel words

"They do this by forming new businesses, raising the productivity of already established businesses, investing capital and spending dollars on consumer goods. "

unsourced

"A 1994 study by Ohio University researchers, for example, found "no statistically meaningful relationship between immigration and unemployment....[I]f there is any correlation, it would appear to be negative: higher immigration is associated with lower unemployment." Studies by the Rand Corporation, the Council of Economic Advisors, the National Research Council and the Urban Institute all came to the conclusion that immigrants do not have a negative effect on the earnings and the employment opportunities of native-born Americans."

The Urban Institute has concluded that "immigrants actually generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services." This is because undocumented workers, despite their ineligibility for most federal benefits, frequently have Social Security and income taxes withheld from their paychecks. In fact, immigrants pay substantially more in taxes every year than they receive in welfare benefits."

all of this needs to be properly cited and will be removed if it is not soon

"As a result, one commentator has pointed out, "a senior citizen on Social Security who lives in rural Kentucky is indirectly being subsidized by an immigrant who washes dishes in a chic restaurant in Santa Monica." Another commentator recently proposed that the best solution to the Social Security crisis caused by the aging of the baby boomers is to encourage immigration in order to create "instant adults" who will begin working immediately and paying into the Social Security system."

weasel words

"If the U.S. economy is to maintain at least 3 percent annual growth over the coming decade and beyond, the U.S. labor force must continue to expand. Without an adequate supply of workers, future economic prosperity and the rising standard of living that Americans have come to enjoy will be at risk. However, the rising demand for labor is unlikely to be met solely by a native-born population that is growing steadily older and has already achieved high levels of participation in the labor force. Since few additional workers can be culled from the native-born population, immigration has become a critical source of labor force growth. Yet current U.S. immigration policies remain largely unresponsive to labor demand. While policymakers continue to debate the relative merits of various immigration reform proposals, immigration beyond current legal limits already has become an integral component of U.S. economic growth and will remain so for the foreseeable future. A sensible immigration policy would acknowledge this reality by maintaining and regulating the flow of immigrant workers, rather than attempting to impose outdated immigration limits that actually would undermine U.S. economic growth, if they were enforced successfully."

no source

Anon edits

The edits by anon using multiple IP addresses is becoming a problem, as it is impossible to follow this editor's edits. This is becomeing in my view, disruptive of the editing process. Unless resolved, I will place a request at WP:RFPP to protect this article from new users and IP addresses. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. -Will Beback 21:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing I've done constitutes vandalism and, having just read the policies for protecting and semi-protecting pages, you've got no policy basis for having this page protected. I'm not going to submit to a threat.71.74.209.82 21:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there some reason you cannot get a username? Or, alternatively, to sign some name to your postings? It is very confusing for other editors. -Will Beback 21:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a policy which says that I need a policy name in order to edit posts? No. Whether or not I choose to get one then is my business and mine alone. Again, the focus should be on the content not who provides it.71.74.209.82 21:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Among other things, it is forbiddden to use different IP addresses to avoid the 3RR. In order to bettre identify who is who, we may have to start identifying those IPs which appear to belong to a single user, and to come up with a name for that user. You can pick one yourself or we can do it. -Will Beback 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has been warned already several times about disruption related to this article:

• Three times as User_Talk:71.74.209.82
• Twice as User talk:198.97.67.58
• Twice as User talk:198.97.67.57

On this basis alone, this editor IP addresses may be blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That should be interesting considering that I post from behind a firewall shared by several thousand people all of whom would find themselves assigned a name by an admin looking to institute his own policy regarding anon editors.71.74.209.82 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A username is not "attached" to an IP address. The IP address 71.74.209.82 is from RoadRunner, and the IP addresses on the 198.97.67.xx are from the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. You can have hundreds of usernames sharing the same IP address, as for example all AOL users. Getting a username affords you many benefits, as the ability to create a list of articles in a "watch list", and will help other editors follow your edits. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Running a trace on the IP is remarkably easy. Am I suppossed to be impressed? I'm an IT systems architect among other things. Yes, I'm aware that a username provides many benefits. You are aware that I don't want one. You are also aware that assigning a host of anon users the same default name isn't going to solve any problems.71.74.209.82 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Look 71.74.209.82, you have been warned seven times already about disruptive edits to this article. I would suggest you tone down your bellicosity. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

<<<<"You are also aware that assigning a host of anon users the same default name isn't going to solve any problems". I think that you may have a misunderstanding about how usernames work. A username is not attached to an IP address or a block of IP addresses. You can Login from your base, or via your RoadRunner high-speed connection, with one username. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Look 71.74.209.82, you have been warned seven times already about disruptive edits to this article." You tried an WP:RFFP calling me disruptive and it was immediately turned down. Now you are being petulent.71.74.209.82 22:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If at all, I would be petulant, not petulent. Nevertheless, VoiceofAll will hopefully review the situation, as it is clear now that you have engaged in disruptive behavior from at least three IP addresses. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I really hope he does and soon. Considering the policy violations and the threat to institute their own policy which has been done by admins on this page, considering that the only "disruptive" things I've done is stick to policy, considering that I've not engaged in vandalism, I'm looking forward to it.71.74.209.82 22:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No problems. I will place a request at WP:ANI, so other admins can look at this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What a load of bullshit. If anyone tells you that you need to register, report it to the admin noticeboard. You don't need to register, some editors are just talking shit here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tess Tickle (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I went ahead and registered but I really think I should copy this discussion and post it on the admin noticeboard anyway to make sure it is handled appropriately and they don't try this on anyone else.Psychohistorian 01:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Content Forking

There is substantial duplication of content between this article, the article on the illegal immigration debate, the article on anchor babies, the article on the 14th amendment, and several other articles. There should be a place for everything and everything in its place (we can link between these various articles as required). I recommend that the Anchor baby article be changed to Anchor baby/PRUCOL and that there be redirects from Anchor baby and PRUCOL to that article. I recommend that all relevant content (by which I mean all the content having to do with the legal status of children born of illegal aliens in the United States) from all the other articles be moved to that article and links put in those articles as placemarks for this material. I recommend that all content which is in debate or has been used by the debate be put in the illegal immigration debate article (that article would be the default for all content) and only that content which is of exceptional objective verifiability be put in this article. 198.97.67.59 11:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You can use these templates to request a conversation about mergin articles:

• {{mergeto}} - add a {{mergeto|PRUCOL}}, for example to the Anchor baby article
• {{mergefrom}} - add a {{mergefrom|Anchor bab}}, for example to the PRUCOL article

Concerning your last edit, please summarize the Pew Hspanic report cite text you added rather that pasting full quotes. Yoy can have a full quote as a footnote. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note that subarticles in the format Main article/sub topic are not used in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What has been provided is a summary and the statement cannot be shortened without losing relevant data.71.74.209.82 03:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Renew America

The direct quote from Renew America in which it defines itself was replaced with something which I have no idea where it came from. Why replace a direct quote with something the editor seems to have made up?198.97.67.59 11:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the edit summary, you will see where it comes from: the description metatag text of the website's home page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And how is that suppossed to be sourced in the article?71.74.209.82 20:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

By the use of {{cite web}} ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Renew America copyright violation

Currently we are using a full paragraph from the Renew America web site, specifically the article titled: Mexican government running US immigration policy--Part III[2], last paragraph on the page. The over all article is approximately 1954 words in length, of which this article is using approximately 195 words, or 10% of the total article. 10% of someone else’s article is not fair use by any definition that I can find. Part of the text is used in - Illegal border crossing-, and the other part is used in - Use of military to patrol border-.

Wikipedia:Fair use lists for text:

Brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked as an elipsis ([...]) or insertion ([added text]) or change of emphasis (emphasis added). All copyrighted text must be attributed.

In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.

Brimba 11:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please delete the offending text. Thanks for spotting it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it needs to be fixed. The problem is that, on one hand, we should quote people whenever discussing their position and on the other hand, we can't quote too much without risking copyright infringement. So, how much needs to be cut to avoid copytright infringement?71.74.209.82 22:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You can summarize the quote in the body of the article and then link to a footnote in which a short quote can be added. That is, of course, if the quote is attributed to a notable/reliable source. See WP:RS and WP:CITE. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

that's nice. It doesn't answer my question. How much needs to be cut to avoid copyright? What was already there was a summary. Its not a short enough of a summary. How short does it need to be to be a 'short enough summary'?71.74.209.82 22:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See fair use. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

According to that link, "it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy". The intent in this article was not to supersede the use of the orginal work or to substitute the review of it. So, there's no basis for saying that 10% is too much71.74.209.82 23:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why we aren't writing our own content

"Adding quotation marks etc. Still needs to be summarized, and the rational for its use needs to be clarified; i.e., why are we using someone’s copyrighted work when we could write are own." Because we aren't suppossed to be pulling content out of our backsides? Because Wikipedia values verifiability and citing experts? Because this is an encyclopedia, not a blog?71.74.209.82 23:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It follows that…

This section is clearly violates Wikipedia’s policy on Original Research - Wikipedia:No original research:

Major Craig T. Trebilock, a member of the Judge Advocate General's Corps in the U.S. Army Reserve stated, "The Posse Commitatus Act was passed to remove the Army from civilian law enforcement and to return it to its role of defending the borders of the United States." [49] By definition, a civilian is a citizen. [wwordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn] It follows that using the military to defend the natiion against the invasion of approximately half a million illegal immigrants a year is not the same as placing it in the role of civilian law enforcement. Therefore, using the military to defend the border is not against the policy of Posse Comitatus.

While you may be entirely correct in your conclusion, you need to cite sources (and no, I did not say “Cut and paste”).

The policy in a nut shell is stated as:

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

What you are looking for may very well be out there already, you just have to go find it. Please remember to follow Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Good luck. Brimba 00:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of unsourced content

"A 1994 study by Ohio University researchers, for example, found "no statistically meaningful relationship between immigration and unemployment....[I]f there is any correlation, it would appear to be negative: higher immigration is associated with lower unemployment." Studies by the Rand Corporation, the Council of Economic Advisors, the National Research Council and the Urban Institute all came to the conclusion that immigrants do not have a negative effect on the earnings and the employment opportunities of native-born Americans."

The Urban Institute has concluded that "immigrants actually generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services." This is because undocumented workers, despite their ineligibility for most federal benefits, frequently have Social Security and income taxes withheld from their paychecks. In fact, immigrants pay substantially more in taxes every year than they receive in welfare benefits."

has been deleted because it is unsourced71.74.209.82 14:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The exepected approach is to add {{fact}}, wait week or so, to see if there is an editor that can provide the references, and then delete, in particular as the text contains indications that there are such sources. I will revert. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

deletion of advocacy

"The Constitution does not give foreigners the right to enter the U.S.; but once here, it protects them from discrimination based on race and national origin and from arbitrary treatment by the government. Immigrants work and pay taxes; legal immigrants are subject to the military draft. Many immigrants have lived in this country for decades, married U.S. citizens, and raised their U.S.-citizen children. Laws that punish them violate their fundamental right to fair and equal treatment."

has been deleted as it is either unsourced or advocacy. I can't figure out which - maybe its both. If it is based on the 14th amendment, it is fallacious. The 14th amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The "fair and equal" clause applies to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" and illegal aliens have not been born or naturalized in the United States.71.74.209.82 14:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

ACLU position paper

An ACLU position paper "The Rights of Immigrants" cites a study by the Urban Institute in which it is stated that immigrants generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services. That study [3] focused on Washington DC and, so, did not factor in the effect at the state and community level and focused on immigrants who are mostly wealthy and not illegal immigrants. It is not connected with the subject of this article.71.74.209.82 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Not so (my highlights):

• "The metropolitan area is relatively affluent and boasts a strong economy that attracts large numbers of immigrants for jobs at both the high- and low-skilled ends of the labor market"
• "Troughout the report we refer to households headed by immigrants (whether citizens, legal immigrants, or unauthorized migrants) as “immigrant households” and compare their incomes and tax payments to households headed by native-born U.S. citizens."

