Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

A clear consensus on terminology

We need a clear consensus on how to describe illegal immigrants in this article. "Undocumented", "unauthorized", or "illegal"? All three are in the article (though as of now I have edited the lede to fix this). I don't think it's appropriate to use one word, and then the very next sentence use another word. My preference is "illegal", though I'm aware that people disagree with this. "Unauthorized" is a reasonable compromise, since it highlights the fact that these persons are in the United States without the permission of the US government (or the people, for that matter) without the negative connotation associated with the word "illegal". JDiala (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Our language should reflect that of the sources that we use. As the person who added the bulk of research in this article, the term "illegal" does not represent how most of the sources talk about these individuals (in particular, the most recent articles and reports). To be honest, it strikes me as a mild BLP violation to say that Scholar X found that "...illegal immigrants..." when the scholar purposefully opted not to use the term "illegal immigrants", given the offensive nature of the term. If there are non-offensive and recognized terms that scholars use, we should use those terms. If most or much of the cited research opts for a particular term, we should use that when summarizing the research in ledes and at the start of sections. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

As I've noted, "illegal" is not the only word on the table. "Unauthorized" is also on the table, and it is seems to be used fairly commonly. As for your other point, note that when numerous scholars A, B, C, D, X, Y Z use synonymous terms interchangeably, this does not imply that scholar W citing all of those other scholars is expected to use a mélange of synonymous words interchangeably in his paper. The same should apply to us (unless you have a formal rule which forbids this). There's no reason we shouldn't have a consensus here. In any individual source, the vocabulary is typically used consistently. The rest of your argument is an opinion (the term "illegal" is inherently offensive) which you seem to be implying that all who scholars who don't use the term illegal hold. This is of course a gross generalization. You're attributing your own views to thousands of people. Lastly, there seems to be a slight smugness in you saying that you've "added the bulk of the research" as though that somehow means that you should have a greater say on how this article is edited than others do. JDiala (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

A lot of people, in particular scholars, opt not to use "illegal immigrant" because it's offensive to them. That's indisputable. As a result, when Wikipedia editors who are obsessed with using "illegal immigrant" when perfectly acceptable substitutes exist are rephrasing the findings of these scholars to use controversial terms, they will undoubtedly put words in the mouths of lots of scholars that they would never themselves use. Also, I noted that I added the bulk of the research as a way of saying "I've actually read all the research cited here and know what terms are used". 14:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"Illegal immigrant" is a clear term that has been used for many years and still is used today. The softening of the term by some journalists in an attempt to be politically correct does not mean that wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, needs to follow their lead. I don't see a big problem with the article using multiple terms as long as it is stated that these terms are interchangeable. "Unauthorized" could be accurate, but is rarely used aside from recent media changes. And "undocumented" is clearly incorrect, as some illegal/unauthorized immigrants have documents, either expired or belonging to another person. Perhaps calling someone "an illegal" is offensive (while entirely a matter of opinion), but "illegal immigrant" is a descriptive term appropriate for an article on illegal immigration.

And as linked above from 2017, Gallup is considered a reputable institution by most, and uses the term "illegal immigrant" without offense. Natureium (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. Gallup uses the term "illegal immigration", not "illegal immigrant". Gallup instead uses "unauthorized immigrant". 14:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That is false, generally speaking. See this. JDiala (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about the particular Gallup article that Natureium was bringing up - the article that we're actually citing on the Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Short Washington Times piece on federal prison population

This sentence[1] was put at the start of the 'illegal immigration and crime' section: "Illegal immigrants make up 22% of inmates in the federal prison population." It's problematic for a number of reasons:

• 1) The story says that these numbers are both unauthorized and legal immigrants.

• 2) Wash Times is not a RS.

• 3) I find no reporting on this in reliable news outlets.

• 4) There is absolutely no context provided about the figures. Are they in federal prisons for immigration-related offenses? Are immigrants overrepresented in federal prisons because federal law enforcement prioritizes violations of immigration law? This is why we use reliable sources: because they generally provide the appropriate context rather than incomplete and misleading numbers.

• 5) Even if the figures were correct, they should not be put at the front of the 'illegal immigration and crime' section, given that the figures provide very little information about the relationship between illegal immigration and crime (the only thing the figure suggest is that the law enforcement arm, which has immigration enforcement as one of its few major law enforcement tasks[2], does a lot of immigration enforcement), yet will mislead lots of readers into thinking the numbers do reflect on the relationship between illegal immigration and crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I rewrote it to clarify and referenced also the Department of Justice's official website, they having the exact numbers and explaining it all. [3] It also reads: “Illegal aliens who commit additional crimes in the United States are a threat to public safety and a burden on our criminal justice system,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. So that might be something to add about it. Many news sources cover this. I have no idea why you don't consider that major newspaper a reliable source. Dream Focus 18:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

So, you're even not going to bother responding to any of my concerns except #2 and #3 where you just go "nah". As for your other comments, Jeff Sessions is not a RS on immigration and crime[4], and the DOJ website does clear up any of the concerns I expressed. Even if you don't deem #2 and #3 valid, #1, #4 and #5 still make the text wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The Attorney General is in fact a reliable source on immigration and crime, that's his job. And as I said, other news cover this story. Google news and see.[5] Dream Focus 18:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

So, we now know (i) that you can't identify what a reliable source is (Sessions isn't one) and (ii) you either don't understand what a reliable news outlet is ("Patriot Post" etc. aren't) or can't understand that reliable news outlets have not covered the August 2017 report by the DOJ (reliable news sources covered earlier reports by the DOJ). And you still haven't responded to my other concerns. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you don't believe the Attorney General of the United States or official data on the Department of Justice's website is a reliable source, then you are just in denial. I'm not going to waste time trying to reason with you, I'll just wait for others to respond. Dream Focus 18:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sessions is not a reliable source for the claim that immigrants are a "threat to public safety and a burden on our criminal justice system", just as the President isnt a reliable source for the claim that millions illegally voted in 2016 or that climate change is a hoax (I'm sure you disagree though, as you think statements by politicians count as RS). I'm not disputing the accuracy of the DOJ numbers (in case your reading comprehension led you to believe that), I'm saying that they tell us next to nothing, and there's no RS cited that puts those numbers into the appropriate context. 19:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm removing the sentence at issue because it's simply incorrect: i.e., not supported by the cited source. First, the DOJ press release cited doesn't give a 22% figure. Second, even the Washington Times piece (which is a lousy source) does not say that "22%" are illegal immigrants. Rather, it says 22% are non-citizens. That is different. As this PolitFact piece points out, noncitizens are "not necessarily living in the U.S. without legal permission"; some federal inmates that were legally present but are non-citizens (e.g., people on valid visas, Green Cards, etc.).

