Jump to content

Talk:Undocumented immigrant population of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nclark6535.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term "illegal"

[edit]

The legal term is "illegal alien", which term sums up the nature of the offense, the nature of the individual so defined and the gravity of such offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeaPartyImmigrationCoalition (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

amen 98.4.124.117 (talk)

I feel the term "undocumented" is disingenuous and falls outside of the norm found in the pages Illegal immigration to the United States, Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States and the category Illegal immigration to the United States. - Schrandit (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the term 'undocumented' is argumentative and misleading, as if there is simply inadequate documentation rather than being present illegally. 'Illegal' is a more honest characterization of the status but 'unauthorized' or 'illegally present' are sufficient too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:427F:8649:6D3C:22BC:7F49:9996 (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. The term "ILLEGAL" NEEDS to be changed to Undocumented 67.79.72.68 (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)adam socki67.79.72.68 (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative term that seems to have gained currency is "unauthorized". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiknowledge (talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "unauthorized" is used by the Pew reports that are cited on this page - for consistency, if not accuracy, the correct term be used. - JCS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.228.18.227 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a good first step would be creation of a WP page devoted to the terminology debate, as it does seem to be a Thing in American culture, possibly using the Jose Antonio Vargas page as a beginning point. Neutrality debate can follow on that page, and then, after time and resolution, expand outward to articles like this. Thoughts? --Akhenaten0 (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard to use the term undocumented immigrant according to the style books of all major news sources. The term "illegal" is grammatically appropriate to describe actions, not people. [1]Dianaemiko (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://blog.ap.org/announcements/illegal-immigrant-no-more

The term illegal has evovled into a pejorative term. Since immigrants included are asylum seekers waiting on papers, people who came legally and stayed, migrant workers who do not stay all year but instead migrant between here and their country of origin. Also the violation itself is akin to a traffic ticket. And while we say they got a ticket for driving without a licence are illegally driving we dont call them illegal drivers, we call them unlicensed drivers. Aka a driver without the proper documentation Meemsworldwide (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This last comment is obviously asinine. If someone were to be an 'illegal driver' they could be committing any number of offences from DUI, speeding, carrying contraband, displaying offensive plates, running red lights, etc. The fact is that many legal residents do not carry documents on their person and an 'asylum seeker' who has not sought legal asylum but simply jumped the border fence is not an 'asylum seeker'.

The fact is that how these people came to be without documents points to the actual offence that they committed. That they never had documents and are foreign nationals illegally dwelling in the United States. Or in the case of someone who illegaly overstays a visa; they have documents but the documents do not allow them to stay here and hence, their residence is illegal, an illegal immigrant but not an undocumented immigrant.

The term 'immigrant' is also misleading as the above writer pointed out that many illegals are not attempting to immigrate but are simply 'migrating' for whatever purpose and do not intent to stay; hence the proper term is 'illegal alien'.

'Unauthorized immigrant' is also sort of misleading for the same reasons, it only exists as a term to play down the offence and obfuscate the meaning, they are unauthorized, why? Because they're trespassing, on their lunch break? On specific govt. property? Because their residence is illegal and they have broken the law.

This other assertion that illegal immigration is somehow akin to a traffic ticket is frankly just silly, no one believes that, least of all the illegal immigrants who presumably live in some fear that ICE could knock down their door and snatch them up and send them home at any time.

And to Dianaemiko: I fail to see the relevance that politically motivated news 'sources' such as AP or Reuters exclusively using the term requires the use of the term to the exclusion of other, more descriptive terms on wikipedia, is that rule recorded somewhere in the byzantine and orwellian rulebooks of wikipedia?

Furthermore the term 'illegal' can perfectly describe people in the same way and is currently used by the same 'news source' you mentioned for the following: 'illegal voter', 'illegal soldier', 'illegal combatant', 'illegal butcher, artist, etc.', 'illegal occupant' (such as a stowaway). The term refers to some action the subject has taken or their status specifically, the only reason 'undocumented immigrant' is preferred is a political one.LikkerdySplit (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that it is not a political choice. In the United States, the term used to be illegal. Now, the word illegal is preferred by Republicans, and the word undocumented or unauthorized preferred by Democrats.

A better indication would be to use the word as it is used in other countries, where it has become less politicized.

It is difficult to use newspapers as a style reference when every newspaper leans Republic or Democrat. 