You can add that the study was done in Washington DC, if so you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In the future, if there is a properly sourced statement with which you disagree, please do not delete and then ask. The expected etiquette is first ask and then delete if the response is not forthcoming in a few days and if the response is not compliant with WP content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You re-added more than the ACLU paper. Please provide where the following articles indicate that they are meant to apply to illegal immigration as well; the Rand article, the Vedder article (it doesn't), the Council of Economics Advisors article, and the Department of Labor study. As you requested, I'll give you a couple of days to do so before I remove them.71.74.209.82

All references are provided. These sources include POVs on the subject and relevant. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding uour own commentary on sources. From WP:NOR (my highlights):

"Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"All references are provided". Then source them. Where and how do these articles state that they reference illegal immigration? I'm trying to doublecheck them and you haven't properly sourced that fact. For example, you didn't source the quotes you made on Aug 7 above.Psychohistorian 23:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not all material has to be related directly to illegal immigration for it to be suitable. The material in that section provides good context related to the the subject. And please, when you add material, make an effort to summarize the cites instead of interpreting them. Leave the interpretation to our readers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, as was just pointed out by your misappropriation of the Urban Institute study. That study states, ""We find no substantial differences in the average tax payments or share of income paid in taxes between natives and immigrants, with one important exception: the unauthorized population. The reality is, as I've repeatedly stated, assuming that studies on immigration apply to illegal immigration is independent research. Unless you can prove that the stuies you've provided on immigration state that their study included illegal immigraton, I will remove them (not including the ACLU/Urban Institute reference which I expect you to remove right away).Psychohistorian 00:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The materials provided are all relevant to this subject. I do not intend to editwar with you, and if you continute to dispute its inclusion we will need to follow the dispute resolution process. Note that thanks to the Wiki software, all the material that is added, and later deleted, is still available and can be resurected with a couple of keystrokes, so I am not worried about your threats for deletion. I would suggest that you read WP:DR. Its first step is to place an request for comment, which I would do as soon as you delete the sourced material, which I consider to be relevant and useful context for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you are going to do it anyway, then I'll just go ahead and delete the stuff now.Psychohistorian 01:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment placed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Economy_and_trade ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Urban Institute study deletion

Why was the citation from Urban Insititute deleted? It addresses undocumented workers. See below (my highlight). Are "undocumented workers" not "illegal immigrants"?≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Urban Institute has concluded that 'immigrants actually generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services.' This is because undocumented workers, despite their ineligibility for most federal benefits, frequently have Social Security and income taxes withheld from their paychecks. In fact, immigrants pay substantially more in taxes every year than they receive in welfare benefits". This study was conducted in the migrant population of Washington, DC.<<ref>The Urban Institute ''Civic Contributions: Taxes Paid by Immigrants in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area'' [http://www.urban.org/Publications/411338.html Available online] </ref>

• The link to the study is [here]. It is titled, "Civic Contributions: Taxes paid by Immigrants in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area". It has one reference to "illegal immigration" (it is quoted in the RfC). It has three references to "Undocumented" and they are "The share of immigrants who were legal permanent residents (LPRs) in 2000 (27 percent) was nearly the same as the unocumented share and again matched the national pattern."
• "Grant temporary or permanent work authorization to undocumented immigrants"
• "Salvadorans we classified as undocumented"

Psychohistorian 02:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems, then, that the article is relevant. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

PRUCOL

I removed the mention PRUCOL under "Citizenship and the children of immigrants". It had a [citation needed] for a few days an noboby provided support for the statement.

According to the Department of Labor, in defining who is and isn't elegible for unemployment compensation they define PRUCOL as:

Quote. The phrase "permanently residing in the United States under color of law" applies only to the following classes of aliens:

Aliens admitted to the U.S. as conditional entrants under Section 203(a)(7) or as parolees under Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 3304(a)(14)(A), FUTA, specifically includes these aliens in the PRUCOL category. Note: Section 203(a)(7) was repealed by Section 203(c)(3) of the Refugee Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-212) and replaced under Section 201(b) of the Refugee Act with Sections 207 and 208. Under Section 203(h) of the Refugee Act, Section 203(a)(7) is applicable prior to April 1, 1980. In addition, Section 203(h) provides that, effective April 1, 1980, any reference in Federal law to Section 203(a)(7) is considered a reference to new Sections 207 and 208. INA Section 207 relates to refugees and INA Section 208 to asylees, both of which are, therefore, considered PRUCOL under Section 3304(a)(14)(A), FUTA.

Aliens presumed to have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence even though they lack documentation of their admission to the United States. See Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) regulations at 8 C.F.R. Part 101. A list of these groups and the documents that are issued to them by the INS are provided in Supplement #3 of the Draft Language and Commentary to Implement the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976-P.L. 94-566.

Aliens who, after a review of their circumstances under INS statutory or regulatory procedures, have been granted a lawful immigration status that allows them to remain in the U.S. for an indefinite period of time.

To be in PRUCOL status, an alien must meet a two-part test. First, the alien must be residing in the U.S. "under color of law." For an alien to be residing "under color of law," the INS must know of the alien's presence, and must provide the alien with written assurance that enforcement of deportation is not planned. Second, the alien must be "permanently residing" in the U.S. This term is not defined in FUTA. However, "permanent" is defined in Section 101(a)(31). Unquote.

For more information see "UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 01-86, Change 1" (2/16/89) [4]. It has nothing to do with children born to undocumented workers. Morlesg 20:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

RFC Summary

An editor is arguing for the deletion of sourced material, based on his assertion that the material is not relevant to this article as it is not directly related to "illegal immigration". The editor that added the material, asserts that it is relevant and provides context. See Diff]

Comments by involved editors

The material that is being deleted is relevant to this article as it provides context to the illegal immigration debate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To support the view that illegal immigrants do not have a negative affect on the economy, Jossi added an article to an ACLU article on immigration (not specifically illegal immigration) which referred to an Urban Institute study which stated the following "We find no substantial differences in the average tax payments or share of income paid in taxes between natives and immigrants, with one important exception: the unauthorized population." which is the opposite of how Jossi attempted to use the article. It is clear from this example that we cannot assume that the findings of studies on immigration necessarily translate to illegal immigration. As a result, we must ensure that studies in this article specifically state that they include illegal immigration.Psychohistorian 01:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That study addresses undocumented workers and their tax contribution to the economy. See #Urban_Institute_study_deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it says the opposite of what you claim it says. It makes clear that the economics of legal immigration do not translate to the ecoomics of illegal immigration so we need to use studies which specifically focus on illegal immigration.Psychohistorian 02:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That in itself makes it a good source. You could add a citation ot that effect, as well as to include that "'immigrants actually generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services.' This is because undocumented workers, despite their ineligibility for most federal benefits, frequently have Social Security and income taxes withheld from their paychecks. In fact, immigrants pay substantially more in taxes every year than they receive in welfare benefits". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are willing to acknowledge that studies on immigration don't necessarily translate to illegal immigration (and, so, stop treating studies on immigration as if they do in the article), I have no problem putting in the article this example of how that's the case.Psychohistorian 02:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that studies about immigration in the US include both legal and illegal immigration, as both are intrinsically linked. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to assume that's true only when they specifically say so, else that assumpton constitutes original research - especially in light of the fact that we already have sources which show that the economics of legal immigration and illegal immigration are different.Psychohistorian 11:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments by editors responding to this RfC

• - In my view, the information is relevant and it should be "present", if not in this article in another. I believe Psycohistorian has a point when he says that they aren't directly related to illegal immigration. What I read seems to refer to all kinds of immigration, what means it also refers to illegal immigration, so it makes sense to have it here. Perhaps the solution would be to identify the specific points described by the articles and analyse if them apply or not to illegal immigration. Pointing the differences between the legal and illegal variants could be very interesting. MJGR 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that, however, is that several of the sources which are presented make clear that their findings do not translate to illegal immigration. Also, a comparison between illegal and legal immigration should be in the general Immigration in the United States article, not here.Psychohistorian 11:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If Psycohistorian is right and some sources do not translate to illegal immigration I believe it's correct to remove them from this article and place them in the general article Immigration in the United States. Probably a reference in this article to the "general" entry and the comparison between immigration variants would be useful. Perhaps a solution would be to state clearly why both of you believe that every cited source is related explicitly to illegal immigration or not. MJGR 06:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• -

Stating clearly why both of us believe that every cited source is related explicitly to illegal immigration or not is a very good idea. But if there is no comment in the discussion page on it, I should be allowed to follow policy and remove it. Also, if there are studies which state that they are covering illegal immigration and they conflict with other studies which throw all immigration into a common pot, it should be made clear that the general article on immigration should not have the same level of significance as the article on illegal immigration in the context of illegal immigration.Psychohistorian 11:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If a general study about immigration states that its findings are inapplicable to illegal immigration, then there hardly appears to be any basis for dispute: it could be appropriate for some other Wikipedia article but not here. If this becomes a pattern where several studies either deny applicability to undocumented immigration or report different patterns for documented and undocumented immigrants, then it becomes reasonable to challenge all citations to sources that cover immigration in a general sense without specifically addressing the special case of undocumented immigrants. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who wants to include a reference. This is no reflection of a political viewpoint on my part, just my understanding of Wikipedia policies. Regards, Durova 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• this blanking without any edit summary is shocking. All notable parities and their options should be included, including the ACLU statment regarding undocumented workers. JBKramer 17:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Rand Study deletion

"please do not add commentary, in particular when it is incorrect. The book in question discusses immigration including illegal" provide evidence of that or the comment will be returned to the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychohistorian (talk • contribs)

Read the book. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If that's the best you can do, the cite is going to be deleted.Psychohistorian 15:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is considerable information about undocumented workers, impact of illegal immigration of taxes and services, and more. It cites several recources, such as

• Romero, Philip J., Andrew J. Chang, and Theresa Parker ( 1994). Shifting the Costs of a Failed Federal Policy: The Net Fiscal Impact of Illegal Immigrants in California, Sacramento, Calif.: Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State of California, September.
• Parker, Richard A., and Louis M. Rea ( 1993). Illegal Immigration in San Diego County: An Analysis of Costs and Revenues, Report to the California State Senate Special Committee on Border Issues, California Legislature Sacramento, Calif.: September.;
• Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) ( 1996a). Immigration Fact Sheet, Illegal Alien Population: October 1992, Washington, D.C.: INS.; and
• Edmonston, Barry, and Ronald Lee, eds. ( 1996). Local Fiscal Effects of Illegal Immigration, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

I would kindly request you lower your "tone" and threats for deletion/reverting/adding editorial comments. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, Psychohistorian, it is clear that you advocate against illegal immigration, and that I have an opposing viepoint. And it is also clear that it is very probable we will be editing this article together for a while. We have two options: fight against each other in a useless edit war, or collaborate to make this article an excellent one. I would want to engage on the latter. In my experience in Wikipedia, which is quite substantial, I have yet to see anything won in an edit war, besides aggravation. Let's agree that this subject is highly contentious and that there are fervent advocates at both sides of the political divide. If we simply stick with reporting what these opposing viewpoits are and their main proponents, that will be great. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm just growing impatient with you claiming sources say something and then, when I doublecheck them, finding out that they do not. A little integrity on your part wouldn't hurt.Psychohistorian 15:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. That is policy and the basis for collaborating in this project. You can politely ask for the reasons I have included the material, and I will do the best to provide a substantive argument for its inclusion. As for your comment about my integrity, I would advise you to comment on the edits and not on the person making the edits. See another policy: WP:NPA. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an example of the need for a little integrity that I'm talking about. My comments about your tendency to provide sources which fall apart upon double checking them was no more personal than your comments about my tone. You harassed me about editing anonymously, again making it personal. But you try to claim the moral high ground on that point. You have consistently deleted content without commenting ahead of time in the discussion board, but you ask that I give you the courtesy of discussion in the talk pages before making any deletions of my own. I have pointed out extensively how your edits have been against guidelines and policies and you've insisted on an edit war anyway. Do not take the moral highground with me when I've seen the lack of integrity behind it.Psychohistorian 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not abut "moral high ground". The issue here is if you want to collaborate or you prefer to edit war. I will not engage on the latter as it is a royal waste of time. All my deletions, which I did not commented on were direct violation of WP:NOT. You deleted properly sourced material on the basis that it was not relevant material. Ther is a big difference: I have provided sources for each an every one of my edits, while you have added your own comments and opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Harassment and Request for Mediation

