Humanities desk
< June 3	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 4

Is the Ruqayya bint Husayn tomb in Damascus or Cairo??

Editor User:Al Shaykh Al Kasuri decided that the shrine in Damascus: Al-Amara Mosque which used to be called Sayyidah Ruqayya Mosque belongs to unknown person and the real tomb is in Cairo: Mashhad of Sayyida Ruqayya. And they changed the article to reflect that. I don't know much about the topic but I assumed vandalism and reverted their edits once but they made the changes again.
Is there someone with knowledge about the topic? Are the sources cited actually trustworthy? Is there consensus around the issue between political scholars of Islam? I would appreciate help in this manner. Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are discussing this here instead of the talk page of Al-Amara Mosque. Your claim that Al Shaykh Al Kasuri decided that the shrine in Damascus: Al-Amara Mosque which used to be called Sayyidah Ruqayya Mosque belongs to unknown person and the real tomb is in Cairo is completely incorrect. Nowhere I have said that the remains of Ruqayya bint Husayn are in Cairo? The Mashhad of Sayyida Ruqayya in Cairo is supposedly of Ruqayya bint Ali, not of bint Husayn. I decided nothing, the encyclopedic sources (Encyclopaedia of the World of Islam, The Great Islamic Encyclopaedia, the Encyclopaedia of Husayn) did! The information on the al-Amara Mosque is taken from Ruqayya bint Husayn itself! If you believe these sources are not reliable, then why don't you add any reliable sources for this article? My revised version is clearly far better than the previous one which was based only on one source, Mailviruskid.tripod which is clearly not WP:RS. Can you elaborate on how my sources are unreliable and how the previous version was better? Al Shaykh Al Kasuri (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 08:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about this topic and I don't have time to research it right now. I posted here hoping that someone can give their more informed opinion into the topic. No need to get defensive. I appreciate the extra details you provided here. I hope someone else can chime in and we can get a consensus on the issue. Quick-ease2020 (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is wise not to assume vandalism (unless it is manifest vandalism, like someone adding "I <3 coookies!") if you don't know much about the topic. Even if you suspect vandalism, at least research the topic before reverting. If accessible sources are provided, that should not be too difficult. Otherwise, instead of reverting, raise the issue on the talk page of the article; it is what talk pages are for. --Lambiam 16:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do for the future. Thanks for the advice! Quick-ease2020 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

update: edits were reverted because of a sockpuppet account: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial Quick-ease2020 (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing should be moved to the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Life of an illegal migrants