Oxenfording (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remittances to Mexico

[edit]

I believe this section need to be reviewed and corrected. The section implies that the data represents "Remittances to Mexico" from the USA. The fact is that the underlining data is taken from reports by Mexican banking authorities for "Remittances INTO Mexico" from the USA as well as other countries.Buzzards27 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know if these figures have been updated. Brian Pearson (talk)
I also believe the section should be updated to ensure that readers understand that we are only using a single source for the data and trusting that that 'source' has a vested interest in telling the truth AND is collecting ALL the data. MacGyver2k (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend to Remove Racist Language

[edit]

The terms "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" are racist when used to describe people born outside the US that have not been found guilty of a felony in a court of law.

Describing someone as "illegal" because of nationality, appearance, or documentation status - but not because of court conviction - is political activism intended to influence elections. Wikipedia is a charity and that is prohibited by law.

The federal tax law is very strict on the issue: A 501(c)(3) organization is absolutely forbidden to directly or indirectly participate in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Violation of this prohibition could lead the IRS to completely revoke an organization's tax-exempt status or impose excise taxes on the organization.

Articles covering immigration in the United States must stick with statutory law in 8 USC Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY and case law from US Federal Court Decisions. Those are the only legitimate authorities on the topic of immigration because it has been unconstitutional for states to implement immigration law since 1790.

"Illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" are only applicable to someone that has been found guilty of a felony in a court of law.

The correct term to describe a foreign born individual that doesn't have the right documentation is "undocumented". Not "illegal".

People born outside the United States are not automatically categorized as "illegal" anywhere in US law.

"Undocumented foreign born worker", "undocumented foreign born students", and "undocumented foreign born residents" become documented by obtaining documentation. Incarceration, deportation, and "illegal" are not applicable.

It is illegal for a charitable organization to engage in political activity in the United States.

The following facts are missing from articles that mention "illegal immigration" and "illegal aliens", which obviously influences voting behavior whether or not that is the intent.

The following facts are also missing from most articles that cover immigration in North America:

Intentionally omitting relevant facts in order to pursue a political agenda is a violation of 501 charity status.

"Illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" are being used in many Wikipedia articles to describe Mexicans and other latinos that are not criminals. This derogatory and racist language is an attempt to alter voting patterns of people that lack experience regarding immigration and employment. Wikipedia is an "encyclopedic reference" used by students that will eventually become able to vote. It is a violation of federal tax law for a charitable institution to engage in that kind of political activity. Wikipedia articles become political activity when the terms "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" are used to describe people that have not been found guilty of misdemeanor or felony in a court of law. Taxes could be owed starting on the date when charity status was first compromised by that kind of language.

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

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

"Illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" would be non-political if used in a quote citing another source, like this one:

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

The kind of racist language used in Wikipedia articles mentioning "illegals" is being used to encourage genocidal behavior. That obviously falls in the category of political activism.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

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

Remember:

These facts are well known and relevant to all immigration discussions involving North America.

I hope this finds everyone well.

Best Regards, nanoatzin (talk)

OMG. Much of what you just wrote here is clearly political!!!136.181.195.29 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing they did was illegal. Except when they walked over a sovereign boarder without the permission of that nation. Nothing illegal but that.153.31.112.21 (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are wrong. From my understanding, English people don't call illegal someone who walked over a sovereign boarder without the permission of that nation, but someone who lives somewhere without the permission (authorization) of that nation. That's quite different. But in fact this word remains remains unclear, for instance two opposite definition can be found:
  • According to the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, it is an offensive noun: A person who is not legally authorized to live and work in a country.
  • According to the Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged: a person who has entered or attempted to enter a country illegally
The truth is that the Declaration of Independence, was a call to war, and the founding of a new empire, totally illegitimate and illegal [1]. Nonetheless it stated that «We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness». [2] So where illegal created equal to those who are not illegal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? What does the Declaration of Independence have to do about anything? That Declaration involved an 8 year war to secure those rights, the American Patriots who were present in the Thirteen Colonies were legal residents of those colonies. Back then if a Spanish soldier crossed the border from Spanish Florida into Georgia he would be arrested and interrogated and promptly deported, I don't follow your logic at all. Foreigners are created equal as a measure of their human value but they are not created as American citizens or residents. Just because someone is legally equal in worth or value does not mean that they can invade countries and come and go in them as they please. LikkerdySplit (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Illegal immigration to the United States

[edit]

In the current form, the article is highly misleading using primary documents as sourcing. The section about Remittances to Mexico is based on Bear Stearn investigation which is lacking citation from a news article. The section read more as a talk page discussion than an article. My suggestion is to merge any useful information to Illegal immigration to the United States.--Jmundo (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, start by getting rid of the bad parts of this article. Perhaps the remaining good part will amount to a paragraph or two, in which case it will no longer need an article of its own.