Having harassed me about being an anon editor and failing, having his request to have me shut out of this article creation on the grounds of being disruptive immediately turned down, Jossi is now threatening me with having my account blocked for vandalism on the grounds of deleting content despite the fact that deletion of content is well within policy (except when it is made in a deliberate attempt to compromose the integrity of the encyclopedia - which he hasn't shown). At this point I feel I have no choice but to elevate the issue of his ongoing abuse of his admin status and am making a request for mediation. I am posting this notice here so that other people who have been witness to what has happened in this article can be made aware of it and can respond accordingly.71.74.209.82 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a complaint about your behavior at WP:ANI#User_talk:71.74.209.82. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As per your deletions, which prompted my warnings on your page, please do not delete material that is properly sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am lodging a formal complaint which cant be done from WP:ANI. Do you agree to arbitration or should I just elevate the issue beyond that?Psychohistorian 02:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said in my talk page, Arbitration is the last resort in WP:DP. You may lodge a complaint at WP:ANI, if you believe it is related to my duties as an administrator of Wikipedia. By the way, and before I make a request for checkuser to confirm this, are 71.74.209.82 and you the same person? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 71.74.209.82 and I are the same person.Psychohistorian 02:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Care to explain why did you delete material that was properly sourced, and that referred to illegal immigration, and thus being pertinet to this article? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it wasn't relevant to the economics issuePsychohistorian 03:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that is ws unrelated. It was. Nevertheless, if you want us to assume good faith, you could have moved the material to a more appropriate section instead of deleting it. Care to explain why you did not? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Simply because I didn't think of it at the time.Psychohistorian 04:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. What about this. We give amnesty to each other, tabula rasa, and start afresh? OK? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

So that you can wait for it all to blow over and then start doing the same crap? I have turned the other cheek many many times already and you are only looking to start fresh when I start bringing your abuse to higher powers?Psychohistorian 11:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand from the above that you reject my offer. Well, at least I tried. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Border crossing

The section about alleged abuses by the border patrol, is more appropriate to be located in the section about "Border crossing". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The core issue here is, I think, to what extent "fair and equal" should legally apply to illegal immigrants. That's a legal issue.Psychohistorian 13:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing the subject, my opinions on the matter I keep to myself. As an editor of Wikipedia, I am only interested in reporting what reliable sources say about the subject, describing all significant viewpoints from both sides of the divide. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not interested in discussing the subject? If you have no comment on the move of the content to the legal section, then I will go ahead and move it back there.Psychohistorian 16:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing the subject. I am interested in discussing the article, which I have done above: The section about alleged abuses by the border patrol, is more appropriate to be located in the section about "Border crossing". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I kindly request that you restore that text to the appropriate section. 'I refuse to editwar with you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It is where it should be. Its nice that you aren't going to editwar any more, but that doesn't mean that I have to do something which I think lowers the quality of the article.Psychohistorian 03:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No. It is not. The legal section has nothing to do with that material. Allegation of abuses at the border, need to be locate in the section that discusses the border. And when I said I do not want to edit war with you, I mean that I refuse to be drawn into useless edit wars, as the ones you are attempting to instigate with your deletions, moving around materials, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of military to defend border

Links to other articles explaining their relationship to this article should be included. It is important and relevant information. Deletion of information which is important and relevant is discouraged by wiki guidelines.Psychohistorian 13:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not deleted anything. It was an emtpy section with a duplicated entry. Links to other articles are included in the "See also" section Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#See_also, as per the style guide. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rand study

"McCarthy and Vernez believe that many of the immigrants settling in the state of California are not likely to be integrated successfully, and that the policy of the federal government need to change. Their book, that was sponsored by the Department of Defense and several foundations, concludes with three recommendations for the federal government:

reduce total immigration from the current 1.2 million per year (900,000 legal and 300,000 illegal) to between 300,000 and 800,000 a year; expand the number of legal immigration slots available for Mexicans, in exchange for Mexican help to reduce illegal immigration; and encourage immigrants to learn English and to naturalize. The report also recommends that the state of California do more to help immigrants succeed in school, to encourage English learning and naturalization, and to establish a state office of immigrant affairs to help residents understand immigration better.[10]"

Explain exactly how this is relevant to the issue of the economic impact of illegal immigrants.Psychohistorian 16:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is not that obvious? Nevertheless, maybe you can find a better place in this article for that material. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If its that obvious, you'll have no trouble explaining it.Psychohistorian 19:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the article? If not, I invite you to do what I have done: Go to your loacal libary, get a copy of the book and read it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

We aren't discussing the entire article, just the part I quoted above.Psychohistorian 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For me it is obvious that it is related, just by reading the quotation, but as I said, you are welcome to move that material to a section that you believe is more appropriate. Please note that your efforts will be more rewarding if you research and add some well referenced materials yourself, rather than challenge each one of the additions I make. A round trip to the library, works wonders. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have done research (remember? that's how I've learned that many of the sources you've provided don't actually say what you claim they do).Psychohistorian 20:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing this article is becoming too toxic for my liking. I will not edit this article for a while, but I will keep it on my watchlist to address any attempts to remove properly sourced material from the article. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Illegal border crossing section

This section starts with a reference to an article that its not clear which one is it. In addition there are several statements about which references have been requested and none forthcoming. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Borer Patrol abuse

I recommend that "Allegations of Border Patrol abuse

Jesus A. Trevino, concludes in an article published in the Houston Journal of International Law (2006) with a request to create an independent review commission to oversee the actions of the Border Patrol, and that creating such review board will make the American public aware of the "serious problem of abuse that exists at the border by making this review process public" and that "illegal immigrants deserve the same constitutionally-mandated humane treatment of citizens and legal residents". [13]

An article by Journal article by Michael Huspek, Leticia Jimenez, Roberto Martinez (1998) cites that in December 1997, John Case, head of the INS Office of Internal Audit (OIA), announced at a press conference that public complaints to the INS had risen 29% from 1996, with the "vast majority" of complaints emanating from the southwest border region, but that of of the 2,300 cases, the 243 cases of serious allegations of abuse were down in 1997. These serious cases are considered to be distinct from less serious complaints, such as "verbal abuse, discrimination, extended detention without cause." be moved to the illegal immigration debate article as it describes an activist position and activism is more central to the debate.Psychohistorian 02:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No. The material is related to this article. Please do not delete properly sourced material ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's more reasons to delete material than whether or not it is properly sourced. It is more relevant to the debate and to put it in both places wil lead to a content fork.Psychohistorian 03:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. If you want to merge the articles as you wanted (you added the merge tag), please merge. But do not delete properly sourced and pertinent material from this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to do here. As I suggested, "I recommend that all content which is in debate or has been used by the debate be put in the illegal immigration debate article (that article would be the default for all content) and only that content which is of exceptional objective verifiability be put in this article."--Psychohistorian 11:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such a thing as "exceptional objective verifiability" as a policy in this project. Each and all articles have to comply with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. And there is no distinction between one article and another. The material you are disputing contains verifiable information made by reliable, and verifiable sources. On the other hand, there is material in this article that is unsourced and thus unverifiable. Put your effort there to make this article better. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Noone is talking about deleting content (that is, removing it from Wikipedia). We are talking about 1.) Whether the same content should be in two different articles (it shouldn't as that would cause content forking) and 2.) Given that, which of these two articles is this content most relevant to (I believe it belongs in the debate article). I am aware that there is content in this article which is unsourced and am planning to look for a source this weekend. If I can't find it, I'll delete that content. I know of no content in the article which is unverifiable, just content which is currently unverified. I'll put my effort where I choose to to make this article better thank you very much. Are you going to take a break from this article or not?Psychohistorian 15:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not editing the article. I am making comments to ensure that material pertinent to this article does not get deleted. The material in question, is highly relevant to this article. FYI, content forking does not relate to duplication of material. On the contrary, content forking (rather POV fork) is related to creating articles along the lines of viewpoints. See WP:POVFORK. POV forks are not acceptable in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy and Vernez

I've moved this content, but now that I'm looking at it in isolation, I see that it is not specifically about illegal immigration. As such, it isn't relevant to the article. Either a convincing case needs to be made for it, an RfC needs to be made, or it needs to be deleted.Psychohistorian 15:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Zogby

You forgot to mention that the poll was commisioned by the advocay group Americans for Immigration Control [5]. Also note that as you are not citing the Zogby poll directly (because you may not have access to it), you must attribute your cite to www.worldnetdaily.com, and not to Zogby. See WP:CITE#Intermediate_sources:_State_where_you_got_it ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that Zogby's poll was unscientific?--Psychohistorian 11:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not insinuating anything. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Great, then why do we need to cite that it was commissioned by an advocacy group?--Psychohistorian 14:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a verifiable fact. Also note that as you do not have access to the poll data, you needs to cite the newspaper in which it ws mentioned. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirection?

I do not see any discussion or consensus for the blanking of this article and redirection to a non existent aticle. If a name change is wanted. the article can be "moved", but only after discussion and agreement. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I mislabeled the redirection. It should have gone here "United States immigration debate" which we agreed on.--Psychohistorian 14:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so..

1. A "merge" was discussed, that means combining the two articles into one
2. The merge was proposed by you, but not agreed to. You need to ask for consensus for such merge.

Please revert. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that there is no consensus for such merge. You are doing this unilateraly and that is not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The tags have been on the pages for quite some time. Noone has said anything against them. You have stated, "If you want to merge the articles as you wanted (you added the merge tag), please merge". So, as per Wiki policy, I am being bold in doing this.--Psychohistorian 15:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Being bold is great in some situations, but not in one in which there are content disputes. I object to such a merge for reasons already explained. This article is about illegal immigration, not about a debate about it. As such it should stand alone. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You told me to "please merge". Now that the merge has occured and you've changed your mind, you need to go through the standard procedures to split it up.--Psychohistorian 15:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Border Patrol abuse

Your change implies that Border Patrol abuse is not a crime. That makes it a point of dispute. If you are intent in making this change, request an RfC first.Psychohistorian 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The section heading of "abuse", under criminal activity, indicates that we are talking about criminal abuse. Some added comments are editorial in nature, rather than NPOV statements ("Note that complaints are not the same as proven incidences".) The use of the word "despite" in another sentence implies that it is a contradiction for some guards to allow aliens in while other guards use excess force. Both can be true. The assertion adds nothing to the article. -Will Beback 19:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Border patrol abuse of illegals is a criminal act. An editorial states an opinion about an article, the statement about complaints not being the same as proven incidences is a statement of fact, not an editorial. If it were stated as "these are complaints, not proven incidences, and should be dismissed", that would be an editorial. I changed the wording regarding "despite" to address the problem you have there.Psychohistorian 19:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Border patrol abuse of illegals is a criminal act". Maybe. We are talking here of specific allegations of abuse. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Format and refs

Please use the proper format for these ({{cite web}}. Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Border agent gets 5 years for smuggling
• U.S. probes 'green cards for sex'
• Border agent pleads guilty to harboring illegal entrant
• Border agent said to also be smuggler
• Border agent accused of hiding an illegal entrant
• U.S. border agent indicted

Immigration with and without quotas

Why is this section, which clearly discusses the history of quotas, not being left in the history section?198.97.67.59 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's in the "legal" section, and discusses the immigration law and its effect on illegal imigration. It seems to me that half of it could be deleted, as it restates a disucssion of immigration law found elsewhere. -Will Beback 19:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like very much to delete that part of the article which is basically repeated elsewhere. A huge chunk of the Birth citizenship part is almost word for word from the 14th Amendment article. We could just link to those other articles and remove the redundancy here. However, I've been prevented from doing so so far.Psychohistorian 19:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the only part of this section which has to do with immigration today is the following "In 2006 legal immigrants to the United States now number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States are now at their highest level ever at over 35,000,000. Net Illegal immigration has also soared from about 130,000 per year in the 1970's, to 300,000+ per year in the 1980's to over 500,000 per year in the 1990's to over 700,000 per year in the 2000's. Total illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year [in 2006] with a net of at least 700,000 more illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already here. (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[67], [68])". It has nothing to do with the legal aspects of today's situation and could be moved to a more appropriate location. What remains is historical and not directly related to today's situation.Psychohistorian 23:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the article tomorrow and see of we cna reduce duplication with other articles. -Will Beback 06:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not just delete stuff. This section could sure use a major rewrite and cleanup. One of the points that must be covered is birthright citizenship as it is one of the most significant controversies. I do not know how you could talk about that without mentioning the 14th Amendment. I disagree with Psychohistorian's suggestion because the number of illegal immigrants is already covered elsewhere in the artlicle.Morlesg 09:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda

I have to admit that I'm torn on the issue of removing these videos. I understand their lack of value as source documents when stating fact. They have been neither peer-reviewed nor published in a general news source. But on the other hand, I think they are interesting records themselves exploring how some people feel about the illegal immigration issue and the explanations they give for feeling that way. It might be beneficial to create a seperate "sources from advocacy groups" section at the bottom of the page. Honestly, I'm not convinced either way on the issue, but I think its something worth discussing.