The Bureau of Prisons does not track the number of inmates not legally present. See PolitiFact 2016: "We also asked the Bureau of Prisons for the percentage of undocumented immigrants among the entire federal prison population — the group that Smith singled out in his statement. No such data are available, spokesman Justin Long advised us by email. But the bureau does tally the proportion of inmates by citizenship status--and noncitizens have recently accounted for 22 percent of all inmates."

If someone wants to craft a sentence that actually reflects reliable, cited sources, they are welcome to do so, but the present sentence is simply incorrect. Neutrality^talk 20:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Two notes

Two quick notes. These should not be controversial but I wanted to make my thinking precisely clear:

• I removed material cited to an obscure political action committee, the "Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC." This advocacy organization is not a reliable source. PolitiFact in 2015 described it as a group "critical of sanctuary cities" that "claims to have created the most comprehensive list of its kind" but in fact has inaccurate entries, and "the supporting evidence [for the cities listed] was virtually nonexistent." Not a reliable source at all.

• I removed text on a single poll from 6 years ago about so-called sanctuary cities. This was the only poll presented in the subsection. I don't find it helpful or fairly presented: it is dated and takes a single poll, while ignoring other polls with different wordings. See this 2017 Politifact piece, which quotes experts explaining that the wording of questions about city immigration policies leads to dramatically different responses ("that different wording can substantially change the result"). If someone wants to create a more accurate summary of public opinion, they are welcome to, but this 2011 poll standing in isolation is not acceptable. Neutrality^talk 21:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a concerted effort on 4chan's /pol/ board to vandalize this page

This might explain some of the recent vandalism on this page by IP numbers and red accounts. I can't link to the specific 4chan page, because it's on Wikipedia's blacklist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

"better source" tags

I'm wondering why this source - Anderson, Oliver C. Illegal Immigration: Causes, Methods, and Effects. New York: Nova Science, 2010. Print. - is tagged with the "better source needed" tag. Not objecting, just asking. Volunteer Marek  17:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Reasons: (1) I have never heard of the publisher (looking at the WP shows that it has a shaky reputation), (2) No page numbers nor chapter numbers in the reference (the book appears to be an edited collection), so hard to chase down claims or make sure that the authors of the chapters are experts + (3) There must be lots of sources available on this specific topic. 17:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is the publisher's webpage. At least at first glance there's no red flags. Volunteer Marek  17:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation

This Fox News piece[6] notes that crime has fallen in Phoenix and attributes that, without controlling for any other factors, to the end of its sanctuary policy status. This is extremely poor social science, as there are a multitude of factors that explain crime rates. Here is a fact-check by the Arizona Republic of similar claims that immigration enforcement contributed to lower crime rates in Arizona[7]. The fact-check affirms that there is no evidence that the crime rate decreased due to tougher immigration enforcement, noting also that crime rates were declining before the start of the tougher immigration enforcement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I was just reverted[8] by Natureium with the edit summary "These are objective statistics". Whether these are objective statistics has nothing to do with anything. I refuse to believe that Natureium genuinely believes that this is evidence that sanctuary policies cause crime. Natureium, since you seem to be on a mission to make this article crap, should we perhaps also add text noting that the US crime rate has plummeted since the early 90s, even as the rate of unauthorized immigrants has sharply risen? Why not? Because it's idiotic? If so, why are you fighting to keep the same idiotic text about Phoenix? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we get a rigorous definition of "objective statistics" here please?  Volunteer Marek  17:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to define "rigorous definition"? Statistics are objective when they are based on raw numbers rather than attempting to speculate what the numbers could imply. Natureium (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

How exactly is what I just added WP:SYNTH? The information is taken directly from the one source that I cited for that sentence. Natureium (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

??? Isn't there a Wikipedia policy that tells editors to not act oblivious? This is getting to be extremely tiresome. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources cover it, so it should be in there. The fact you don't want to believe it, and wish to whitewash the article, is not relevant here. Dream Focus 19:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Fox News isn't a reliable source. This particular rubbish piece by them is a great example of why. You'd never see this garbage in a RS. You would never see, say, CNN publish an idiotic article claiming that "illegal immigration caused crime rates to plummet" for no other reason than that the illegal immigration rate happened to rise while the crime rate plummeted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Your comments are very unprofessional. And who says that Fox News isn't a reliable source? To directly quote the policy on reliable sources "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.". Just because you don't like a certain news source doesn't make it not a reliable source. Natureium (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

An op-ed by a former cop is not RS

This op-ed in the Hill[9] used to substantiate text[10] that claims that unauthorized immigrants commit more crime than their legal immigrant counterparts. This op-ed is certainly not peer-reviewed research nor is the author an authority on this issue (I can't find a single peer-reviewed article or book by him).