Writing New Related Article on Undocumented Immigrants

[edit]

My name is Katherine and I am currently a senior attending Rice University. I intend on writing a new Wikipedia page titled “Healthcare availability for undocumented immigrants,” for which I thought this page would serve as a great parent article for. In this new article I intend on including four main sections on the following: introduction/background, usage of healthcare services, barriers to accessing the health care system, and relevant federal and state-level policies. Under each of these main sections, except the introduction, there will also be at least one subsection related to particular populations, such as women or specific data found on the topic. This proposed contribution is also part of a course I am taking for my minor on poverty, justice, and human capabilities. Please feel free to offer thoughts, advice, and suggestions! Katcai02 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Stearns report

[edit]

I've removed the Bears Stearns report (Justich and Ng), because:

  1. It is outdated (2005).
  2. Except for some news reports at the time that it first was published (2005), the The report does not appear to be substantially cited recently by scholars or journalists. (Unlike the Pew, DHS, or Center for Migration Studies stats, which are frequently cited for both historical and present estimates).
  3. The "20 million" figure is far, far out of the range of what other sources say. It's an extraordinary claim.
  4. The report is not footnoted and provides almost no quantitative analysis.
  5. The work was self-published and was not peer-reviewed or published under the auspices of a recognized authority, like a think tank.
Notably, it comes with the following disclaimer: "The views expressed herein are those of the individual author and may differ from those expressed by other Bear Stearns Asset Management Inc. and Bear Stearns & Co. departments, including any of the Bear Stearns & Co. research department."
The authors are financial analysts but we have almost no information on their qualifications or expertise (if any). This report in Barron's indicated that Justich's area of expertise had nothing to do with immigration, and that his interest in the subject was a side project or something that he was interested in.

-- Neutralitytalk 07:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pew Research

[edit]

Re this edit, which I've reverted: the cited source literally says: "The unauthorized immigrant population ... dropped sharply during the Great Recession of 2007-09" and has remained stable since. So "leveled off" is much further from the original source, and is not an improvement. (The edit also introduces a factual inaccuracy by referring to the "Great Recession in 2009" when in fact the recession occurred over multiple years.)

Because the current wording is stable and directly supported by the cited source, it should not be changed without consensus here. Neutralitytalk 02:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great article from 2007 but...

[edit]

As I am writing this it's 2018 and basically all the data presented in the article has been updated in the real world. It's chock full of political advocacy so there's folks waiting to challenge anything updating or added reflecting that we've moved on from 2007. patsw (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Edit based on Yale Study

[edit]

User:Snooganssnoogans reverted [my edit] about the new Yale estimate on the basis of being not NPOV. I do not see how it can be characterized as such. If there is non-NPOV language, it should be modified. The solution cannot be to simply return to stating the prior estimates as definitively true and then mentioning the Yale study as essentially a footnote. I had written "most estimates ..." and "a new study ...," which addresses this well; I do not see a basis for the elimination of nearly all of that content and the marginalization of what remains.Mikalra (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not simply "revert" you. I re-wrote the text to make it compliant with NPOV. We don't describe studies as "more sophisticated" (in particular when the study has been challenged). The study is in the text, and described in a NPOV manner. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, the Yale method IS more sophisticated than the residual method. But in any event, if that's your objection, it would be sufficient to give my original text and simply remove these two words. Do you agree to that?Mikalra (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree with the version of the text that I wrote (obviously)[3]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... and I agree with the version of the text that I wrote (obviously); that doesn't get us anywhere. What is your basis for leaving prior estimates stated as fact, rather than "most estimates.... but a Yale study..."? What is your basis for eliminating all details on methodology on the Yale study in the methodology section of the entry? What is your basis for leaving the mean estimate for the Pew and other studies, but only the 95% CI for Yale? What is your basis for describing the Yale study as a "PLOSOne study", which is the venue where the study was published, not the organization or investigator that conducted it?Mikalra (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Illegal immigrant" is word salad