However, since all documents provided by advocacy groups should be considered propaganda, if we are going to start removing propaganda, we have to remove all documents and statements from advocacy groups or based on statements by advocates and as there is no policy which differentiates between different parts of the article, we will need to remove such documents from everywhere in the article that they appear. Whatever we do, we must be consistent and in line with Wiki policy.Psychohistorian 11:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. As per Wikipedia content policies, significant views described in reliable sources either pro or con, can and should be included. All other material, should be mercilessly deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The anti-Aztlan movement is significant.Psychohistorian 15:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The videos seem to have ben produced by one of the regular immigration reduction organizations, either CAPS or ImmigrationWatch. I've never heard of the "anti-Aztlan movement", but that may be another name for the anti-immigrant or nativist movements. -Will Beback 21:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You and I are using the term "movement" in different ways here. You are using it to refer to what I call a "party" or "group". I am using it to refer to a social movement. A social movement is defined as, "comprised of individuals, groups and organizations united by a common purpose or goal." CAPS and ImmigrationWatch are groups who are members of the overall movement.Psychohistorian 22:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits

• Added information about the cases of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service employes controversies, as reported by the sources. Note that the sources do not speak of "Boder Patrol" per se, but of CIS employees in general
• Added date of report (Sept 2005)
• Divided the section accordingly

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Study

There is an excellent study, recently conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back106.html) in which the connection between legal and illegal information is presented. There is good and recent material there, including many very interesting charts, that we could use to enhance this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons of legal and illegal immigration belong in an article whose scope includes both. That's Immigration in the United States, not here.Psychohistorian 01:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, these two articles would have been merged, but that is not the case. Information and material about illegal immigration can be presented here including the connection between illegal and legal immigration. Note that this study is not a "comparison" rather about a "connection", hence I intend to include substantial information from this study into this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"If that is the case, these two articles would have been merged". There's a lot of material (in fact, most material in this article) that is specific to illegal immigration and does not include a comparision to legal immigration. Information about the connection between illegal and legal immigration can be presented here only if your goal is to destroy the scope of the article. I recommend an RfC before you wreck the article.Psychohistorian 12:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion about an RfC, but these are not a replacement for dialog between editors. Material that is pertinent to an article can, should and would be inserted. If the article grows too big, that is never a problem as we can alwyas spin off a new article and summarize the article here. As for your assertion about "wrecking" the article, there is no chance of that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You aren't interested in a dialogue between editors. A comparison between legal and illegal immigration is not pertinant to an article on illegal immigration. Its like comparing apples and oranges in an article about oranges. Such a comparison would belong in an article on fruit, not one that focuses on oranges.Psychohistorian 14:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy fails in many ways. The article about immigration can benefit from material that assesses the impact of immigration as a whole. An article on apples will not benefit from material about oranges. And please, for the nth time, stop failing from assuming good faith of editors that you don't agree with. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"The article about immigration can benefit from material that assesses the impact of immigration as a whole." I don't doubt that. That's why the material is a good candidate for submission to the immigration article. This, however, is the illegal immigration article and need to stay within the scope of illegal immigration. To include legal immigration even as a comparison is to go beyond the scope of this article. Consequently, the material you want to add isn't pertinant to this article.Psychohistorian 14:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As said before, it is not about "comparison" between one and the other, but about "connection" between one and the other. That is not pertinant, but pertinent. Read the report... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a very few statements in that article which do fall within the scope here. Some of them are as follows, "The share of the foreign-born population who are illegal aliens has risen steadily. Illegal aliens made up 21 percent of the foreign-born in 1980, 25 percent in 2000, and 28 percent in 2005." "Anchor babies" provide[s] opportunities for many aliens to plant roots in the United States. Those aliens might not otherwise have done so." "In the 1980s ..the nation absorbed .., by most estimates, at least 2 million illegal [immigrants]. " "A Congressional Research Service report from 1977 indicates that INS estimates of the illegal alien population in the mid-1970s ranged from 1 million to 12 million. CRS cites a Cabinet-level task force, which concluded that "hard data on illegal aliens is virtually non-existent." Many citations of the mid-20th century decades seemed to extrapolate from the number of deportable aliens apprehended. See Joyce Vialet, "Illegal Aliens: Analysis and Background," (77-47 ED), Congressional Research Service, February 16, 1977."

But its like picking a needle out of a haystack.Psychohistorian 15:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Population Size

Under the IP 74.225.89.228 (sorry forgot to sign in) i did a major rewrite of the section on population size. Including formating most of the references. The section now reads as a single article instead of a tug of war between two sides. I hope we can all use this to move forward; please do not simply roll back this effort; add to it! Thank you. Morlesg 08:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 12:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your idea of a major rewrite is burying the material that isn't actually redundant?Psychohistorian 12:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? What do you mean by that? Are you saying the Morlesg's work on the article was deisgned to "bury" material? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith on his part, I'm just questioning the end result.Psychohistorian 14:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The end result is pretty good. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion. It is easy to see, however, that it buries relevant material deep within redundant material.Psychohistorian 14:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What material is redundant? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the content in that section is redundant with Anchor baby or the article on the 14th Amendment.

By the way, there was a massive amount of sourced data which was removed from the article by Morlesg without explanation (for example, the table on remitances, the detail on how the illegal immigration pop is calculated, and there's a -lot- more.). He also didn't follow the custom of tagging unsourced content and waiting a week before removing it. I'm going to have to go back through his twenty or so edits and piece the article back together from his damage. That's going to take a couple of hours I suspect.Psychohistorian 15:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Morlesg and I are in agreemnt that the edit should stay. You, on the other hand, disagree. That is no basis for the reversion of that edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The basis for the reversion I provided is that relevant, sourced information was removed.Psychohistorian 19:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If that is the issue, then re-add the material that was lost rather than reverting. That is called collaboratve editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I did. If you had taken the time to review my changes, you would have seen that. I went through each change Morlsg did and weighed wether it was justifiable or not. I took the most recent post you made and put it in a word document. I then went through each of the 20 or so edits Morlsg did in reverse order and weighed whether it was justifiable or not. Over half of them were and I didn't undo them. The other half I then cut and pasted into the word document. Building backwards, I spent about an hour and a half making sure that I left what were justifiable changes he did and undid what were not. The only one of us who -just- did a revert is yourself. Next time, review changes before reverting them.Psychohistorian 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I, too, think Morlesg did a good job. We should avoid giving the Bear Sterns info too much weight, as it uses an odd methodology. -Will Beback 20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot more changes that were done than just the Bear Sterns info. However, it should be pointed out that the Bear Sterns info intersects with the PEW research really well and that gives the Bear Sterns info more weight.Psychohistorian 21:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are some of the other changes that were done.

• The original article states, "foreign born residents particularly illegal immigrants" and was changed by Morlsg to "illegal immigrants". It was done without explanation and means something completely different given that foreign born residents may be legal immigrants. There's no 100% overlap there.

The way it was written had two problems: (1) Why would foreign born Legal residenta have any "possible reasons for not reporting their presence" they are in the US lebally and have nothing to fear; and (2) I did leave the comment on census under reportin foreign born illegals because the explanation made sense. Maybe I should have taken it out as it was unsourced. In fact, what "language and communication problems" could there be if the census forms are available in Spanish (and other languages)??Morlesg 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• "at a more-or-less steady rate" was removed by Morlsg without explanation. It is information which is well sourced and relevant (changes in rate are as important as rate of change itself). Again, he gave no explanation.

Sorry, I did not see "more-or-less steady rate" in the original article and found the words to be (to borrow a term you have used in the past) weasel words. Maybe if you had quoted the grouth number or the growth rate from the source it would have looked better. Morlesg 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• The remittances table was deleted because, it was claimed, the information was already in the article. But, as one can easily see, it is not.

The table is not included in the original Bear Stearn article. The way it was written claimed to be quoting information from the Mexican Central Bank website and that was a .... (to use a kind word) mistake. Morlesg 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Morlsg claimed that the article which makes an arguement for illegal immigration being twice as high as the official figures suggest does not actually prove that the correct number is around 20 million. He's right after a fashion. The article explains in detail its argueemnt for why the actual number is twice the official number and the official number is 9 million and it states that the number may be as high as 20 million.

For once I'm right. Thank you.Morlesg 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• An exploration of the history of remittances by illegals is relevant to the article and was sourced but was removed by Morlsg without explanation.

Sorry, I removed an explanation of the change in remittance data that was editorialized to explain why the data did not match the intended argument. There is an article on remittances where you can include all the history. As remittances are done by most immigrants and not only by illegals it's importance to this topic may be secondary. But by all means include it in the right place. Morlesg 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please lets make this article the best it can be; lets present both pro and con arguments and label them clearly as such. We are wasting way too much time with the personal discussion. I surely intend no provocation and have sat back quietly every time you have rolled back my work. I hope this time you can be a bit more respectful. Thank you. Morlesg 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Remittances

The published Bear Stearn report does not present the methodology to go from the growth of remitances to the growth of illegals. At least I could not see it after several readings, but I may have missed it. How do the researchers account for which % of the remittances is done by Mexican Americans legaly living in the US and what % is done by illegals??. Maybe the reason it's not in the report is because it cannot be done. Get this scenario: the number of illegal immigrants stays the same; but because the legal immigrants are getting richer they are increasing the amount they send back. That could account for the increase in remittances.

Anyway, if we are talking about finance the source is fantastic; but just because someone likes the numbres it does not make them better numbres that the "oficial" numbres from the US government. Oh yes! I removed the reference (editorial) that Homeland Security had given up on estimating a number because it was too hard!!

Sorry, I'm ranting. I need a clarification on the remittance data presented in the table. It was my understanding that, this being an encyclopedic article, we were not in the business of creating original content. Pasting togethjer data from many different sources to make it appear as if the BS (sorry, Bear Stearns) investigators actually present data to support their conclussions does not seem to be the correct practice. Should the table be removed? Thank you. Morlesg 21:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No disrespect was intended. I was and am concerned only with the end result and you removed a lot of sourced and relevant content without explanation. Let me remind you that I found most of your edits justifiable and I left them in. For example, you just mentioned that you removed the statement about Homeland Security finding it too hard to get actual numbers. If you look at the changes I did, you'll see that I didn't put that statement back in the article. Let me say the same thing to you that I did to Jossi. Before you criticize the work I did, make sure you at least read the article in its present form. I spent an hour and a half looking at your edits because I knew you had good intent and I didn't want to undo anything positive that you did. But, having said that, noone said that the Bear Stearn numbers were better than the Homeland Security numbers. Providing numbers from as many significant studies as possible does make sense. We can have both the Homeland Security numbers and the Bear Stearn. We can point out that the Bear Stearn numbers are independently confirmed with the PEW studies.

Yes, lets focus on building the best article possible. I have never, to the best of my knowledge, removed data which met all the following criteria 1.) focused on illegal immigration 2.) was sourced 3.) was from a non-advocacy source which explained how they got their data AND 4.) was pro-illegal immigration. I know I've never done it without comment. Almost none of your edits that I was objecting to had any comment as to why they were being done until now. "The table is not included in the original Bear Stearn article." This was one of the few edits you did which did have comment and you stated that it was removed because the data existed elsewhere in the article, not that it wasn't included in the original Bear Stearn article. "Sorry, I did not see "more-or-less steady rate" One can easily see that by eyeballing the remittances table from the Bank of Mexico. I'll give a more detailed reply later today.Psychohistorian 12:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You say: I have never, to the best of my knowledge, removed data which met all the following criteria 1.) focused on illegal immigration 2.) was sourced 3.) was from a non-advocacy source which explained how they got their data AND 4.) was pro-illegal immigration.