I'd also like to note that in that edit Natureium changed the terminology that the actual scholars themselves use in their studies. So, the editor changes a description of a study by Jens Hainmueller and co to say "illegal immigrants" instead of "unauthorized immigrants" when Hainmueller and co themselves use "unauthorized". What gives? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you quoting them? If not, it's irrelevant what term they used, when there's an equivalent term that we are using consistently throughout the article. Natureium (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

We are clearly not using a term consistently throughout the article (why are you repeatedly acting oblivious when you know precisely what's going on?). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

What they call them isn't relevant, "illegal immigrants" is the proper term to use. Dream Focus 19:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope. That's backwards. We use terms used by the sources. Volunteer Marek  20:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

So why aren't scholars who study illegal immigration using that term? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Political correctness at the time, didn't want idiots whining at them. Dream Focus 19:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment. Oh wait... did you just call your fellow Wikipedia editors "idiots"?  Volunteer Marek  20:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not refer to any Wikipedia editors. I simply pointed out why they used politically correct terms. Dream Focus 18:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Except that's not what you did. Volunteer Marek  05:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• The Hill article reads:

Recent crime analysis by both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Texas law enforcement authorities indicate that between June 2011 and March 2017, over 217,000 criminal immigrants were arrested and booked into Texas jails. In researching the criminal careers of these defendants, it was revealed that they had jointly committed over nearly 600,000 criminal offenses. Their arrests included nearly 1,200 homicides; almost 69,000 assaults; 16,854 burglaries; 700 kidnappings; nearly 6,200 sexual assaults; 69,000 drug offenses; 8,700 weapons violations; over 3,800 robberies and over 45,000 obstructing police charges. In determining the status of these offenders in the U.S., it was confirmed by DHS that over 173,000 or 66 percent of these immigrant criminal defendants were in our country illegally at the times of their arrests.

That should be referenced somewhere in the article. Dream Focus 19:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a Hill article. It's an op-ed. Christ! Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree. No, no it shouldn't. It's a blog/op-ed. Find better sources. Volunteer Marek  20:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of the information since it came from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Texas law enforcement. If someone could find where on their official website this information is at, it'd be useful to add. Dream Focus 18:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Bias

I added some information from a previously sourced CBS News Article, which qualified the statements already added. Even though the CBS source was fine to make an initial claim, the reverter, Dream Focus, left the quote from the article, but claimed that my paraphrases from the same article were from an unreliable source. He then removed a quote from a peer reviewed article which he personally disagreed with.James Shelton32 (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

[11] is where I reverted the change and explained why in the summary. (1 criminologist and he isnt' really qualified since other college professors at different schools would disagree with him. Also I doubt rich people with lawyers can get away with kidnappings. Showing what crimes they do is important and should be there)

The CBS article reads: For example of all the prisoners serving time in Arizona state prisons for kidnapping, 40 percent were undocumented. Of those in prison on drug charges, 24 percent were undocumented. And 13 percent of those serving time for murder were undocumented immigrants, according to the new data from the Arizona Department of Corrections.

It also quotes a random criminologist professor from a random University who claims this was because they were poor, and those form a higher social class could get away with these crimes apparently. I find it unlikely you could get away with kidnapping if you were wealthy, but whatever. The addition he made was that "Criminologists suggest that this is due, in part to poorer defendants being more likely to go to jail and also due to other effects of poverty." when in fact it doesn't say that at all, it just quotes one criminologist. I doubt all of them would agree with this nonsense statement. Dream Focus 12:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Uh, what's a "random criminologist professor" (sic)? What's a "random university"? These are just terms you're using to make WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT reversions. Volunteer Marek  13:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone could shop around to different college professors and find one that agrees with them then quote them. Rather ridiculous. Are you going to quote what that one person said? Right now it reads "Criminologists" suggesting they are all in agreement. Also why remove the actual information about what crimes they are serving time for? Dream Focus 16:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Then go and "shop around" and if you find some published in reliable sources then we can include it. In the meantime please stop removing well sourced and pertinent info from the article because of some POV WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Please stop making absurd excuses ("random professor") for your disruptive actions. I mean, we have a scholarly article by a prominent scholar, Robert J. Sampson (a "random college professor"), from Harvard (a "random university") which is about as pristine sourcing as you can get, and here you come with this nonsense. Please revert. I know AN/I and such don't usually get into content matters but this is such a blatant and dishonest violation of Wikipedia 5 pillars that it might be worth it taking a trip there (especially given your previous edits on this article). Volunteer Marek  16:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You are ignoring what I actually wrote and just spouting nonsense. There is no possible reason to remove valid information about what crimes they were serving for. There was also no reason to add that Criminologist professor James Alan Fox from Northeastern University made a statement claiming poor people didn't do more crime, they just got convicted more than wealthy. That wouldn't explain the kidnapping crimes, unless you believe wealthy people can get away with that. Also wouldn't poor citizens have the same crime rate then as illegal immigrants? Dream Focus 17:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No. You are removing the text "When adjusted for soci-economic factors, immigrant Latinos commit less crimes than the national average" which is cited to a work by Robert J. Sampson of Harvard University. Yes, you are also removing other pertinent information. But you know, doing one bad thing, does not make doing another bad thing ok. Please undo your revert. Volunteer Marek  17:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I was reverting the other changes. If you think that one belongs there, then stick it back in yourself. Dream Focus 18:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You took it out needlessly and in violation of Wikipedia policy, you put it back in. The other text was fine also and you shouldn't have removed it either. Volunteer Marek  19:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the person. [12] My edit summary was so long I erased the part that said "revert", so perhaps that's where the misunderstanding is coming from. Someone removed valid information and put in a misleading bit, so I reverted it. Dream Focus 21:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

1) You removed pertinent text impeccably sourced. 2) You removed other pertinent text based on a BS excuse ("random professor") WHILE RESTORING other text FROM THE SAME SOURCE. That's obvious cherry picking and clear signal of POV pushing. Volunteer Marek  21:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

1880

Cheap transport only became available in the 1880's. As a result, the state of American immigration law was and is not important before then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.0.228.29 (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Ran Abramitzky is a fake source, chattering about open borders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.228.37 (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

He has a COI and seems to pass over the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act in silence or deny its existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.228.37 (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Leah has a COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.48.63 (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.0.228.29 (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

nonsense claim about crime

The statement There is no evidence that illegal immigration increases crime in the United States makes no sense at all. If even one commits a crime, they have increased crime. Do you mean percentage wise? Also since all of them are here illegally, that means they are 100% criminals. Dream Focus 05:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The source presumes that the readers are intelligent enough to know it refers to the crime rate. I've thought about making that explicit but that's a little ORish. But I guess since this is Wikipedia it may very well be the case that our readers, or editors, are not as intelligent as the readers of EconFocus, so...