[edit]

I agree with some earlier comments that "undocumented immigrant" is almost a propaganda term, but "illegal immigrant" is nonsensical word salad. Acts, not people, are illegal. "Illegal immigration" makes sense; "illegal immigrant" does not. Is there really no better title for this article? Bueller 007 (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your view that "illegal immigrant" does not make sense. We all understand what an "illegal drug" is, don't we? And it makes perfect sense to say that someone could be arrested for possession of an "illegal drug" - everyone understands what is meant by the phrase, do they not? "Illegal immigrant" is just the same. It makes perfect sense. Birtig (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why the biased lead in?

[edit]

The final sentence in the lead in paragraph states "By all measures, the population of undocumented immigrants and the number of border apprehensions has declined substantially since 2007."

This is just an opinion, not based on any referenced information. It's also a lie. Unless you want to get into a debate about which 'source' or 'sources' are legit to take the numbers from you can't claim the numbers have declined. If the starting number is not 'known' and the current number is not 'known' you can't deduce if there's been an increase or decrease.

It's apparent that the 'powers that be' on this thread have an agenda, that's cool, I get it, just be honest about it.MacGyver2k

I've removed that sentence as it contradicted what was stated elsewhere in the article Birtig (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of the article do you think it contradicts? The article says (with sources):
  • The number of illegal immigrants peaked at about 12 million in 2007 and since that time has declined
  • According to the Pew Research Center, in 2007 the number of unauthorized Mexican immigrants peaked at 6.9 million and has dropped by more than 1 million to an estimated 5.6 million in 2014
  • Just as the total population of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has declined since 2007, the proportion of illegal immigrants in the workforce has also declined
  • The total number of Mexicans residing in the US, with and without authorization, was 11.7 million in 2014, down from the peak of 12.8 million in 2007. The drop is primarily the result of the decrease in the number of unauthorized migrants—which make up 48% of the Mexican population in the US in 2014, down from 54% in 2007
Nothing in the article says or implies otherwise. We could tweak the wording slightly, but that sentence obviously belongs in the lead, since it summarizes a vital point repeated throughout the article - and one that, at least based on the article, is not in dispute among reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence claims "By all measures..." yet the first section states that "A 2018 paper by three Yale School of Management professors estimated that the illegal immigrant population was in the range of 16 million to 29 million..." - clearly that 'measure' would be higher than the 2007 total. Therefore, the claim "By all measures" is contradicted...Birtig (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not how it works. Estimations of the illegal immigrant population are just that, estimates, and each has their own methodology; comparing different estimates, with different methodologies, is comparing apples to oranges. (That estimate in particular is noted to use an unusual methodology that got double the number of other sources - but the important part is that even putting that aside, you could only compare them to earlier estimates that used the same methodology. Note that their conclusion is A 2018 paper by three Yale School of Management professors yielded similar trajectories of the illegal immigrant population, with peak growth in the 1990s and early 2000s followed by a plateau from approximately 2008 onward, ie. they also think it peaked the same time everyone else does, they just think that the total was higher the entire time due to different methodologies. They're not saying it suddenly doubled, they're using a counting method that produces about twice the number everyone else does.) This is the sort of reason why doing such comparisons is considered WP:SYNTH and WP:OR - we rely on the expertise of reliable sources with the appropriate background to tell us what the numbers mean and what the overall agreement among scholars is. In short, if you think it's so obvious that they're saying the numbers have increased, it should be easy to find a reliable source saying so explicitly. --Aquillion (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand - I have no view on whether the number has increased or not . I am merely pointing out that you can't state "By all measures..." and then have, later, a measure that provides a higher total than the 2007 figure. That contradicts. Can I suggest that the easy solution would be to change the claim to "By all comparable measures.." Birtig (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 August 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 21:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal immigrant population of the United States → Unauthorized immigrant population of the United States – Few sources use the phrase "illegal immigrant" Most sources cited in this article use the term "unauthorized immigrant". The term "illegal immigrant" is now much less commonly used by both government and non-government sources for various reasons. "Unauthorized immigrant" is just as clear to readers, and is more neutral and more compliant with WP:TONE. It should also be noted that the legal status of some unauthorized immigrants is disputed (undocumented refugees, as just one example) and calling this "illegal" would be potentially misleading.