Legal migrants to USA, Europe have better life but what happens to asylum seekers and illegal migrants in USA Europe? Do they become rich after few years? MiguelCiytrf (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: asylum seekers are legal migrants. Also, "better life" and "rich" are kind of differing concepts. --Golbez (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence for the United States is that immigrants do slightly better than the average for native-borns. I suspect this is for people with green cards. Abductive (reasoning) 23:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No human being is "illegal". The main difference with other residents is that they are not officially recognized as residents because they do not have certain documents that are legally required to be treated by the authorities as a human being. It is better to call them undocumented immigrants. French has the term sans-papiers, literally meaning "without papers". In the EU, they have no right to take a job that will earn them some money, or to follow a study at a university. They can only work illegally in the underground economy and are afraid all the time of being put in detention and deported to the country they fled from. It is not an existence one would wish for any human being. --Lambiam 10:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shorthand for "migrants here illegally". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And "illegal migrant"/"illegal immigrant" doesn't say that any person is illegal, so I don't understand your objection. The formulation is no different from "illegal driver", which is a quite common usage that attracts no such objection. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"illegal driver" is not a common usage at all in American English. --Golbez (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... so they don't speak American English in Oklahoma City? https://www.newson6.com/story/5e365ab35c62141fdeeb4b87/oklahoma-city-bombing-victims Or in New Jersey? https://www.verizon.com/about/news/press-releases/mahwah-police-double-illegal-driver-apprehensions-new-wireless-data-system --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there's still other such forms, like "illegal occupant". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first two examples you found were from 10 and 26 years ago, and that's your evidence for calling it "common usage"? --Golbez (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Newspapers.com, I'm seeing "illegal driver" as recently as last year, and in Oklahoma as recently as 2016. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool? --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that someone labelled as an "illegal driver" violated a criminal statute and can be brought to court to answer for that. In many cases, individuals labelled as "illegal immigrants" did not violate any criminal statute. They just don't have the right papers. --Lambiam 17:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that someone labelled an illegal immigrant is someone who has immigrated illegally. These papers that they lack are necessary for legal immigation. Meaning that anyone who immigrates without them has done so illegally. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what does "someone who has immigrated illegally" even mean? Does the USA or any country have any law that says that someone who has fled from persecution in their home country in a boat and lands on American soil, starving and dehydrated, without even food or water let alone papers, has done something illegal? Exactly which law has been broken? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It means they haven't followed the procedures established by law. Part of those procedures have to do with deciding whether someone qualifies for asylum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about someone who arrives unannounced by boat, and then reports to the police, who refer him to the immigration authorities, who commence some sort of processing procedure. Presumably, at this stage he's become "legal" since he's complying with official procedures (not the same as an approved resident, but voluntarily in the system just the same), but when he turned up on shore he wasn't "legal". At what exact point did his status change? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once he complies with official procedures, he is no longer an illegal immigrant. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, my problem with "illegal immigrant" is grammatical as much as ethical. "Illegal" is an adjective that is applied to actions, or failures to act, but not to people. Nobody is either legal or illegal. If such a thing as an "illegal immigrant" can exist, then anyone who breaks any law whatsoever could become "an illegal human being". 1984 was a while back now, but the memories linger ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not being applied to them as a person, it is being applied to them in terms of their actions. If I occupy a house illegally, I am an "illegal occupant". It says nothing about my legality as a person. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone flees their country and applies for asylum in a supposedly safe country, they did nothing that was illegal in the country of arrival, at least not in countries that recognize the right of asylum, such as all countries of the EU. If the application is rejected and they appeal, they cannot be deported (in countries where "the rule of law" still means something). Are they then "illegally" in the country? Some politicians and the media are not shy of referring to them as "illegals". So is their migration retroactively "illegal"? Still, in most EU countries, they are sans-papiers – they cannot work, they cannot study, they cannot marry. In Poland it is a criminal offence to help undocumented people: good-hearted locals have become the illegals. Other EU countries are considering similar legislation. --Lambiam 10:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"and applies for asylum" There's the point. An illegal immigrant doesn't apply for asylum. Once you enter the bureaucratic procedures, you are no longer an illegal immigrant. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you may be labelled as such. The media makes no difference between asylum seekers denied asylum and other people lacking certain documents. --Lambiam 18:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. What is or is not legal is a matter for courts or legislatures to determine. Not the media, not individual partisan politicians, not the man in the street, not the reasonable man, and not random commentators (on Wikipedia or anywhere else). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What authority says that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What authority says what? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A term being misused is not an argument for not using the term. It is an argument for using the term correctly.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's no fun. DuncanHill (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to answer the original question. As others have pointed out, asylum seekers are a category of legal immigrant. If their asylum application is approved, they can usually work and live freely and may have a path to citizenship. Many countries let applicants work while their application is awaiting a decision. As outsiders without connections or a work record in their new country, these immigrants tend to face hard work, often for long hours, for lower pay than native-born citizens. They often get by but seldom get rich. Then, there is the possibility that an application for asylum is rejected. In that case, the applicant faces a risk of being sent back to their home country or otherwise facing disruption to their lives. For other immigrants who don't go through a legal process, something similar is true: Hard work, often for long hours and for less pay than most native-born citizens. Those who haven't gone through a legal process and who aren't seeking asylum also face a lifelong risk of being arrested and deported. Life for immigrants, especially unskilled immigrants, is usually not easy. Costs are lower in most parts of Europe than in the US, but so is average pay, and pay for undocumented immigrants is usually well below average, so they tend not to live well. The cost of living in the United States is much higher than in most countries. It might sound great to hear that you can make $10 an hour doing construction work as an undocumented immigrant in the United States. Until you hear that you won't be able to get to work without spending at least $400 a month on a car, you can't rent an apartment for less than $2,000 a month in many places, and you will spend at least $100 a week on food as a single person if you cook at home and never go to restaurants. Health insurance in the United States is not provided for most low-paid workers. It typically costs nearly $1,000 per month per person. If you are uninsured and you need medical care, the cost can be in the tens of thousands of dollars, and you could be in debt the rest of your life. Imagine trying to support a child with those costs. Life can be very hard for immigrants in the United States. Aside from the minority who immigrate legally with valuable skills and professional qualifications, most struggle to survive and very few become rich. Marco polo (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelita C. et al. v. California Department of Pesticide Regulation talks about working conditions for migrant workers in Central California fwiw. Elinruby (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]