Your second point is just stupid. Volunteer Marek  05:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually the second point is 100% correct and can't be argued because illegal immigration is, by definition, illegal. Natureium (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a stupid rhetorical trick and nothing more. By that (faulty) logic, the US, along with every single country in the world, would have a 100% crime rate, since pretty much everyone has at some point jaywalked, broke the speed limit, parked outside the lines, or broken some other law. Do you want to go to all the articles on countries and change their crime rate statistics to 100%? This assertion is just a sophomoric, junior-high debate B-team attempt at "gotcha", as well of course as a far right talking point.

And that's why no reasonable source makes this point. Because grown ups understand it's silly. Volunteer Marek  16:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Even excluding the crime of illegal immigration itself, it is also worth noting that because of the increase in population, illegal immigration must increase the total amount of crime, unless illegal aliens commit exactly zero other crimes, which is not true. The sections on crime should be clarified. Quark1005 (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sections dealing with legal immigration rather than illegal immigration

This article, from the very name, is obviously about illegal immigration. However, we have large sections of text that talk about legal immigration, and attempt to say that this applies to illegal immigration as well. This is a logical fallacy.

See below. The WP:OVERCITEing attempts to intimidate anyone from arguing that this may not apply. I'm not sure if there's a way to make this content actually fit in the article, or if it just needs to be removed altogether. Natureium (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

For immigration in general, a majority of studies in the U.S. have found lower crime rates among immigrants than among non-immigrants, and that higher concentrations of immigrants are associated with lower crime rates. Some research even suggests that increases in immigration may partly explain the reduction in the U.S. crime rate.

I agree. Saying legal immigrants do less crime, doesn't have anything to do with the illegal ones. Dream Focus 21:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this was already discussed. Volunteer Marek  21:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with above. Because the selection criteria for legal immigrants includes employability and lack of a criminal record, it should be no surprise that legal immigrants have relatively low crime rates. Any study either of legal immigrants or which which mixes legal and illegal immigrant crime rates is not germane to this article. Plazak (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad most of us are in agreement, but does anyone have a good idea of how to remove information that only pertains to legal immigrants without angering others? Natureium (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. One more time. This has been discussed previously. Also the sources specifically refer to ILLEGAL immigration and crime:

• [13] Studies have shown that immigrants, including the estimated 11 million living here illegally, have lower crime rates than the native-born population.

The answer is simply that BOTH legal and illegal immigrants have lower crime rates. Volunteer Marek  15:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not exactly clear from that sentence. It says, "including" which suggests that the two groups (legal and illegal), when considered together, have lower rates of non-immigration crime. But it could be that legal immigrants have much lower crime rates, but illegal aliens have a slightly higher crime rate, but when considered together in aggregate the rate is lower. Quark1005 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No, that's a misunderstanding of how the word "including" is being used. Volunteer Marek  17:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It's ambiguous; you could read it either way. We'd need to see these mysterious studies the WaPo refers to but doesn't cite. Quark1005 (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not how "including" works. The group, when taken as a whole, has lower crime rates. Perhaps because you can't legally immigrate if you have a criminal record, and people with a criminal past are more likely to commit crimes in the future. The fact that all immigrants counted together has a lower crime rate says absolutely nothing about sub-groups within that. Natureium (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No, all groups, including illegal immigrants have lower crime rates. You're purposefully trying to NOT understand what the source says. Volunteer Marek  20:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

What you're saying might be right, but we can't tell that from that one ambiguous and unsubstantiated sentence. I'd believe illegal aliens committed lower rates of non-immigration crime than American citizens if I saw a methodologically-sound study that shows that. If you know a study that shows it, I'd be interested to see it. If not, we shouldn't claim something we don't have evidence for. Quark1005 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Others mentioning the same information linked to the actual study. [14] It reads: When studies like these measure crime and related behavior based on self-reported accounts of behavior, they avoid biases caused by criminal justice enforcement decisions and policies. So its just total nonsense someone made up to begin with. Don't trust the official government statistics, but instead Their study drew on repeated surveys of over 20,000 adolescents conducted between 1994 through 2002. They just randomly ask people information and don't verify if what they are saying is true. That is total nonsense. I say remove this from the article. Dream Focus 18:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

As this article is about illegal immigrants, we should only use sources that reference the crimes of illegal immigrants alone and not those that include both illegal and legal immigrants. If a study uses self-reported data, the statement in the article should note the specifics.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Suggested Edits - Article currently reads too much like a persuasive essay

Hello everybody, As this a controversial topic, I think in order to ensure a perception of objectivity for this article, and for providing a full report on this topic, that the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the intro, should be broken down into separate sections, and made clear they are "arguments" and that the counter position should also be included, so Wikipedia readers can be assured that all sides are being addressed. Here's some suggested edits, that I believe would greatly improve the level of objectivity for this article:

---

Fiscal and Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration to the United States

Immigration proponents argue, that [r]esearch shows that illegal immigrants increase the size of the U.S. economy, contribute to economic growth, enhance the welfare of natives, contribute more in tax revenue than they collect, reduce American firms' incentives to offshore jobs and import foreign-produced goods, and benefit consumers by reducing the prices of goods and services.[7][12][13][14][15] Economists estimate that legalization of the illegal immigrant population would increase the immigrants' earnings and consumption considerably, and increase U.S. gross domestic product.[7][16][17][18][19][20]

However, opponents of illegal immigration argue, that the fiscal burden at the federal, state, and local levels, costs taxpayers approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of illegal aliens, and another 4.2 million for citizen children of illegal aliens, for a total tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. [*]

[*] “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers” Report by Matt O'Brien and Spencer Raley | September 27, 2017 https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

---

Illegal Immigration Impact on Crime Rates in the United States

Immigration proponents argue, that [t]here is no evidence that illegal immigration increases the rate of crime in the United States.[21] There is scholarly consensus that illegal immigrants commit less crime than natives.[22][23] Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being in the country illegally – have no statistically meaningful impact on crime.[24] Research suggests that immigration enforcement has no impact on crime rates.[25][26][24]