Material in Wikipedia articles do not follow the "standard" you have created, it follows WP:V and WP:NPOV.

• If material is "pro" ilegal immigration, it can be included if it is described by a secondary reliable source, same for "anti" illegal immigration.
• If material is from an advocacy either pro or con, and their viewpoints are significant, these can be included as well, providing of course, that there are reliable secondary sources that describe them
• Arriving to a decision about which material is pertinet in wich material is not, is for editors to reach consensus about.

I would suggest that you take these issue in ind when you do your edits. It will save a lot of time and aggravation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"If material is "pro" illegal immigration, it can be included if it is described by a secondary reliable source". That's just another way of saying what I said.

"If material is from an advocacy either pro or con, and their viewpoints are significant, these can be included as well, providing of course, that there are reliable secondary sources that describe them." And the content I put back in (that you reverted without reviewing) fits under that requirement. There was a time when an admin suggested that we not use advocacy sites and I went with his advice. Since then, I've abided by the stated policy. "Arriving to a decision about which material is pertinent and which material is not, is for editors to reach consensus about." And everytime I've deleted something it was because there was no consensus that it was pertinent -and- I've suggested that an RfC be created to resolve the issue which you've turned down despite the fact that RfCs can be used for content disputes. You need to review the policy, yourself. -Especially- the next time you have an urge to revert content before reviewing it.Psychohistorian 14:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to me then my suggestion was that we not add advocacy sites to the list of external links, in part because we already have several lists of the same groups in other articles. I was not commenting on using advocacy groups as sources. FAIR and CIS are certainly advocacy organizations. Nonetheless, they are broadly considered reliable sources, albeit biased ones. -Will Beback 05:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Overview and numbers

There's a lot of the same information about the size of the population in the overview section. I'd like to delete the population size content from the overview section and add it to the population size section. Then, maybe we can find a better name for the overview. Or make it a more comprehensive overview and move it to the top. Any ideas?? Morlesg 06:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, move the population block down so that the overview block is the first major block. Also, move the part in the overview which focuses on the border (starting from the comment by Dr Cornelius, but its intermingled with other stuff) down to the illegal border crossing section.Psychohistorian 11:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Citing

Please summarize the quotes such as "According to a Time magazine report (dated Sept 12, 2004), "When the crowds cross the ranches along and near the border, they discard backpacks, empty Gatorade and water bottles and soiled clothes. They turn the land into a vast latrine, leaving behind revolting mounds of personal refuse and enough discarded plastic bags to stock a Wal-Mart. Night after night, they cut fences intended to hold in cattle and horses. Cows that eat the bags must often by killed because the plastic becomes lodged between the first and second stomachs. The immigrants steal vehicles and saddles. They poison dogs to quiet them. The illegal traffic is so heavy that some ranchers, because of the disruptions and noise, get very little sleep at night."

That is what we are doing with all the sources: summarizing the viewpoint and attributing them. The article in its entirety is online here here ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

reasons to emigrate to the U. S.

Immigrants can dwell in the United States because they are invited, demanded or induced/enticed -- different actions from free-will preparation and decision-making or displacement or home country political maneuver. 15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC) beadtot

Reorg

I collected similar content together. I didn't delete, add, or change anything. As a result, some content now appears like it can be rewritten to be tighter. I'd like to delete the following statements, "Various investigators have estimated the census foreign born under count at 10-40% or 3-12 million‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ", "The Census Bureau estimated 7 million illegal immigrants in 2000‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ", "It is estimated that over a million people cross the border illegally each year, most of whom are of Mexican origin{fact}", "The rest are labeled "Other Than Mexicans" (OTM), of whom a majority are Central Americans{fact}".

Thanks for working on the article. We should be able to source most of the statements you wish to remove. Did you just watn them referenced or do you want them removed for another reason? -Will Beback 22:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like to delete relevant, sourced content. So, since it is relevant, if you can source it, I'd like to keep it. I just have no idea how to add it for smooth reading of the article.Psychohistorian 22:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure a breakdown of national origins of illegal migrants can be fit in somehow. -Will Beback 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please have your edit commentary match your actual comments. I agree that smoothness is not a priority (which is why I wrote that I'd like to keep the content anyway if it is sourced). Smoothness is, however, a nice bonus. Just find a source for the content, then we can figure out where to put it. Discussing where to put content when we don't even know if it is going to be sourced is putting the cart before the horse.Psychohistorian 23:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that my edit comments don't meet your approval. -Will Beback 00:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC

You wrote "Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed" in my personal discussion page. I'm pointing out that if what you put in the field has nothing to do with the edits you make to the page (in this case the discussion page of this article), it is not going to "help your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed".Psychohistorian 00:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "change" anything, I added a comment to a talk page. It is indeed very important to leave correct summaries when editing articles. Summaries are less important when adding comments to talk pages. Chill out. -Will Beback 00:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are the one getting spun up. I made a request of you. I began it with saying "please". Your tone since then has been increasingly hostile.Psychohistorian 00:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hostile, you say? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Economics

I prepared a new introduction for this section. Work in progress (as always). Please take a look and edit to your pleasure. Cheers. Morlesg 12:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To .Psychohistorian re: Time Magazine

Two comments: (1) yes, the material is sourced but it does not follow the conventional way of doing things in Wikipedia. Could you use "ref" and provide a URL so that anyone interested in the source can easily find it. I beleive that's part of the mandate. (2) I do not think this information should be place in front of the information on how this estimates are arrived at. Don't you think tha Homeland, pew the census bureau and even Bear Stearns are higher quiality sources than Time magazine?. Please consider moving to a more appropriate place. Morlesg 22:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The article has been sourced with ref tags now. I believe that the Time magazine article works as a good introduction to that section. That's not because it is a more significant source, but because it is a more human understandable source.Psychohistorian 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the information, although your reference has something wrong (it directs to a page that has nothing about 747s full of immigrants). I do take issue with your priority placement of this information, just because it is "more human understandable". Using what standards?. This is not a journalistic advocacy piece. It's a "learned" encyclopedic article. Please move that information to a more suitable place. Morlesg 03:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to rewrite the entire section. The PEW references are a bit confusing and the whole section reads a bit jumbled. I'll address the issue when I get the time to rewrite the section. It will take several hours since I'll want to doublecheck all the sources.Psychohistorian 16:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

NSF Study

The source you provided for the claim that both sides have used the 1997 NSF study doesn't say that. It indicates that there have been two NSF studies, but only one mention of using the 1997 NSF study specifically. There's no indication of whether the other NSF references are based on the 1997 study or the other one.71.74.209.82 22:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Rand Study

From Wikipedia policy, "it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library." I don't believe this Rand study is available from a website or through a public library. It is a privately produced article available by pay only. -Psychohistorian 00:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't believe it is available, or you know it is not available? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• McCarthy, Kevin F., Vernez, Georges, Immigration in a Changing Economy, Rand Corporation (1997), ISBN 0-8330-2496-5

Click on the ISBN number and you can find it in a library near you. e.g. [6] ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -Psychohistorian 11:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

33,000,000

"The number 12,000,000 is many years old. Mexico fully admits that as of 2005 roughly 1/3 of their total population is in the US illegally. That is 33,000,000 illegals as of LAST year and that is from Mexico only. That doesn't include all the other countries. The 12,000,000 figure is outdated by many years now." What's the source for this? -Psychohistorian 18:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

New Title Proposed

To fit the official language for this subject, I suggest that the article be retitled to "Illegal aliens in the United States". -Psychohistorian 19:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not like that title. The current title is good enough. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that the people this article discusses aren't immigrants, I don't see how what they are doing can rightly be called 'immigration'.

'Illegal immigration', then, appears to be a misnomer. Why do you prefer a title which is a misnomer? -Psychohistorian 00:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The term 'alien' as used in the context of foreign-born persons is particular to the United States and no other English-speaking countries. Wikipedia is accessed by a global audience.

The article is more about the phenomenon of illegal immigration more than the people involved, so I don't think the proposed name change would help. -Will Beback 22:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"particular to the United States and no other English-speaking countries", what's your source for that? And while it is about the phenomenon, to do illegal immigration, you'd have to be an illegal immigrant. That's just good English.-Psychohistorian 11:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What do illegal aliens do if not immigrate? Alienate? (Hmmm...possibly). In any case, "illegal immigration" is the term most widely used. -Will Beback 11:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • If someone types in "Illegal aliens in the United States" it should redirect to "Illegal immigration to the United States"

--Caligvla 20:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's an easy thing to fix: Illegal aliens in the United States. -Will Beback 20:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

totallyDisputed tag

The problems with this page relate to both what the page says, and just as importantly what is omitted from the page that rightfully should be found here.

Problems with the lead section

From the opening paragraph: (Mexican sources appear to prefer migrant) Placing this in the open paragraph implies that illegal immigration is a US/Mexican problem, to the exclusion of other nations. Mexico is the largest source of illegal aliens entering the US, but it is far from being the only source, which is implied by placing this in the very first paragraph.

From the second paragraph: According to the United States government, “illegal alien” is the correct term. While “illegal alien” is the term I have always used, and it is in common usage, there is nothing cited to support this statement that this is the correct term in the eyes of the US Government.

The second paragraph goes on to say: The United States Code refers to “illegal alien” and “illegal aliens” in many places. True: however, the term “undocumented worker(s)” is also used extensively.

Still in the second paragraph: The United States government defines “Alien” as “Any person not a citizen or national of the United States” or “An individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national”. “Illegal Alien” is defined as “Also known as an ‘Undocumented Alien,’ is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen ‘out of status’ and is deportable”. It is implied that this is an official binding definition of the US Government at large, which is incorrect. This is a legal definition from one department in the Executive branch, specifically the IRS. Not only is it not binding upon other departments within the Executive branch, nor binding upon either the Legislature or Judiciary branches of government; it is also not exclusionary; it has no words to the effect of “Thou shalt not use any other terms”.

From the Third paragraph: According to the United States government an immigrant is “An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States.” An “immigrant” is thus defined by the government to only include persons legally residing in the United States. Consequently, 'illegal immigrant' is a contradiction in terms and a misnomer. The correct term is "illegal alien" or "undocumented alien". This statement is incorrect.

The USCIS(US Citizenship and Immigration Services) web site has 146 hits for the term “illegal immigrant”, as per Google ("illegal immigrant" site:http://www.uscis.gov/)

A search of US Supreme Court cases returns 34 citations for “illegal immigrant” (see: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/index.html)

The US Congress used the term “Illegal Immigration” in the title of the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996”, amongst other places.

Thus all three branches (Executive, Legislative, Judiciary) use the term “illegal immigrant” in addition to the term “illegal alien”.

“thus defined by the government” no explanation is given for why the government is given authority to define the terminology, or why using words not approved by the government is taboo. If the page is going to say that the government has sole power to define the terms, then the page must also cite where the government draws this power from.

Non-government references: Google: 2,140,000 hits for “illegal immigrant"

Google News: 6,500 hits for “illegal immigrant"

Google: 3,250,000 hits for “undocumented immigrant”

Google News: 2,070 hits for “undocumented immigrant.”

The Definition section implies that the definition of terms used by the IRS in its legal paperwork is the authority on the definition of the term "immigrant." Dictionaries say that the common use of the term applies to any person who comes into a country with the purpose of settling there. The reference to the IRS definition may be worth keeping, but I will add to the difinition as it is used by those who study populations/demographics. I welcome any comments before I start editing. -Gary

The consensus is that official terminology goes in the definitions section and other terminology goes in the terminology section. While adding more sources is nice, if it is not an official source (ie. the US government), it belongs in the terminology section.-Psychohistorian 10:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that's the consensus. Where did we agree to that? -Will Beback · † · 20:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You agreed with Chicaneo and that's what he said his goal was in the post dated 14:25, 24 November 2006. Since I agree with him as well, that's three of the major editors in this article in agreement. Besides Jossi, who hasn't been around lately, that's all the major editors in consensus.-Psychohistorian 21:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We were agreeing, I believe, that all terminology should be discussed together towards the end of the article. I don't recall endorsing a separate section for "official" terminology. It doesn't make sense to treat supposedly "official" terminology separately from common terminology. -Will Beback · † · 21:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's not what Chicaneo was talking about, but on review I see that he explained that after you had already stated your support. So, its easy to see from where the confusion came.-Psychohistorian 22:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So then do we agree that there isn't a consensus to separate the terminology/definition sections? Othewise, can you show me this consensus? -Will Beback · † · 22:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we agree that the consensus that I thought existed doesn't exist.-Psychohistorian 03:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. And what's with all this "he" stuff? Last time I checked I was a she and not a he. :) Chicaneo 04:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Illegal Alien Info table

The “Pew Hispanic Data Estimates” citation is dated March 21, 2005 and uses data from the “March 2004 Current Population Survey”. “A Description of the Immigrant Population” is dated November 2004. How is it that these two reports used to report conditions current as of January 2006? Nor do these reports source such statements as “Criminals caught”, Criminals released”, etc.