Some sources instead use "undocumented", with documents as a metonym for government authorization. While "undocumented" would be an improvement, "unauthorized" seems even clearer.

Obviously, the article will also have to be adjusted to match this change. Content should reflect current sources, not preference or vague precedent. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is the sources currently cited in the article. As I said, most sources use either "unauthorized" or "undocumented". In addition to current sources, Wikipedia:NPOVTITLE applies. It is not enough to be common, it must also be neutral. "unauthorized immigrants" is neutral and common. "Illegal immigrants" is common but also less neutral.
Further, sources commonly use "illegal immigration" to describe a specific act, but use "unauthorized immigrants" for people who performed that act. They are different categories, and sources reflect this, so this comparison is flawed.
As I said, vague precedent is not helpful. This attitude presumes that this should not change without addressing actual issues. How this is handled at other articles will need to be discusses based on sources and consensus at those articles. Perhaps this should be discussed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard instead. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Ngrams clearly show that "illegal immigrant" is much more commonly used in English sources than is "unauthorized immigrant".[5] Rreagan007 (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Undocumented immigrant and unauthorized immigrant are used as much combined as illegal immigrant. The Ngram also shows a substantial decline in usage of illegal immigrant in the last ten years. That's stats on books, so it covers everything from far-right anti-immigration screeds to peer-reviewed academic publications. There's no disputing that academic publications primarily do not opt for "illegal immigrant" whereas every anti-immigration rant-in-book-form opts for "illegal immigrant". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Illegal immigrant" is a contentious term, seen as a pejorative by many. A large share of the sources, in particular recent academic ones specifically do not use the term "illegal immigrant" and opt instead for non-pejorative terms. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And "unauthorized immigrant" is seen by many as a politically correct term used to obfuscate. Wikipedia policy clearly says that we should be using the most common English term for the article title, and that is "illegal immigrant" as shown by the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple style guides discourage the use of the term "illegal immigrants". According to a 2016 analysis[6], only 5 out of 20 major media entity style guides used the term (among those permitting it, one of them specifically discouraged it) while they all used alternatives such as "undocumented immigrants". This is a term of affection for racists and other scum – why should Wikipedia use a controversial pejorative when perfectly acceptable alternatives exist? The "common use" arguments fail when major media entities and academics do not use the term. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are quoting a bias website's claims. Calling people that use the term "racists and other scum" is rather offensive and inaccurate. The government's official term is "illegal alien", which Google news results give 90,900 results. Google news search shows "illegal immigrant" getting 165,000 results, while "undocumented immigrant" gets 69,800 results and "Unauthorized immigrant" gets only 5,250 results. Dream Focus 14:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those search results cover periods before media entities moved away from this pejorative term. Furthermore, the search is flawed given that news outlets often quote the anti-immigration rhetoric of politicians who use the term. If one looks at those search results for the last year, the news sources that use the term are primarily Fox News, the Moonie Times and other staunchly anti-immigration sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are anti-illegal immigration, not anti-immigration. Dismissing the news sources that disagree with you, and saying we should only do what the ones who agree with you do, is rather bias. Dream Focus 15:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Clear common name. It is pure nitpicking to say that "illegal immigrant" is contentious. If they have arrived in another country contrary to the laws of that country (i.e. unauthorised) then they are there illegally. Simple fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose agree with Rreagan007. Its just ridiculous some have for years replaced "illegal immigrants" first with "undocumented immigrants" such as renaming of Healthcare availability for undocumented immigrants in the United States, and now they want to use the term "unauthorized immigrants". These people are illegally here, so illegal immigrant is the proper term. Most articles still use "illegal immigrant" in their names, such as Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States, but that article starts off with "The economic impact of undocumented immigrants in the United States". No matter what the articles are caused people keep changing the word "illegal" to something else. You can usually find reliable sources that use different terms, and just reference the one that uses the term you want and claim that's what sources do. We need consistency in article names and content within them. Dream Focus 14:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - usage has shifted. The vast majority of the major style guides, as well as the academic literature, don't use the phrase. Neutralitytalk 15:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not COMMONNAME, as clearly visible in the Google diagram. According to a NYT article from February 2020: politicians and immigration activists are taking aim at the rhetoric etched into official documents. It's possible it will become the common name as a result of this, but Wikipedia is not the place to start with this activism. --Pudeo (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and there is a NGO called Define American which has the #WordsMatter campaign to change "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" in everyday use. Define American was set-up by the New York-based left-of-center NEO Philantrophy. This activism is important context to the move proposal. --Pudeo (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase is political. Keeping it the same is a political stance. Any effort to change it will also be political. It doesn't matter if this was activism, because it was effective, and sources now use different language. The goal of these pushes is the same as Wikipedia's, which is to use neutral, accurate language. Since this has been going on for almost a decade, sources have followed this push whether editors agree with the politics or not. Further, there are many non-political reasons Wikipedia should also follow this shift. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources currently cited in the article, including government statistics, mainly discuss "unauthorized immigrants" or similar without making a clear distinction. Articles must follow sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the issue could be that the sources do not prove the point being made? Birtig (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. By that logic, WP:CONSISTENT would always be irrelevant, as we can always move any articles. And why would we have WP:CONSISTENT as a policy if it was always irrelevant? Rreagan007 (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 September 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. There is a parallel discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States#Requested move 18 September 2021 about the exact same proposal; there should be only one ongoing discussion about the name of any given page. I'm closing this one because it has fewer comments than the other. Users TFD, ModernDayTrilobite and dlthewave should please comment there. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal immigrant population of the United States → Undocumented immigrant population of the United States – WP:NEUTRAL term. The Hill Bloomberg NPR. Voice of America Vox The New York Times NBC News CBS News Forbes The Economist ABC News CNN Politico The Christian Science Monitor Newsweek USA Today NPR WP:COMMONNAME. Showiecz (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 November 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Clear consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Illegal immigrant population of the United States → Undocumented immigrant population of the United States – WP:NEUTRAL term. The Hill Bloomberg NPR. Voice of America Vox The New York Times NBC News CBS News Forbes The Economist ABC News CNN Politico The Christian Science Monitor Newsweek USA Today NPR, Voice of America WP:COMMONNAME. Showiecz (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. feminist (t) 10:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resubstituted template to fix malformed move request. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Oppose - the nomination statement just lists a bunch of cherry-picked news articles, which does not prove that this is the common name. However, several complications once again arise here. First of all, the term undocumented has certainly been on the rise for some time, but I think it is important to look at why this is so. The vast majority of organizations have chosen to use this term due to pressure from activist groups, such as the drop the i-word campaign. The most common argument against the term "illegal immigrant" can be summarized as "it's offensive". That clearly smacks of WP:EUPHEMISM and against neutrality. If someone on Wikipedia made that argument in a discussion about anything, it would be immediately shot down. Everyone is offended by something to some degree; we can't just cater to everyone's personal opinions. A common argument against "illegal immigrant" is "no human is illegal"; that is a straw man, as it is the act of illegally immigrating, not the person's existence, per se, that is unlawful. "Undocumented" also hints of ignoring the unlawful act of immigrating or residing within the United States without authorization. However, I also think the term "undocumented immigrant" is problematic because nearly half of all persons residing in the United States illegally entered the country through lawful means, but achieved this status by overstaying beyond the amount of time allocated to them. That means that they are not "undocumented" because there is plenty of documentation that proves that they entered the country, worked here, payed taxes, etc. Similar situations exist for recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which includes both visa overstays and unlawful entrants. There is no question that both "illegal immigrant" and "undocumented immigrant" are often politicized terms; however, I think there is evidence that the former is more neutral because it more accurately describes the subject matter, while the latter is clearly a euphemism and often used in an effort to ignore the illegality of the subject. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elaboration - I would like to point out that the cherry-picked articles do not tell the whole story. For example, both Vox and The Hill also commonly use "unauthorized immigrant". Other sources listed above that almost unanimously use "undocumented" have acknowledged that this term is problematic and likely not neutral. For example, The New York Times and the AP recommend that when describing person's residing in the United States unlawfully, alternatives to both "illegal immigrant" and "undocumented immigrant" be considered, such as "person who entered the country illegally". Now, we can't rename this article to something like this, so I stand by my argument that the current title is better. Upon analyzing the usage trends of both terms, "illegal immigrant" is the preferred term for right-leaning sources, and "undocumented immigrant" is the preferred term amongst left-leaning sources. This is understandable, since people with right-leaning views tend to more vocally oppose illegal immigration (and most anti-illegal immigration activists are rightists), while left-leaners are typically more sympathetic to illegal immigrants (and most proponents of illegal immigration decriminalization are leftists). This could imply that neither term is neutral, and there is certainly a strong argument there. However, if you look at the historical usage of both terms, "illegal immigrant" has been the most commonly used name by both left and right sources; most sources that have dropped the term in favor of "undocumented" have been left sources, due to pressure from activit groups, which is, again, understandable. (Note that when I say "left-leaning" or "right-leaning" sources, I am referring to everything from near-neutral reliable media outlets to far-spectrum propaganda groups.) Once again, however, this is not evidence that "undocumented immigrant" is the most commonly used name overall. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that indicates this may not be the case. For example, Google Trends shows that "illegal immigrant" is searched for at a higher rate than "undocumented immigrant". While "undocumented" may become the common name in the future, it's not up to Wikipedia to make this prediction. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Current title is clearly not WP:NEUTRAL. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. To address Bneu's wall of text above, it doesn't matter why reliable sources have changed the terminology they use, it only matters that they have. Calidum 04:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