However, opponents of illegal immigration argue that, the proponents' claims of no impact on overall crime rate is not accurate, citing that the first report from 2005 (GAO-05-337R) found that criminal aliens (both legal and illegal) make up 27 percent of all federal prisoners. [**] They further argue, that the scholarly sources often cited by proponents, instead of using official crime data, use “self-reported criminal offending and country of birth information.” For obvious reasons, there is little incentive for anyone, let alone criminal aliens, to self-report “delinquent and criminal involvement.” [**]

[**] “What the Media Won’t Tell You About Illegal Immigration and Criminal Activity” http://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-illegal-immigration-and-criminal-activity Iknowrandomstuff (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration

I have this report and it does not mention what the sentence it attaches to asserts. The report is about immigration and not illegal immigration. Whoever added this source please comment.Patapsco913 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Immigration, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of; Statistics, Committee on National; Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and; Sciences, National Academies of; Engineering; Medicine, and (2016-09-21). The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. doi:10.17226/23550. ISBN 9780309444453.

You should read more carefully. The report covers undocumented immigration at great length. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Well the problem here is that there are blanket statements being made with large reports attached as references and no linking of a specific report (and page number) with the specific statement that they are supporting. How can someone verify that the assertion is true: they have to read each report and look for each assertion? Is this report supporting all of the statements or just one of them?Patapsco913 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The NAP report supports every sentence that its sourced for. Half the cites for the report are direct quotes (they should be easy to look up). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok Thanks. I will go through it. I love this stuff. Anyhow, I am assuming you added these sources. Why is the fact that undocumented immigrants increase GDP relevant. GDP goes up the more people you have working. I could release one person from prison and put him to work and that would also increase GDP. It would be relevant if GDP per capita went up (probably not likely given the lower wages of the undocumented) or productivity per capita went up (probably likely as they tend to be harder workers).Patapsco913 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Having a larger economy can have various benefits, such as greater bargaining power in negotiations with other states, greater leverage against multinational corporations and less dependence on trade. Alberto Alesina and Enrico Spolaore's The Size of Nations is a good read on this. 18:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Well the premise that illegal immigrants increase GDP is irrelevant as any new person in the country would increase GDP. We could also say that immigration increases pollution and consumption of natural resources (wouldn't that be silly to add).Patapsco913 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Economists and political scientists do not think its irrelevant for a whole slew of reasons. It is unclear to me that illegal immigrants increase pollution and consumption of natural resources on net. The ability to use cheap manual labor could for instance postpone the use of robotics and high-tech plants, which could pollute more. Forcing the migrants back to their country of origin could also lead to greater pollution and natural destruction if they are forced to work in dirty industries and consume dirtier products than they would in the US. But we are now in WP:NOTFORUM territory. If there are RS on any of this, add it to the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I know the Sierra Club opposes high levels of immigration and has several detailed studies on it but I doubt if they specifically reference the undocumented. Anyhow, I guess the GDP contribution of the undocumented would be negative if the costs associated with them outweighed their economic contribution. However, I don't see in the paper where it specifically references the undocumented as increasing GDP. I see this on page 243 but it does not talk to the undocumented. "Immigration also contributes to the nation’s economic growth. Most obviously, immigration supplies workers, which increases GDP and has helped the United States avoid the fate of stagnant economies created by purely demographic forces—in particular, an aging (and, in the case of Japan, a shrinking) workforce." I think it would be better to leave this out and instead focus on the fact that the net benefits derived from the undocumented outweigh the costs which would of course imply that they add to GDP.Patapsco913 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

why the source says America had near open borders

[15]

The source says "A rapidly expanding America needed labor." [16]

Other opinions please. Should the article say "Because The United States had needed labor to keep expanding, it had nearly open borders until 1924, with only 1% of those trying to get in rejected, usually because they failed the required mental or health exam".

It is also important to mention that they didn't just let anyone just wander in, they had to go through immigration offices, pass a health and mental test, then let in. Dream Focus 18:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggested Edits: Update the sources and information, as well as reorganize portions of the article

I request that reference two ( ["Your immigrant ancestors came here legally? Are you sure?"]. The Philadelphia Inquirer. Philly.com. June 25, 2017), be removed or replaced by another source. The Philadelphia Inquirer is not a free source because the newspaper needs a subscription. Likewise, I think there are other sources which are more appropriate to support the claim, "The United States had nearly open borders until 1924, which meant that all immigrants to the United States up to that point were legal." In addition, I suggest that instead of saying that the United States had nearly open borders until 1924, we write,"The U.S had few restriction on immigration before the 1920s, with a few exceptions like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882."

Furthermore, I suggest that the introduction to this article be reorganized so as to avoid the article sounding biased. The last two articles in the introduction make the article seem biased to a certain viewpoint, even if the paragraphs are stating facts, its current placement makes the article read a bit like a persuasive essay; I propose that we move the third paragraph, which starts, "Research shows that illegal immigrants increase the size of the U.S. economy..." and ends with "increase U.S. gross domestic product" to the section 6, "Economic impact," of this Wikipedia article. Likewise the fourth paragraph of the introduction, which starts, "There is no evidence that illegal immigration increases the rate of crime..." should be moved to section 7.1, "Relationship between unauthorize immigration and crime."

A lot of the quantitative information and charts are outdated, such as the chart titled, "State of Residence of the Illegal Immigrant Population: January 2000 and 2006." To update this chart, I suggest we use the numbers from, Migrationpolicy.org. It's a data tool using 2010-2014 community survey data.