Brimba 17:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason the U.S. government's definition takes precedence is that this is a legal issue and, as a legal issue, it falls on those who are empowered to make, interpret, and enforce the law.-Psychohistorian 00

07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

But why the IRS definition, and not a more relevant service like the Census Bureau or the Citizenship & Immigration Service??

Illegal Alien

Even the use of "Illegal Alien" shows there is something wrong with this article. I thought pov articles were being fixed by Wikipedians... User:Towsonu2003 19:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In what way is the use of "Illegal alien" POV? -Psychohistorian 00:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Illegal Alien is the correct term. --Caligvla 20:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"Illegal Imagrant" is an oxymoran as defined by US law. "Illegal alein" is not only the offical term per US law, but the most acurate.--68.192.188.142 00:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Green Card

In the article it states that you become an illegal alien once your green card expires. This is not true. You are still a legal permenant resident, your card is no longer valid though. You can only lose LPR status if you remain outside of the US for a certain amount of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealc9999 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for that clarification. I think the general point is that it is possible to arrive as a legal immigrant/LPR, but to at some point violate immigration laws and become "illegal". Perhaps if anyone know more they can fill this in or I can check the regulations myself. -Will Beback 07:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Checking the code[7] I see that a long list of specific crimes make an alien deportable. More trivially, willful failure to file a change of address form is also a deportable offense, as are other technical violations and frauds. That should cover the ground. -Will Beback 08:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Viewpoints and restructuring

The second viewpoints section is a giant dumping ground of redundant content because it originated as a summary of this article's content. As such, it doesn't really seem to do anything constructive for the article. I suggest that all the content in that section which is redundant with content in other sections of this article be removed and then, if anything remains, see if what remains might better belong in another section.-Psychohistorian 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as no material is lost in the shuffle, I have no objections. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have renamed the second viewpoints section to "Controversy & Viewpoints" and then moved the 1st viewpoints section into the controversy & viewpoints section. It is a mess right now, but we can work on that. Chicaneo 16:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving text from main article to "Controversy & Viewpoints" section

Over the next week I will be moving text from the main article to the "Controversy & Viewpoints" section. I believe that doing so will satisfy Jossi's request that the article be NPOV and fact based, and will also satisfy Psychohistorian's wishes that the article address various viewpoints. Illegal immigratioin has been a "hot topic" off and on in the US for several decades and I personally believe that the issue of controversy should be addressed in the article. We can organize the controversy & viewpoints section in a way that is not POV, by describing the varrying viewpoints in a "reporter" style instead of an "editorial/POV" style. Perhaps "Controversy & Viewpoints" is not even the correct name for this section. Maybe it should be called "Controversy & Debate" or even something else.

This will take a bit of time because I am making Thanksgiving Day preparations, my kids are on break at the moment, and I'm fighting a loosing battle of trying to keep the family from eating all my pumpkin pies before Thursday. If you wish to help out please place the following statement in the edit summary so that we can all be clear about the nature of the edit: "moved to Controversy & Viewpoints section." Thanks,Chicaneo 16:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In my edit of 17:36, November 21, 2006 I stated in the edit summary that I "Moved two whole sentences to Controversy & Viewpoints section. Also trunkated the original sentences to remove POV." However, what I actually did was copy these sentences to the Controversy & Viewpoints section, left the original sentences in place and then truncated them to remove POV. Chicaneo 17:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the Time Magazine Source given for the viewpoints section, and it has been failed to mention that in that same Time Magazine Article that 72% favor the guest workers program, while only 25% favor the punative house bill. This should be added to the article to make the section sound a little bit less bias.Mrsmith93309 20:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Subheadings

Psychohistorian, I think we need to discuss subheadings, as you keep changing titles of the ones I create and edit. I prefer the term "Illegal Immigration" in subheadings because that term is consistent with the title of the article. You keep changing the subheadings to "Illegal aliens". The term illegal aliens is not being disputed here and it is used many times in the text of the article. For the sake of consistancy with the title of the article, I'd like to use the term illegal immigration in the subheadings where it is appropriate to do so. Although some headings are more appropriate using the term illegal aliens, such as the section on Employing illegal aliens. What's your position? Chicaneo 17:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I, too, prefer the term "illegal immigration" when the article is discussing the actual act of illegally crossing the border. When the article is not discussing the act of illegally crossing the border, but rather what happens after the border has been illegally crossed, the article shifts from discussing illegal immigration and begins discussing the impact of illegal aliens. Consequently, the language changes to reflect that. As I see it, this is purely an issue of using the right language in order to clarify the article's content.-Psychohistorian 17:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't get it. Chicaneo 17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I can respect that, but since I don't understand what you don't get, I don't see how we can move forward on this. How do I clarify the parts that you don't get when I don't know which parts you don't get or why you don't get them?-Psychohistorian 17:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to give it a shot at clarifying for you. First, we both agree, I'll assume, that "illegal immigration" is a verb and "illegal alien" is a noun. We'll also both agree, again I assume, that the specific action that "illegal immigration" refers to is the act of illegally entering a country with the intent to live there as an unlawful resident. Let me repeat that.."illegal immigration" is the specific act of entering the country (under specific circumstances). Consequently, any section which refers to the act of entering the country (under those specific circumstances) should be headed with "illegal immigration". Some sections do not refer to the specific act of entering the country, but rather refer to consequences/impacts/law etc. regarding people who have -already- entered the country. Those specific sections are not discussing illegal immigration - the act (though the two groups of sections have not each grown large enough to split and become their own articles). As these sections are not discussing the act of illegally immigrating, but are rather discussing the impact of illegal aliens, they should be referred to in their heading with "illegal aliens" rather than "illegal immigration".-Psychohistorian 17:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, both "immigration" and "alien" are nouns, and "illegal" is an adjective. Thus, both phrases "illegal immigration" and "illegal alien" would seem to play the role of nouns in sentences. Possible verbs would be "immigrate" or "reside". (As a side note, I have cleaned up a multiple instances where the adjective "illegal" has been presumably pluralized by adding an "s", and written alone without a noun. While it is my understanding that both constructions would be acceptable in spanish, neither is acceptable in english.) --Ramsey2006 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep the headings short and neutral. We don't need to use any term in most or all of the headings. -Will Beback · † · 17:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Shortening the headings, in most of the cases, has solved the problem, but it creates two more. "Terminology" is too general and does not specify what the subsection covers - specifically whether to use the term "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant". In this case, I think we should go back to the old heading. "Methods of entry" obscures the fact that, in some cases, entry and illegally immigrating are two seperate actions - for example one may enter legally and later become an illegal immigrant as a result of remaining in the country when their BCC expires. Here, I also suggest that we go back to the old heading.-Psychohistorian 17:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There are more than two terms that may be used, for example, "undocumented worker", so it isn't practical to list all of the options. Yes, methods of entry are not all illegal, so the previous heading didn't cover the whole topic. Some mehods are illegal and some are legal. -Will Beback · † · 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so we agree that the focus of that section is methods of illegally immigrating and not methods of entry? If so, then we need to use the old heading.-Psychohistorian 18:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, there are two subsections, one on unauthorized border crossings and one on visa overstays. The latter includes legal entry. -Will Beback · † · 04:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the terminology is controversial and varried and depends on the group or organization that uses the term, we should rename the Terminology section to Definition, then place a new section named Terminology in the controversy & viewpoints section. The terminology section could be expanded further to cover all the varying viewpoints. Chicaneo 18:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the nomenclature is controversial, that makes sense. -Will Beback · † · 04:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If we do what you suggest, there will be nothing to put in the definition section. Unless the goal is to put the official terminology in the definition section and other terms in the controversy section?-Psychohistorian 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the goal. The other terms are a source of constant debate over which term is more PC. Also, I plan to work on the definitions section as soon as I am through moving text into the controversy section. I need to do some research first to get the correct verbage and I assure you the definition section won't be empty. Chicaneo 14:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone might want to look up “separation of powers” as it nullifies the whole “Definition” section. A definition that is acceptable to one branch can not be forced upon either of the other two branches (there are three by the way, Executive, Judicial, and Legislative), so you will never get a single unified definition. The whole “According to the United States government” thing is very clearly unconstitutional. I would bet good money that no branch uses illegal alien exclusively, as far as I know they all use illegal immigrant in addition to illegal alien. That whole section appears to be just somebody’s opinion without any basis in anything, except maybe the IRS rules (that would not even cover the Executive branch). It seems they have stretched the truth more than a little, you could probably pass an Iowa Class Battleship through the holes in their argument. 63.20.29.221 09:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not real clear on what the post preceding this one is good for - it is nothing but original research at best. Instead of "betting good money", the only reasonable course of action is to provide additional links to other government offices which officially define "illegal immigrant" as applicable. As it is, the US government does use the definitions the article states it does. That is verifiable using the sources which are already present in the article.-Psychohistorian 10:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Immigrants and Lawful Permanent Residents

Chicaneo, I need you to explain in what way you feel the US Census Bureau isn't equating the two. The categories are distinct and these two terms are in the same category - they're being equated.. If the two weren't being equated, the one wouldn't follow the other in parenthesis, but rather would follow a comma. I think its very clear that the two -are- being equated.-Psychohistorian 15:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is important that we be facutal and accurate. If the site does not specifically state something then I don't believe that we should make inferences that are subject to individual interpretation. If I read the website entry incorrectly, please let me know. Otherwise I did not see a sentence specifically linking the two terms. Chicaneo 18:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is important that we be factual and accurate. But just as you don't want to read anything into the article that isn't there, it is equally inappropriate to read something out of the article that -is- there. The content I put in the article is in the source.-Psychohistorian 19:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I think I get what you mean. They are listed separately, but they are both considered "foreign born". I'm going to take a look at the data set and see if it is separated out or inclusive. I still have an issue with this sentence: "Note that immigrants and people illegally present in the United States are listed seperately", however, I'm willing to leave in for now. Chicaneo 23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitions Section use of USCIS Glossary

Psychohistorian, the glossary that you have made reference to appears to be the glossary to a manual related to the CAVP - Citizen Attestation Verification Pilot. Because there is no further explaination on the website, and they probably won't answer this question as the only contact link on that page is to the Webmaster, I am sending in a Freedom of Information Act request to determine to which document this glossary belongs. Also, I have looked at the USCIS website and could not find any other reference to the term "illegal alien" other than the in glossary which you cited. There is a glossary which is part of the Education section, however the "I" section is garbled so we can't even look up "illegal alien" or "immigrant". This is unfortunate. I will contact the Webmaster. If you could also contact the Webmaster, perhaps they will fix it faster? We must be fair and accurate. If the term "illegal alien" can be attributed to any official legislation or official policy, then I would be the first to defend the use of this term. However, this is not the case. I know you are still looking, and as I continue to fill in the definition section I am looking also. Chicaneo 18:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Chicaneo, a FOIA is always a good idea and I don't want to discourage you in that, but if you go to the USCIS website and search for "glossary", the first link is to the page I linked to here. How did you make the link to the CAVP?-Psychohistorian 19:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

To find CAVP I typed in Citizen Attestation Verification Pilot in the homepage search box, I think. The only two items which came up are a Table of Contents and the Glossary. The reason I think the glossary is from the manual for this project is because the footers appear to be the same.Chicaneo 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not right. I did a search for glossary from the main page. The first link is to the glossary page you referenced. Underneath the link are the words "GLOSSARY Term Definition Alien Any person who is not a citizen...exam Generally The CAVP differs from the B 211 ISR-Westat GLOSSARY (con ...". I searched for CAVP from the main page. The verbage under the second entry from that search expands the acronym CVAP. I also searched for ISR Westat from the main page, but this brought up more of the same links to the polot project. Chicaneo 23:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason the glossary is called up when you search for CAVP appears to be because it is a glossary and has the term "CAVP" in it (along with the CAVP definition), not because it is part of the CAVP project. Respectfully, I think the line of argument you are taking is akin to arguing that the Oxford dictionary is pagan because it defines the term "pagan".-Psychohistorian 13:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. That's why the FOIA request is a good idea. Chicaneo 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits to definition section