This is a very problematic article in its current form, almost to the point of a WP:TNT delete (or rather, blank-and-redirect to Illegal immigration to the United States). It's not clear whether "undocumented" is a term that only applies to some illegal immigration, or is a euphemism for all illegal immigration -- would a visa overstay be counted or not? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not going to vote. The title probably should be changed, but there's too much supervision required to ensure the content is correct for me to endorse it. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would abstain too, for similar reasons, however, I think it is worth noting that all the sources given are news outlets, and I would like to see how the terms "Illegal" vs. "Undocumented" are used other types of sources, such as academic journals. funplussmart (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • based on google scholar hits: 'irregular migration' is be the most common in academic sources with ~839k hits [7] followed closely by 'illegal immigration' with ~772k [8] while undocumented only has 263k [9]—blindlynx (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, users are claiming that "undocumented" is both neutral and the most commonly used name without much evidence. Arguments in favor of the change primarily consist of vaguely pointing at a policy or guideline to citing random usage of the term by reliable media outlets. I have elaborated above why this is problematic, and will attempt to further expand on this. I think that there is strong evidence that "undocumented" is a wp:EUPHEMISM, and will provide more examples. This article polls a number of illegal/undocumented immigrants who are opposed to the former, and practically all of the arguments read something likes "it's offensive", "it's dehumanizing", "I don't like it", etc. The best arguments that I've seen against usage of "illegal immigrant" are that it isn't an accurate term, due to the fact that visa overstays didn't technically illegally immigrate; illegal immigrants haven't been convicted of a crime for doing so, etc. However, this says absolutely nothing about the merits of undocumented, either, and as I have mentioned above and in other discussions, the accuracy of this term is problematic also. Another issue that comes up is, if we reach a consensus to indeed move this page, and/or quit using "illegal immigrant" in favor of "undocumented immigrant", should we do the same for "legal immigrant"? Phrases such as "legal and undocumented immigrants" screams POV pushing and hyper-political correctness, and also a possibly violation of wp:CONSISTENT. I've also run a more thorough search of academic journals via Google Scholar, and here are the results:
  • Now here are the results for sources published in the last year:
  • This clearly shows an increasing trend of the usage of "undocumented immigrant (s)" amongst academic journals; however it is still does not appear to be the common name by a large margin, due the fact that "illegal immigrant(s)" is still used with similar frequency. And "irregular" is clearly not the most commonly used name when referring to illegal/undocumented immigrants. However, it is important to remember that terminology used by the academic sector is not necessary indicative of the most commonly used name. This isn't just true for the academic sector either; for example US Code defines "illegal alien" as the official name for persons residing in the country unlawfully; however this is blatantly not the common name either. Also of note, Google Trends data from the last 12 months ([10], [11]) shows that both "illegal immigrant" is searched at a much higher frequency than "undocumented immigrant" and that "illegal immigrants" is searched at a significantly higher rate than "undocumented immigrants". I'm not arguing that "illegal immigrant" isn't also a problematic term; both clearly are. However, I feel that for the time being that "illegal" is a better fit for this article's title because it acknowledges the unlawful status of this subject, whereas "undocumented" ignores this, and doesn't appear to be a universally recognized term for illegality. Bneu2013 (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2015 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge request August 2024

[edit]

{{Merge| Illegal immigration to the United States |date=August 2024 }} Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing; no case made; no support; stale. Klbrain (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Undocumented_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States&oldid=1243290756"