The beginning paragraph of the section, "Profile and demographics," has information from 2005 and 2006 which needs updating. Also, there is not enough information about the actual demographics of unauthorized immigrants. I propose that we briefly add how Mexicans make up the bulk of the U.S's unauthorized immigrant population, but that the number is declining. . More information regarding the country of origin of unauthorized immigrant will further demonstrate from which countries unauthorized immigrants are coming from. The chart for "Present-day countries of origin" should also be updated. Unfortunately, I couldn't find more recent information about the country of origin, the best I could find was based on regions and continent for 2015 from an article on Pew Research Center Additionally, information about the occupations that unauthorized immigrant occupy should also be updated. There is updated data on an article from National Public Radio. I think it would also be useful to add that "About 60 percent of the unauthorized population has been here for at least a decade"

I think more information regarding how illegal immigration is measured needs to be added to the section titled, "Total number of illegal immigrants." It should be stated that there is a perfect way to measure illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is measured by the number of apprehensions made at the border, meaning how many people are caught trying to cross the border illegally. To support this information we can use reference 10, from politifact.com. Furthermore, this section doesn't actually talk about the total number of unauthorized immigrants. Instead, it talks about the decline. I would suggest that you include an estimate for 2016, which is estimated to be 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants

Lastly, I think more causes and incentives should be added to the article. The article does not clearly mention how violence in countries of origin are an incentive to leave, particularly for families in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras Also, I would also add information about the costs of deportation to the section, "Economic Impact," because deportation also has economic impact. If mass deportations were to occur, states with the most unauthorized immigrants would experience a large decline in GDP. It would cause about $114 billion dollars over 20 years to deport the unauthorized immigrant population.

ReveLuv sunshine13 (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)ReveLuv sunshine13 ReveLuv sunshine13 (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. qwerty6811 :-) (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a new study showing that undocumented immigration does not increase violent crime

I am unable to add it to this article because I'm restricted from cross-posting the same content to more than two pages. As a result, I'm here asking that someone else add the content to this article (I'm allowed to do that per my editing restrictions).[17] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Would be happy to. Which section / area should this be added to? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd add it to the start of the second paragraph of this section[18]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Please let me know if I need to adjust anything. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

recent edits

I reverted this because the section on NAFTA is just completely wrong and it's actually the opposite of what the few sources that are easily accessible say. Examples:

• "Ultimately, it had created undesirable results on Mexico’s economy by producing the lowest amount of economic growth. " -- This is just false. And unsourced. And incoherent (what does "lowest amount of economic growth" actually mean?)
• "Migration of many Central Americans is largely related to NAFTA; with NAFTA came the demand and regulation of low-wage labor. As well as the displacement of millions of indigenous agricultural workers in Mexico through increased unemployment" -- Also just plain false. Between 1995 and the 2007 crisis the Mexican unemployment rate basically stayed constant or even fell (despite popular perception, trade has little effect on employment). Likewise, the source actually quoted [19] says the opposite about the connection between NAFTA and migration: "both IRCA and NAFTA reduced the share of rural Mexicans working in the United States". And yes, NAFTA increased Mexican exports, but how is this a bad thing or related to migration? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

not sure if I would do it correctly so.................

can someone change reference 36 about chart of percentages of country origin to the latest 2014 source? I changed the chart but not the reference

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Unauthorized%20Immigrant%20Population%20Estimates%20in%20the%20US%20January%202014_1.pdf Verdad63 (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2018

A warning sign at the international boundary between the United States and Canada in Point Roberts, Washington

¿Can someone add this picture at the beginning of the article?, It can help illustrate the article. --179.6.218.54 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

ApologyJC7V7DC5768 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for my aggression. I added what i think is balance, but revert it if you want. No one reading this article will think this article is neutral so that's on the main editors of this article not me. I just don't see anything in this article that mentions any negative consequences of illegal immigration. That doesn't seem right. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE? Citing FAIR is certainly not a good place to start EvergreenFir (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I will reread how to source one more time to flesh out any problems i have with RS. The article isn't as unbalanced as I feared. But I ask that it doesn't become any more unbalanced than it is or appears to be. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Misdemeanor technical name

Does anyone know what the name of the misdemeanor is, if I wanted to research it and make an article about it to put into Category:Civil law (common law) ? Not sure where to find official phrase. ScratchMarshall (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It’s a misdemeanor... what are you talking about? If you violate a code or statutory law, that very same law/statute will have a section for the ‘punishment’ and usually says something to the effect of ‘any persons found to be in violation of this law are guilty of a misdemeanor with a sentence of not more than 1 year, or $5,000, or both” something to that extent. So it would be a misdemeanor violation of said statute... Msgardner91 (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Political Argument and disputable claims

The following section of the article suggests non factual information. The claims are disputable and have clear and blatant political bias. Wikipedia is a factual based website and political claims that are made to fit an agenda do not belong here. If this must stay in the article, the other sided the argument need to be added. Many illegal immigrants work in the underground economy tax free. This allows them to work for less money than if they had to pay taxes. This means citizens can not abide by the law, pay taxes on their income and still compete at the lower cost that undocumented employment allows.

"Research shows that illegal immigrants increase the size of the U.S. economy, contribute to economic growth, enhance the welfare of natives, contribute more in tax revenue than they collect, reduce American firms' incentives to offshore jobs and import foreign-produced goods, and benefit consumers by reducing the prices of goods and services.[8][14][15][16][17] Economists estimate that legalization of the illegal immigrant population would increase the immigrants' earnings and consumption considerably, and increase U.S. gross domestic product.[8][18][19][20][21][22]

There is no evidence that illegal immigration increases the rate of crime in the United States.[23] There is scholarly consensus that illegal immigrants commit less crime than natives.[24][25] Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being in the country illegally – have no statistically meaningful impact on crime or reduce the crime rate.[26][27] Research suggests that immigration enforcement has no impact on crime rates.[28][29][26]"

76trumpets (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)76trumpets 6/21/2018

Illegal immigrants still pay sales tax and other fees, income tax at the income that most illegal immigrants earn is very minimal. For somebody who is accusing a section of being non-factual, I don't see you citing any sourcesZubin12 (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