Psychohistorian, I am not attached to these edits in any way. I inserted them to make a point. If you insist on making commentary or in your words to not "read something out of the article that -is- there.", then I insist on adding a few "Notes" of my own which neither read something in nor read something out of the article/source that -is- there. You may remove my edits but if the sentence you added -> "Note that immigrants and people illegally present in the United States are listed seperately." does not go with them you're in for a fight. Cheers. Chicaneo 09:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are the full definitions from the Immigration and Nationality Act are not included in the definition section? Any non-citizen or non-national is automatically an “alien”; any alien that is not here on a temporary legal basis for business, schooling, diplomatic reasons, is an “immigrant”. Someone crossing the border and planning to stay long term is an “immigrant”, not simply an “alien”. 63.20.44.85 16:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from the act, "(3) The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States." That's all that section three states. Can you qoute another part that you think should be included? -Psychohistorian 16:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure (15) The term "immigrant" means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens , sorry for not including that before. 63.20.44.85 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So, should the entire section (15) be included? That's pretty long. I don't think we should cherry pick.-Psychohistorian 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be listed in paragraph form with non-essential words deleted. User:63.20.44.85 please feel free to make edits to this article. Thank you for your contributions. Chicaneo 17:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Great summary User:63.20.44.85. Thanks. Chicaneo 12:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

UNC Study

Since there seems to be some debate on the cost/benefit ratio of illegal immigration, it may be helpful to look at a recent UNC study. It's not specifically about illegal immigrants, but still may shed some light on the issue. Findings from the study:

• Hispanics, legal and illegal, cost state taxpayers $817 million in 2004, with education and health care being the biggest expenses. Meanwhile, Hispanics generated $756 million in tax revenue. According to the report, that averages out to a cost to the state budget of $102 per Hispanic resident.

• More broadly, Hispanic residents contributed about $9 billion to the state economy through purchases and taxes. Their spending has led to creation of 89,600 jobs.

• Because many Latinos work for below-market wages, they also depress North Carolina private-sector payrolls by $1.9 billion annually, the researchers found. In many cases, those lower costs are passed on to consumers as lower prices.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1155/story/411982.html 66.57.225.77 06:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Other sources have already proven conclusively that what is true for legal immigrants may not be true for illegal aliens. Therefore, it is inappropriate to use material that is not specifically focused on illegal aliens unless the lack of such a focus and what the lack of such a focus means are mentioned. While I, personally, see some merit relative to the article in the study you mention, I am concerned about the bad precedent including it would set.-Psychohistorian 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The term "immigrant" means every alien except

Just read the act once more, word for word. “The term "immigrant" means every alien except” means “The term "immigrant" means every alien except” the act is very clear on that point. I am not sure what your point is? 63.20.82.27 15:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The edit you are making is "the act classifies aliens remaining within the US on a permanent basis as immigrants without regards to an individual’s legal status." The thing is, it doesn't do that. Every alien residing in the US on a permanent basis is not classified as an immigrant. The act has a long list of aliens who are not considered immigrants.-Psychohistorian 15:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

“The act has a long list of aliens who are not considered immigrants.” True, however, every single class of “nonimmigrant aliens” has three things in common:

1) The duration of the stay is temporary in nature, 2) It establishes no permanent residence, 3) The individual is within the US for a legally recognized reason, they are not here contrary to US law.

Beyond those three points they can not claim exemption. It’s very strait forward, very clear. Everyone not falling within one of the listed classes is an immigrant. If you are an (a) alien and (b) staying within the US on a permanent basis you are an immigrant, you can not be exempted. 63.20.82.27 16:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There are several exceptions which are listed in which a person could be a permanent resident and not an immigrant (exception E for example).-Psychohistorian 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

“E” visas (Treaty Trader E-1or Treaty Investor E-2) are for 2 years initially and 5 years max for E-2. In order to get the visa, the alien must demonstrate intent to depart upon the termination of his or her status. Extensions can be given, but for no more than six months beyond the expiration of the aliens’ passport. Someone admitted to the US under “E” would not be here permanently; nether can they receive an extension if it can be shown that they intend to remain within the US permanently. Any alien who enters the US through one of the visas listed is only allowed to remain here for a set period of time. In each case they are classed as “nonimmigrant aliens” as none of the visas listed gives them permanent residence; although of course someone could apply for permanent residence separately. Someone holding an “E” or other visa from the list can only remain within the US until their visa expires. Do you have any more problems with the wording “The act classifies aliens remaining within the US on a permanent basis as immigrants without regards to an individual’s legal status.”? 63.20.14.53 15:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the source for what you just said regarding "E" visas?-Psychohistorian 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here’s some: http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1273.html http://www.hooyou.com/e2/duration.htm just run it through Google. 63.20.14.53 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What it looks like you've done is taken two seperate sources and synthesized information from them into a new set of content. That's against policy.-Psychohistorian 20:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

“a new set of content” What part? Being specific would be helpful. 63.20.50.219 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis that all what makes a nonimmigrant is temporary residence does not derive from a single source, but is a synthesis of several sources.-Psychohistorian 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitions from DHS Office of Immigration Statistics

In a report (dated August, 2006, and revised November, 2006) by the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ILL_PE_2005.pdf , there are several definitions of various terms. The title of the report is "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States January 2005". The definitions are in the first column of page 2 of the report.

DEFINITIONS

Legal Residents

The legally resident immigrant population as defined for these estimates includes all persons who were:

• granted lawful permanent residence;;
• granted asylee status;;
• admitted as refugees;;and
• admitted as nonimmigrants for a temporary stay in the United States and not required to leave by January 1,2005.

Unauthorized Residents

The unauthorized resident immigrant population is de fined as all foreign-born non-citizens who are not legal residents. Unauthorized residents refer to foreign-born persons who entered the United States without inspection or who were admitted temporarily and stayed past the date they were required to leave.Unauthorized aliens who have applied for but have not yet received approval to lawfully remain in the United States are considered to be unauthorized. Unauthorized immigrants applying for adjustment to lawful permanent residence under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 245(i), for example, are unauthorized until they have been granted LPR status. Similarly,unauthorized immigrants who have applied for asylum or TPS are considered to be unauthorized residents. Persons who are beneficiaries of TPS are technically not unauthorized but were excluded from the legally resident immigrant population because data are unavailable to estimate this population.

Nonimmigrant residents

The term nonimmigrant residents as used in this report refers to aliens who were legally admitted temporarily to the United States, usually for specified time per iods. Examples include students, intracompany transferees, exchange visitors, temporaty workers, and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) workers, along with their family members. In some cases nonimmigrants are authorized to stay for extended periods (up to 6 years or more).

--Ramsey2006 23:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

want to divorce a mexico citizen

how do I divorce,when he was never a citizen mistytubbs@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.8 (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

We are unable to give legal advice except for "consult a lawyer". RJFJR 21:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Texas report

I just saw this, which we should work into the article:

• Texas Official's Report Ignites a New Border Conflict:
• State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn fired the first shot with a recent report that, for some, says the unthinkable: Illegal immigrants not only pay their fair share in taxes, but they are also good for the economy.
• Overall, the report said, illegal immigrants put about $420 million more into state coffers than they take out. [8]

It's apparently an important study. -Will Beback · † · 09:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahmed Ressam

The entry would benefit from removing the paragraph about Ahmed Ressam, as it is anecdotal:

"For instance, Ahmed Ressam (a member of Al Qaeda, known as 'The Millennium Bomber', who was convicted and given a prison sentence of 22 years in a plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve 1999) was originally from Algeria, entered Canada with a falsified French passport and, once in Canada, procured a false Canadian passport to enter the United States."

There are better ways to document that a number of illegal immigrants "enter from a land border using falsified documentation from a third country", e.g. by providing a relevant citation - assuming that this information is considered of importance. Terjen 19:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Corroborating evidence would benefit the article (incidentally, I just did a google search on "terrorism and 'illegal immigration' and found hundreds of links - I'm sorting through them), but I think your basic argument that discussion of particular cases doesn't belong in the article is wrong. I can't see any justification for why they wouldn't belong in the article.-Psychohistorian 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable source in section on Community Health

Reguarding the referenced article http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf

Please see the discussion on the talk page for Illegal immigration here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Illegal_immigration#Phoney_Medical_Journals_as_sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsey2006 (talk • contribs)

Separation of section on population and size from main article

I separated the section on population size from the main article because it is one of the longer sections. I intend to do the same thing with some of the other large sections later on. If you disagree with this, or you think that more of the section should be left in the main article, please leave a note on my talk page. Andrew_pmk | Talk 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Common Language and Legal Terms

I have split the Definitions and Terminology section into two subsections:

• Common language
• Legal terms

Terjen 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the legal terms used by the government as official terminology is misleading. It makes it seem like this terminology is more proper than the corresponding words more frequently used by the press and people in general. Terjen 03:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Governmental agencies have their own POV's just like anybody else. And the terminology that they use may very well be a reflection of those POV's. It is not up to us to pass judgement or pick favorites amoung the various POV's out there, including governmental POV's. Just because a governmental agency calls something "colateral damage", for example, doesn't mean that that term necessarily takes precidence over other terms that folks might use to describe the same event. --Ramsey2006 03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Importantly, the legislature has its own terminology with very specific definitions, were the meaning of terms may differ considerably from how they are used in common language. The legal definition of person is illustrative: few (except perhaps lawyers) would think of an organization as an example of a person. The same goes for key terms related to illegal immigration. In legislation, illegal immigration is an oxymoron, as per definition immigration implies lawful permanent residence and thus cannot be illegal, but this doesn't mean we have to use the same definition in common language. Terjen 04:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't share a joke that I heard about lawyers for fear that somebody else might retaliate by sharing a joke that they heard about mathematicians ;o) --Ramsey2006 05:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you aren't arguing that the government's terminology isn't official, just that it has a POV. So, I don't think this is really a problem. Just provide a reliable source in the "common usage" section who comments on the government's POV. (I'm not even going to debate about whether the government has a POV - everyone has a POV - I'm just glad you aren't trying to make the rather brain dead argument that the government's use isn't the official one).-Psychohistorian 12:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the official terminology here at wikipedia? Who determines official policy and official terminology here at wikipedia? --Ramsey2006 13:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're using sophistry. Its not appreciated. You know quite well that we are talking about official terminology in the United States and that, since this is a legal issue, the government is the one with the authortiy to decide what official terminology is.-Psychohistorian 15:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The government doesn't even have the authority to enforce your favorite terminology on the Department of Homeland Security, as witnessed by the use of terms like unauthorized immigrant and unauthorized resident in this report by the Policy Directorate of the Office of Immigration Statistics. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population residing in the United States: January 2005 Even within governmental agencies, there is a variety of terms used. --Ramsey2006 15:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We aren't debating whether there are a variety of terms being used. Our debate is over whether the government is the one with the authority to set official terminology in matters of law. Or perhaps you are confused and think that illegal immigration isn't an issue of law?-Psychohistorian 15:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues of law are only a part of the subject. But I would have no objection to having a section on Legal Terms. --Ramsey2006 16:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues of law -are- only a part of the subject. That's why the article has other parts besides covering what the official terminology is. Those other parts are also irrelevant to our present debate. Our present debate is whether the government is the one with the authority to set official terminology in matters of law. Or are you conceeding that fact? If so, then there's no problem in keeping the heading "Official terminology".-Psychohistorian 16:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The expresion official terminology is your expression. The links pointed to in the article themselves make no such claims of establishing official terminology. In the case of the link to the USCIS website, it appears to simply be a glossary to some report, as evidenced by the following definition of the very first word in that glossary: Alien: Any person who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. Because the term is found objectionable by some people, it is not generally used in this report. [9] Let's not make more of the definitions that we find on government websites than the websites themselves make of them. --Ramsey2006 16:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's really slicing the issue fine, however I am okay with changing the words from "official terminology" to "terms used by official sources". Incidentally, the US CIS did not say that the term "alien" was offensive. It said that some people consider it offensive.-Psychohistorian 17:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The term official sources is ambigous - it's not clear who it refers to. The word official wrongly elevates the authority of these sources. It's preferable to state clearly that the "official sources" is the US government and avoid official. Terjen 18:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Official" is defined as "Main Entry: 1of·fi·cial