About the crime rate situation, I have heard studies that show that illegal immigrants do commit crimes at a disproportionate level. Therefore, I think that part of the article should be changed to make the article more neutral. Instead of saying that research has proven it, it should say that it is disputed. Funplussmart (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"I have heard studies" is not what we base article text on. Actual studies and reliable sources need to be presented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Zubin12 - it would certainly help if you presented some reliable sources backing up your claims. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The CBO report listed as a source for these claims says exactly the opposite, or at most is ambiguous to the cost v revenue discussion. A few other sources are broken links and cannot be independently verified. Msgardner91 (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither of these claims is true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That section of the article I find very problematic. It is clearly POV-pushing, but we can't decide how to fix it. Maybe we should remove those two paragraphs, unless someone can find a way to make it neutral. funplussmart (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime I have added a {{POV}} tag to alert other editors. We need to find some RS to fix this section. Remember that ArbCom has authorized discretionary sanctions on this topic. Please do not change or remove the problematic section until the issue is resolved. funplussmart (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

No. You have to explain WHY you think it's "very problematic" and then present reliable sources to back up your claims. Same for any claims of "clearly POV-pushing". This is well sourced info so it should not be removed (nor "tag-shamed").Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Funplussmart: I don't see how this is POV pushing to summarize a current issue regarding the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, this is long standing text that has been thoroughly discussed before. The burden is on you to remove it OR to tag the article because of it. Please don't edit war.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok here's one source: [20]. It says that "criminal aliens" make up 27% of the federal prison population. funplussmart (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Secondary RS about that figure: [21][22]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Incarcerations rates is not the same as crime rate. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Also I WAS tagging the article, but other editors keep removing it. Here's another source that I'd like others to take a look at to help: [23] funplussmart (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That's an op-ed by David Frum, and there is as far as I can see nothing in it that contradicts the language in the Wikipedia article and the multitude of academic sources cited therein. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Second that. It's an op-ed and it doesn't contradict what the present text says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Aliens

Aliens is the correct term. The United States was founded by immigrants, and that term "immigrant" covers the 13 million lawful permanent residents, and it can even cover certain Americans. The terms "unlawful immigrants" or "undocumented immigrants" are misleading.--Libracarol (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Undocumented vs illegal

Consider adding a clarifying clause to the first sentence adding that undocumented immigrants and illegal immigrants are often used interchangeably to describe this cohort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:47:DFB0:C100:E9D5:759B:367:33B7 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

USCIS

It's amazing that USCIS never once appears in this article. 216.81.94.76 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Use of 'alien'

One editor keeps inserting the term 'alien', which is near-unanimously rejected by RS for being a pejorative, into the article. The term should not be stated in wiki voice in the article because it's a WP:LABEL, and there are completely uncontroversial synonyms that can be used which mean the exact same thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

In most cases I agree it should be avoided, but there others where the term reflects RS or the language of legislation being cited. In the future, for either editor, start the discussion before reinstating an edit per WP:BRD UpdateNerd (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The term "alien" is not (and has never been) a pejorative in any way. See 8 U.S.C. § 1365(b) ("An illegal alien ... is any alien ... who is in the United States unlawfully...."); see also [24], [25], [26]. It has been widely used in the United States for centuries. It is cited in 1,000s of U.S. court cases, and reported in countless number of RS news reports, and the US population uses it daily without opposition from anyone. Wikipedia is an American encyclopedia, based inside the United States. The article illegal immigration to the United States should be based on law not on personal views of news editors, and if everyone in the United States calls them "illegal aliens" then Wikipedia must do the same, and not create new unrecognized and nonsensical terms such as "illegal immigrants," "unauthorized immigrants," or "undocumented immigrants." Some amateur news editors created these ridiculous terms based on their own personal feeling toward illegal aliens. These news editors lack knowledge about the complex Immigration and Nationality Act, which most people in general have very little time to learn. What do these weird and awkward terms suppose to mean? An "immigrant" is an alien who is documented (i.e., fingerprinted, photographed, fully profiled, given official documents to live and work in the United States, etc.). If immigrants commit a crime they can easily be found just like criminal Americans. However, if "illegal aliens" commit a crime they can quickly escape from the country and never pay the price for their crime. Even if they brag about killing someone inside the US to their next door neighbors, their neighbors will just hear it and not bother to call the police. This is what makes them (illegal aliens) different from other aliens. They are like ghosts, and I'm not saying they're bad people or anything. The problem is they have advantage, that is, at any given time they can decide to harm people inside the United States and get away scot-free. [27] I would not want to have a single such illegal alien in my community. But I have absolutely no problem with "legal immigrants." I personally treat those as Americans unless they choose not to be Americans. In America, children of legal immigrants are profiled at birth, but even American children are not profiled until they obtain a state driver's license or a state ID card. Again, this shows why "legal immigrants" are completely different from "illegal aliens," and I think American children should also be profiled at birth like legal immigrants are profiled by the federal government, but that's only up to the U.S. government. Hospital records are only state documents and they're no longer sufficient. I think the Real ID Act requires all Americans to make federal ID cards. This will obviously make America more safer, documented people are more likely not to commit a crime. I mentioned crime a lot because this is the biggest problem in America, and illegal immigration itself is a crime.--Libracarol (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The idea that these terms are "ridiculous" is yours, not Wikipedia's. We are an encyclopedia, not a law review journal and, as such, we use terms as presented by reliable sources. I'm a sociologist, for example, but I don't make Wikipedia adhere to the vocabulary conventions of my discipline. Even in articles about sociology, we use language as presented by sources. The term "alien" and "immigrant" are not static. Over in demography, anyone entering the country is an immigrant regardless of legal status.

Your comments about crime commission are rather nonsensical and unrelated to this article. The idea that crime is "the biggest problem" in America is again your own opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Haha. Who is "we" and am I not a member of Wikipedia? This article is about "illegal" immigration to the "United States". It is a crime to cross the border illegally, or by any other illegal means enter the United States. You get arrested by federal agents and put in prison with no exception, even US citizens will experience this if they fail to show proper ID card at the border or at the port of entry. If an illegal alien tries to mislead a federal agent by claiming to be a US citizen, that illegal alien will be barred permanently from immigration benefits. This is happening on daily basis to people. I want this article to reflect that the government in the United States treats all illegal aliens as illegal aliens and not as "illegal immigrants" or "undocumented immigrants". What does "undocumented immigrant" suppose to mean? A lawful permanent resident who is not in possession of his or her green card?--Libracarol (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22) ("The term 'lawfully admitted for permanent residence' means the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant ...."). When you place the word "illegal" before the word "immigrant" what does that become? This is the issue here.--Libracarol (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Just chiming in. The title of the article is indeed "illegal immigration", so it's not a stretch to use the common term "illegal immigrant" or other similar terms. I would only use the word "alien" in similar cases that articles on the Old West sometimes refer to Native Americans as "Indians"; when it is a direct quote or reference to a RS. Otherwise it comes off as bending WP:NPOV to value U.S. legalese over more common and accepted terms.

As for the placement of the note explaining the term alien, it's appropriate to go just after the word, where it fits better than at the end of the sentence. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we should only use foreign nationals throughout this article, irrespective of what the cited sources label them as because those sources are obviously referring to the same "foreign nationals" when they mention "illegal immigrants," "unauthorized immigrants," "undocumented immigrants," or "aliens". Foreign nationals are those who are not citizens or nationals of the United States. Wikipedia is a respected encyclopedia and "foreign nationals" is an appropriate and meaningful encyclopedic term. The fact is foreign nationals lawfully enter the United States with visas but don't leave. [28] [29] [30] The other group sneaks inside. The last group is lawful permanent residents who have been ordered deported but secretly stay anyway. They are all one group, foreign nationals.--Libracarol (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Just chiming in again. If it makes sense to use based on the sources, go for it. But I don't think a singular term across the whole article is necessary. That term is very confusing to common readers, because it just sounds like it means foreigner. If the context is someone who enters the US with a visa but doesn't leave, that would be the appropriate time to use "foreign national". But in other cases "undocumented immigrant" is much simpler to understand, since they immigrated without documentation, possibly found housing, work, reproduced, etc. Keeping the term reflective of sources and context makes the read self-explanatory, which is how an encyclopedia should be. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Regardless how they come, and they do that by many and various ways, they are all "foreign nationals" wanting to live in USA for as long as they can if not permanently. For example, in one year alone over 700,000 overstayed their visas. [31] The reason I don't like "illegal immigrants" is because that unnecessarily threatens all immigrants, even recently naturalized citizens. Not under law, but ordinary Americans view them as immigrants, especially if they have foreign accent or look Asian. Everyone assumes they are being targeted, even in Wikipedia, simply for being born in another country. The word "illegal" can be construed as every illegal action even if it doesn't violate the immigration law. It's basically putting all immigrants in fear and that's creating civil disorder today. Even legal experts have hard times understanding who the Trump administration is after, which are only those who do not belong in USA, i.e., "inadmissible aliens" under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a). If someone is not described under that section, the Trump administration has no authority to remove such person.--Libracarol (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I may be missing your point here, but Wikipedia is not a handbook for how the government is to do their job. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the comments by Libracarol and how they relate Wiki policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

My point is: "foreign nationals" should be substituted for every "unauthorized immigrants" and "undocumented immigrants" in this article to give readers a better understanding.[32]--Libracarol (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"Undocumented immigrants", "illegal immigrants" and "unauthorized immigrants" are the terms used by nearly all RS and understood by most people. "Foreign national" is not a synonym for "illegal immigrant" in the minds of most people, if that's what you're saying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The term "foreign national" is perfectly understood by every English speaker, it exists in every country's immigration law, and in US law it is perfectly defined by excluding legal immigrants (green card holders). [33] No person on earth can become an "immigrant" without the "at least one year" of physical presence in the United States. [34] The number of sources using wrong terms is a weak argument here, it's the US law that controls. If the law says trespassing is a crime but 1000s of people say it's not a crime, which source are we suppose to rely on? The law says only "foreign nationals" are involved in illegal immigration so we should use that term. If you're from another country, this article is specifically about the United States. People outside the US follow different immigration laws, and have different ideas about immigration. Those laws and ideas obviously don't belong in this article.--Libracarol (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You could use "foreign nation" to refer to a person in the United States legally under a non-immigrant visa. Not only that, but you linked to "Adjustment of status of refugee". You can become an immigrant without "at least one year" of physical presence in the United States. In fact you can be an immigrant without ever having stepped foot in the United States. You probably shouldn't be speaking on this subject if you don't understand it. 216.81.94.76 (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Illegal immigrants / families living in US

Hi, I just want to provide some useful information to US government regarding illegal immigrants living in USA , right now if I am writing on right page then please respond me I shall be provide these details or help by providing the concerned email address.. Thanks for reading me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqamar01 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aqamar01:Wikipedia is not connected with the US government and can not deal with this. RhinosF1 (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

See : this website RhinosF1 (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Can someone fix the archiving?

The archiving is malformed. It doesn't show the last three archives. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: The archive box has now been updated to an automatically indexing one. RhinosF1 (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Listing every crime committed by illegal immigrants

One editor keeps inserting various criminal cases involving illegal immigrants to this article. This is not where we list individual crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Nonsense. I listed a handful of bluelinked crimes. It is standard procedure to link to articles as examples. See, for example: Rape in France#Notable offenders; Immigration and crime in Germany#Blade weapon crimes; Crime in Greece#Immigrant crime; Milieu (organized crime in France)#Revitalization: 2000–present. We have subheads, and the subheads link to examples. We have a subhead on a topic, and add links to examples within the subhead. Illegal immigration to the United States#Harm to illegal immigrants, for example, includes links to Death of Anastasio Hernández-Rojas. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm well-aware that some editors go around Wikipedia systematically adding murders, rapes and other heinous crimes by immigrants to every tangential article. It's wrong then, it's wrong now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• The NPOV tag is absurd. The neutrality of the article is disputed because you're not allowed to have your list of random heinous crimes committed by illegal immigrants in it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Note that Illegal immigration to the United States#Attacks on illegal immigrants links to Sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States but a subhead on Violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants was deleted on the grounds that it links to... articles about crimes committed by illegal immigrants. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, one is about a broad topic, while the other was just your random collection of individual grotesque crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Instead of deleting it, you could tag the subhead for improvement and give other editors a chance to WPFIXIT, as per WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• No, the content does not belong and was beyond repair. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)