Pronunciation: &-'fi-sh&l also O- Function: noun 1 : one who holds or is invested with an office : OFFICER <government officials> 2 : one who administers the rules of a game or sport especially as a referee or umpire" This defines the federal government and it defines -only- the federal government. There is no ambiguity here. Further, to claim that "the word 'official' wrongly elevates the authority to these sources" is equivalent to saying that "to claim that the federal government is empowered to create/enforce/interpret matters of law wrongly elevates the authority to it". The claim is beyond ridiculous. The fact that you're making it brings up fundamental concerns like "did you even take a Civics class in school??"-Psychohistorian 18:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's use US federal government then rather than official sources. I don't see any benefits of using the latter, and we have already discovered some of its problems.Terjen 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"official" is better because it carries authority. The US Government isn't an equal player on the ballfield. It is the referee.-Psychohistorian 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

US federal government is more precise. If it also carries an air of authority, the reader will surely know this without our prompting. --Ramsey2006 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Half the people in the world are of below average intelligence. I've dealt with many people who are ignorant of the US Government's authority (just scroll up to find an example where an editor wrote, "The word official wrongly elevates the authority of these sources.").-Psychohistorian 20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not in Lake Wobegon. By the way, the USCIS, IRS, NABJ, NAHJ, AAJA, NAJA and the Rotary Club for that matter, are all quite capable of defining official terminology. I'm sure that if and when they do, it will be explicitely labeled as such. Even Wikipedia could define official terminology, if we were to ever reach a consensus on the matter. Again, if and when we do, I'm sure that we will explicitely label it as such. --Ramsey2006 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you think the Rotary club can define official terminology for an issue having to do with US Federal law indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about. Please review the definition of "official" above and, if that doesn't help, slap your civics teacher upside the head for doing such a poor job at teaching.-Psychohistorian 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you ever get tired of throwing insults around? Here is an example of an official policy here at wikipedia: WW:NC There is absolutely nothing, short of a rather predictable difficulty of reaching a consensus, that would prevent wikipedia from having an official policy on immigration terminology. The same goes for the rotary club. The US federal government can do likewise, although you have yet to demonstrate that they have indeed done so. --Ramsey2006 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I get tired of throwing insults around, but not nearly as much as I get tired of seeing people consistently post ignorant comments even after they've already been pointed out as such. Here's another example. We aren't talking about official Wikipedia policy. We're talking about official US legal policy. I'd love to see a Rotary club member step before a US judge and argue that the Rotary club member has the right to redefine the official definition of legal terms. Hey, maybe you can rob a bank and then claim its not really robbery because you are able to redefine the official definition of robbery. Try it. Then come tell me about it 20 years later when you're out of jail.-Psychohistorian 21:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I get tired of throwing insults around - There's a rather simple solution to this. --Ramsey2006 21:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I only wish there was a simple solution to "seeing people consistently post ignorant comments even after they've already been pointed out as such." I mean, like I said, its in the definition, "one who administers the rules of a game or sport especially as a referee or umpire". The Rotary club does not administer US Federal law. -Psychohistorian 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

However

Under the heading "Common language", the following statement occures:

• However, while these organizatons justify their word choice by what "the pertinent federal agencies use", ...etc...

I'm not sure what need there is for us to pass judgement on the strength or validity of arguements made by various organizations with sentences beginning with the word however. However, if we are going to do so, we should at least make an attempt to accurately reflect the arguements that are actually made in the sources, rather than simply inserting silly strawmen. After checking the links given for the 3 organizations in the preceeding sentence, I could not find one which attempts to justify its word choice by what "the various federal agencies use". This sentence, as it stands, is a blatant misrepresentation of the arguements contained in the 3 references, and needs to be removed. (While I'm sure that somebody will come up with a counterexample the minute that they read this, right offhand it seems to me that a good rule of thumb might be to delete any sentence starting with the word however. A sentence starting in this fashion seems to me to be unlikely to end well, in so far as Wikipedia's NPOV policy is concerned. Better to simply present the viewpoints actually given without the howevers.) --Ramsey2006 03:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that use of however often should raise a red flag. However, I don't favor knee-jerkily deleting all uses of however. However, I agree that the sentence in question is a misrepresentation. I favor removing it as well as those that follow.Terjen 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only do they make the argument, I put the quote where they make the argument into this article.-Psychohistorian 12:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A variety of terms

Regarding the sentence "The US federal government uses a variety of terms to refer to people whose presence in the United States is unauthorised", Psychohistorian's claim that "throwing all the terms into a common pot (i.e. "a variety of terms") does imply that they are all equal" is unreasonable. It is also a contradiction in terms: variety means per definition there are noticeable heterogeneity, so they cannot all be equal. Moreover, that there is a variety does not mean the terms are "used equally". Terjen 02:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You are unable to provide a justification for your edit, I guess. That's why you are focusing on my edit rather than your own. Not surprising, really. I didn't expect any better. "Variety" does not imply that the terms all have different weight (go grab a dictionary - many of them are online). It just means that there is some difference.-Psychohistorian 02:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It was you that in the explanation of removing the sentence claimed that "these terms are not used equally by these organizations and we should avoid the insinuaton that they are" and that "throwing all the terms into a common pot (i.e. "a variety of terms") does imply that they are all equal." Variety is defined as diverseness: noticeable heterogeneity, and there is nothing in the dictionary definition that implies that a variety should be understood as items having equal weight. You have failed to make a case.Terjen 02:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice you -still- haven't justified your edit. Will that be coming sometime in the next week or are you trying to make an unjustified edit?-Psychohistorian 02:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in question was introduced by Ramsey2006 on January 18. I second it's addition.Terjen 02:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The original sentence that I wrote had the phrase wide variety. I took out the word wide myself to remove possible POV, to let the reader decide how wide or narrow the variety is based on the facts presented. That there exists a variety is fact. Some terms used by various US federal government agencies are listed in later sentences. --Ramsey2006 09:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The wording that I prefer retains the idea that there is a variety of term in use. If that's the only issue you have, then you have no problem with my word choice. That's good. We'll use it then. Unless you have some other reason which you are refusing to share?-Psychohistorian 14:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reinserted the original sentence. Please do not delete without a consensus. --Ramsey2006 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of factual material

One editor has deleted the same factual material about a dozen times in the last 24 hours, in addition to engaging in numerous personal insults here on the talk page. Isn't there a limit on this here? --Ramsey2006 18:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it is a definite problem, but you haven't been working alone in deleting factual material - Terjen has been working with you. So, "one" should be replaced with "two" in that statement.-Psychohistorian 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about bringing in the ArbCom to address your persistent behavior of making intentionally confusing edits (as well as your insistence on not providing a justification for them). Do you accept that as a course of action?-Psychohistorian 18:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So far at least three editors have restored the same factual material repeatedly deleted by a single editor. I think bringing in the ArbCom would be a waste of their time. Are there even a single editor that seconds the deletions by Psychohistorian? Terjen 19:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The only information which has been repeatedly removed is the fact that these terms are used with different weights by these organizations. Three editors have removed that without justification. One editor has kept restoring it.-Psychohistorian 19:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, restoring factual material and sourced content seems to me to be a rather confusing edit summary for this edit: [10] --Ramsey2006 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Tellingly, you don't deny that I did restore factual material and sourced content. You simply say that you think an edit which restores factual content is confusing. I believe its only confusing to you because it doesn't support your politics. Here's a simple question for you - what factual information, specifically, do you think I removed?-Psychohistorian 19:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't restore factual material but removed it, specifically the sentence "There are a variety of terms used by the US federal government to refer to people whose presence in the United States is unauthorised." Anyway, as a suggested compromise, I made it explit that the terms are used with different weights. It's not my preference. Terjen 19:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You removed the fact of which term receives the most weight, so I reverted. Further, while I'm specifying what factual information you have removed, I notice you -still- haven't specified what sourced facts you think I removed.-Psychohistorian 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove any fact of which term receives the most weight by adding the sentence quoted above, so that's an errornous assertion.Terjen 19:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding is removing, deleting is restoring, disagreement is agreement, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. I have a headache... --Ramsey2006 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It is odd, I agree. The fact that you were unable to say what specifically was the information I removed just made it weirder.-Psychohistorian 23:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Be careful when adding unsourced negative statements

Negative statements about a term not being used by various organizations need to be sourced. This applies also to statements reguarding the number of times that a term is used by an organization. Search engines are not perfect, and often miss items on the web. Furthermore, organizations produce reams of paper that are never posted to the web. Failed attempts at OR using search engines does not constitute evidence of non-existence. A link to a document explicitely saying that a term is used exactly once by a particular US government agency would constitute evidence of that fact. --Ramsey2006 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Lying about "broken agreements"

Lying about other editors having made and broken agreements in edit summaries needs to stop. Lying about a consensus having been reached when none has been reached also has to stop. The assumption of good faith can only go so far. --Ramsey2006 21:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You dropped out of discussion. That is implied consent. What is lying is to agree to discuss things, then back out of discussion and try to push your version through by force. That stinks of a lack of integrity.-Psychohistorian 21:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In case this is being ignored, you and Terjen have made it clear that your intent is not to write a NPOV encyclopedia article. You have consistently made confusing edits without justification (even when the justification has been requested repeatedly) - confusing edits which have imposed a definite POV on the article and made it appear that sources said things which they do not say at the level that you claim they say it.

To resolve this ongoing issue, I have offered to go to ArbCom and you have turned it down. Now, you are upset that I'm pointing out the stink of the lack of integrity in your actions. Well, Wikipedia discusses calling a spade a spade.-Psychohistorian 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You really need to stop lying about other editors, stop making personal attacks, and stop deleting sourced material. --Ramsey2006 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. There has been a great deal of lying going on here - that's for sure. A great example is your allegation that I've repeatedly removed sourced information, but being unable to say what information I've removed and, when pressed, being able to give nothing more than an example of wording (and deliberately obfuscating wording at that) instead of actual information.

You make accusations and are unable to support them even when repeatedly asked. You obfuscate facts and are unable to provide justification for your obfuscations even when repeatedly asked. You are not editing in good faith. Even more, you've repeatedly violated the 3RR and, yet, report me for it (which, yes, I broke it after Terjen started doing so repeatedly), but your failure to let he who is without sin cast the first stone is yet another example of a severe lack of integrity on your part. You are wikilawyering and, once you get time to actually learn the Wikipedia policies, you'll become quite dangerous.-Psychohistorian 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I second Ramsey2006 - You really need to stop lying about other editors, stop making personal attacks, and stop deleting sourced material. Terjen 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Its hardly a surprise that you second him You two have been working together to obfuscate without justification, make accusations of other editors without backing those accusations up, etc. You started the 3RR violations and were the first to turn down ArbCom. It shouldn't surprise anyone that you second Ramsey2006.-Psychohistorian 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

American english

The entry should be written in the American variety of English, in accordance with [WP:ENGVAR], as the subject is specifically about the United States. An editor recently corrected authorise (and related terms) to authorize. This is consistent with the policy, and the same as used in the cited terminology. Let's keep it that way. Terjen 21:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Did I spell it with an "s"? Yeah, that's it. I was going for the Brittish spelling. That's what I was doin'. Honest... --Ramsey2006 05:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Intentional obfuscation??

I haven't been back to this site for a while and what to my wondering eyes do appear but a lot of intentional [???] obfuscation. First, to totally turn people off the article starts with a arcane two page discusion of various terms that various people have used at various times [far from being complete--but who really cares?] to refer to the politically incorrect subject of illegal immigration. For those who really want this I've moved it to the end of the article. Its probably a good candidate for deletion (if this article is judged as too long) or a separate article if there are articles on symatics. Next a summary chart of the illegal immigrant population has been shuttled off to some obscure corner on illegal population (where presumably only a few dedicated readers would ever see it). This was put back where it belongs [IMHO] near the start of the discussion.

D'lin 08:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)